[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5301-5302]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2071]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1026; Airspace Docket No. 10-AGL-14]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Bedford, IN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Bedford, IN.
Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Bedford Medical Center
Heliport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before March 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2010-1026/Airspace Docket No. 10-
AGL-14, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2010-1026/
Airspace Docket No. 10-AGL-14.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking

202-267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the
application procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by adding additional Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface for a new COPTER RNAV (POINT-IN-
SPACE) standard instrument approach procedure at Bedford Medical Center
Heliport, Bedford, IN. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would add additional controlled airspace at Bedford Medical
Center Heliport, Bedford, IN.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 18,
2010, and effective September 15, 2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AGL IN E5 Bedford, IN [Amended]

Bedford, Virgil I. Grissom Municipal Airport, IN
    (Lat. 38[deg]50'24'' N., long. 86[deg]26'43'' W.)
Bedford, Bedford Medical Center Heliport, IN
Point In Space
    (Lat. 38[deg]51'51'' N., long. 86[deg]31'27'' W.)
Hoosier VORTAC
    (Lat. 39[deg]08'38'' N., long. 86[deg]36'47'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Virgil I. Grissom Municipal Airport, and
within 4.4 miles each side of the Hoosier VORTAC 157[deg] radial
extending from the 7-mile radius to 10 miles southeast of the
airport, and within a 6-mile radius of the Bedford Medical Center
Heliport point in space coordinates at lat. 38[deg]51'51'' N., long.
86[deg]31'27'' W.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on January 14, 2011.
Richard J. Kervin, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-2071 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


Page 1 of 2 Reader's Guide to Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts E Docket # OPP 2005 0062 EPA has created this document to provide an organizational structure to the Boric Acid Sodium Borate Salts E Docket. The docket index groups related documents. The first group contains the Federal Register and Docket Organizational Documents; the second group contains Human Health Risk Assessment Documents for Phase 3 Public Comments, and the third group is the Phase 1and 2 Transmittal Letters, Comments and Corrections. The Agency is providing the " Reader's Guide" to allow the reader to more easily access and navigate the various items contained in the Boric Acid Sodium Borate Salts e docket.

Federal Register and Docket Organizational Documents:

Docket Item 1. Federal Register Notice: Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts; Risk Assessments and Preliminary Risk Reduction Options ( Phase 3 of 4 Phase Process); Notice of Availability This document formally and publicly announces the boric acid/ sodium borate salts risk assessments are available for review on the internet or at the EPA's Office of Pesticides Programs' Public Docket and solicits comments and suggestions on the risk assessments and how to mitigate or address potential risks of concern.

Docket Item 2. Reader's Guide to the Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts E Docket # OPP 2005 0062.

This document. Its designed to annotate all the documents in the Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts E Docket.

Human Health Risk Assessment Documents for Phase 3 Public Comments Docket Item 3. Memorandum: Phase 2 Response to Error Only Comments for the Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED) Document. 1/ 25/ 06 Hansen This memorandum discusses error only revisions based on registrant comments.

Docket Item 4. Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts: HED Chapter of the TRED Document. 1/ 25/ 06 Hansen and Evans This is the human health risk assessment following error correction; this version is revised based on registrant for error correction.

Docket Item 5. Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts: Supplement to HED Chapter of the TRED Document. 1/ 25/ 06 Evans Page 2 of 2 This document presents an additional exposure scenario to be included in the boric acid risk assessment dated January 25, 2006.

Docket Item 6. Boric Acid: Residential Exposure Assessment for the TRED 8/ 31/ 05 Evans This document presents the preliminary residential exposure chapter.

Docket Item 7. Review of Boric Acid Incident Reports 9/ 22/ 05 Hawkins This document presents the review of the Boric Acid Incident Reports.

Phase 1 and 2 Transmittal Letters, Comments and Corrections Docket Item 8. RE: Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts: HED Chapter of the TRED Document., U. S Borax 12/ 05/ 05 Branch This letter describes potential errors found by the technical registrant, U. S. Borax during their Phase I error only review of the draft human health risk assessment.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9205-9207]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04363]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0119]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone: St. Francis Yacht Club Fireworks, San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary moving safety zone
in the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay near St. Francis Yacht
Club in support of the St. Francis Yacht Club Fireworks Display on
March 5, 2018. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of
participants and spectators from the dangers associated with
pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from
entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone
without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on March 5,
2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0119 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Emily Rowan, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Acronyms

APA Administrative Procedure Act
COTP U.S. Coast Guard Captain on the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
PATCOM U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. Since the Coast Guard received notice of
this event on February 9, 2018, notice and comment procedures would be
impracticable in this instance.
    For similar reasons as those stated above, under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this
rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco has determined that
potential hazards associated with the planned fireworks display on
March 5, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-foot
radius of the fireworks barge and anyone within a 560-foot radius of
the fireworks firing site. This rule is needed to protect spectators,
vessels, and other property from hazards associated with pyrotechnics.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone during the loading
and transit of the fireworks barge, until after completion of the
fireworks display. During the loading of the pyrotechnics onto the
fireworks barge, scheduled to take place from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on
March 5, 2018, at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA, the safety zone will
encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge
within a radius of 100 feet.
    The fireworks barge will remain at Pier 50 until the start of its
transit to the display location. Towing of the barge from Pier 50 to
the display location is scheduled to take place from 6:00 p.m. to 6:30
p.m. on March 5, 2018, where it will remain until the conclusion of the
fireworks display.
    At 9:10 p.m. on March 5, 2018, 30 minutes prior to the commencement
of the 18-minute fireworks display, the safety zone will increase in
size and encompass the navigable water around and under the fireworks
barge within a radius of 560 feet in approximate position
37[deg]48'37'' N, 122[deg]26'49'' W (NAD 83) for the St. Francis Yacht
Club Fireworks Display. The safety zone shall terminate at 10:30 p.m.
on March 5, 2018.
    The effect of the temporary safety zone is to restrict navigation
in the vicinity of the fireworks loading, transit, and firing site.
Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's
designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in
the restricted areas. These regulations are needed to keep spectators
and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks firing
sites to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting
vessels.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and 13563
(``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'')

direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive
impacts, and equity. E.O.13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying
both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and
of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation
and Controlling Regulatory Costs''), directs agencies to reduce
regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every
one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified
for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    We expect the economic impact of this rule will not rise to the
level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. This regulatory
action determination is based on the size, location, duration of the
safety zone. The size of the zone is the minimum necessary to provide
adequate protection for the waterways users, adjoining areas, and the
public. This zone is of limited duration and is the minimum necessary
to provide adequate protection for the waterways users, adjoining
areas, and the public. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule
allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want
to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would
affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L60(c) of Section L of the Department of Homeland Security Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01 (series). An environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination and Record of Environmental Consideration
(REC) are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-916 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-916   Safety Zone; St. Francis Yacht Club Fireworks
Display, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the San Francisco Bay within 100 feet of the fireworks barge
during loading at Pier 50, as well as transit to and arrival at St.
Francis Yacht Club. The safety zone will expand to all navigable waters
around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 560 feet in
approximate position 37[deg]48'37'' N, 122[deg]26'49'' W (NAD 83) 30
minutes prior to the start of the 18 minute fireworks display,
scheduled to begin at 9:40 p.m. on March 5.
    (b) Enforcement period. The zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section will be enforced from 8 a.m. until approximately 10:30 p.m.
March 5, 2018. The Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) will notify
the maritime community of periods during which these zones will be
enforced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard
vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting
the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in 33 CFR part
165, subpart C, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's
designated representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels
may request permission to enter the safety zones on VHF-23A or through
the 24-hour Command Center at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 23, 2018.
Patrick S. Nelson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port, San
Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2018-04363 Filed 3-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 17 (Monday, January 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4758-4760]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01272]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0154; FMCSA-2012-0332; FMCSA-2013-0122; FMCSA-
2013-0123]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 12
individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on January, 14, 2020. The
exemptions expire on January 14, 2022. Comments must be received on or
before February 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0154, Docket No. FMCSA-
2012-0332, Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0122, or Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0123
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building

Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0154, FMCSA-2012-0332, FMCSA-2013-0122,
or FMCSA-2013-0123), indicate the specific section of this document to
which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that
FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2012-0154, FMCSA-2012-0332, FMCSA-2013-
0122, or FMCSA-2013-0123, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!'' button and
type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2012-0154, FMCSA-2012-0332, FMCSA-2013-
0122, or FMCSA-2013-0123, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose the document
to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the
docket online by visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
    The 12 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the hearing standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(11), in
accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.

III. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 12
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the hearing requirement. The 12 drivers in this notice
remain in good standing with the Agency. In addition, for Commercial
Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License
Information System and the Motor Carrier Management Information System
are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the
Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing
Agency. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate
commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for
each of these drivers for a period of 2 years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
    As of January 14, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Geoffrey Canoyer (MN)
Chase Cook (VA)
Jerry Ferguson (TX)

Douglas Gray (OR)
Sue Gregory (UT)
Buford Hudson (KY)
William Larson (NC)
Raymond Norris (TX)
Jonathan Pitts (MD)
James Queen (FL)
James Schubin (CA)
Morris Townsend (NC)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0154, FMCSA-
2012-0332, FMCSA-2013-0122, or FMCSA-2013-0123. Their exemptions are
applicable as of January 14, 2020, and will expire on January 14, 2022.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in
Sec.  390.5; and (2) report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and
(3) each driver prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with
passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of
the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the
exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable
CDL testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for 2 years
unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if:
(1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the
exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety
than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the
exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 12 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the hearing
requirement in Sec.  391.41 (b)(11). In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless
revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: January 17, 2020.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-01272 Filed 1-24-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 54554]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19384]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14227-003]

Nevada Hydro Inc.; Notice of Anticipated Schedule for Lake
Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project

    On October 2, 2017, Nevada Hydro Inc. filed an application
requesting authorization to construct and operate the Lake Elsinore
Advanced Pumped Storage Project. The project would be located on Lake
Elsinore and San Juan Creek near the town of Lake Elsinore in Riverside
and San Diego Counties, California. The project would occupy about 845
acres of federal land administered by the U.S. Forest Service.
    The application will be processed according to the following
revised schedule.

Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis: December 11, 2020
Draft Environmental Impact Statement: July 9, 2021
Final Environmental Impact Statement: December 10, 2021

    In addition, in accordance with Title 41 of the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation Act, enacted on December 4, 2015, agencies are
to publish completion dates for all federal environmental reviews and
authorizations. This notice identifies the Commission's anticipated
schedule for issuance of the final order for the project, which is
based on the anticipated date of issuance of the final Environmental
Impact Statement. Accordingly, we currently anticipate issuing a final
order for the project no later than:

Issuance of Final Order March 17, 2022

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will
be provided so that interested parties and government agencies are kept
informed of the project's progress.

    Dated: August 27, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-19384 Filed 9-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


The guidance for preparing benefit cost analysis will provide information regarding cost, including data sources, default values and worksheets.

 The Agency anticipates that States will have the opportunity to participate in the review of draft guidance materials to help ensure that the guidance and the tools it provides are useful and practical from the States' perspective. If appropriate, the Agency may provide additional training materials and/or workshops to further assist States in using the guidance.

 The Agency estimates that the cost of providing this additional guidance would be $370,265. Over the three-year period of the ICR, the annual cost would be $123,422 which translates into a burden of 2,117 hours annually (at the fully loaded hourly rate of $57.30 as discussed in 6(c)).

 B.5 Agency Burden Estimates for Reviewing TMDLs

 To estimate the Agency burden associated with reviewing TMDLs, we assume that on average about 4,000 TMDLs per year will be submitted to EPA over the three-year period of the ICR as a result of consent decrees and state submitted schedules. We also assume that about half of these TMDLs (2000) will be submitted in packages of about 10 or more substantially similar TMDLs. Clusters of similar TMDLs can be reviewed in an average of 1 hour, amounting to a total of 2,000 hours annually. For non-clustered TMDLs, it is anticipated that a disapproval (perhaps occurring 15% of the time for the remaining 2,000 TMDLs  -  i.e., 300 TMDLs) will require about 1 day (8 hours) of effort amounting to 2400 hours annually; and an approval (perhaps occurring 85% of the time for the remaining 2000 TMDLs  -  i.e., 1,700 TMDLs) will require about (1/2) day (4 hours) of effort amounting to 6,800 hours annually. Altogether, the annual burden is estimated to be 11,200 hours.  These estimates have not been affected by the reduction we applied in this ICR.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3599-3601]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01564]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2017-1102]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Gasparilla Marine Parade; Hillsborough
Bay; Tampa, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation for the 2018 Gasparilla Marine Parade on the waters of
Hillsborough Bay in the vicinity of Tampa, Florida. This event is
expected to attract over 600 spectator craft along the parade route,
with approximately 18 vessels participating in the official flotilla.
This regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of public, the
official flotilla, and spectator vessels before, during, and after the
conclusion of the parade.

DATES: This rule is effective from from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on January 27,
2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-1102 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Marine Science Technician First Class Michael D.
Shackleford, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to respond
to the potential safety hazards associated with this event. It is
impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety
zone by January 27, 2018.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register for the same reasons noted above.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on the
waters of the Hillsborough Bay, Tampa, Florida during the 2018
Gasparilla Marine Parade. This event is expected to attract over 600
spectator craft along the parade route, with approximately 18 vessels
participating in the official flotilla. This rule is needed to ensure
the safety of public, the official flotilla, and spectator vessels on
these navigable waters of the United States during the 2018 Gasparilla
Marine Parade. The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in
33 U.S.C. 1233.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation for the
Gasparilla Marine Parade on the waters of Hillsborough Bay in Tampa,
Florida. This special regulation sets forth specific requirements for
vessels operating within the regulated area during the period of
enforcement.
    Persons and vessels not meeting the requirements of this regulation
may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port
St. Petersburg by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is
granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated
representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization
must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St.
Petersburg or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide
notice of the special local regulations by Local Notice to Mariners,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and/or on-scene designated
representatives.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on: (1) The special
local regulation will be enforced for only nine hours; (2) although
certain persons and vessels are prohibited to enter, transit through,
anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization
from the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated
representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the
enforcement period; (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance
notification of the special local regulations to the local maritime
community by Local Notice to Mariners and/or Broadcast Notice to
Mariners; and (4) persons and vessels not meeting the requirements of
this regulation may request authorization to enter, transit through,
anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the
Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued
in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1
of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  100.T07-1102 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T07-1102   Special Local Regulation; Gasparilla Marine
Parade; Hillsborough Bay; Tampa, FL.

    (a) Regulated area. A regulated area is established consisting of
the following waters of Hillsborough Bay and its tributaries north of
27[deg]51'18'' N and south of the John F. Kennedy Bridge: Hillsborough
Cut ``D'' Channel, Seddon Channel, Sparkman Channel and the
Hillsborough River south of the John F. Kennedy Bridge. All coordinates
referenced use datum: NAD 83.
    (b) Regulations. (1) Entrance into the regulated area is prohibited
to all commercial marine traffic from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. EST on the day
of the event.
    (2) The regulated area will include a 100 yard Safety Zone around
the vessel JOSE GASPAR while docked at the Tampa Yacht Club until 6
p.m. EST on the day of the event.
    (3) The regulated area is a ``no wake'' zone.
    (4) All vessels within the regulated area shall stay 50 feet away
from and give way to all officially entered vessels in parade formation
in the Gasparilla Marine Parade.
    (5) When within the marked channels of the parade route, vessels
participating in the Gasparilla Marine Parade may not exceed the
minimum speed necessary to maintain steerage.
    (6) Jet skis and vessels without mechanical propulsion are
prohibited from the parade route.
    (7) Vessels less than 10 feet in length are prohibited from the
parade route unless capable of safely participating.
    (8) Vessels found to be unsafe to participate at the discretion of
a present Law Enforcement Officer are prohibited from the parade route.
    (9) Northbound vessels in excess of 65 feet in length without
mooring arrangement made prior to the date of the event are prohibited
from entering

Seddon Channel unless the vessel is officially entered in the
Gasparilla Marine Parade.
    (10) Vessels not officially entered in the Gasparilla Marine Parade
may not enter the parade staging area box within the following
coordinates: 27[deg]53'53'' N, 082[deg]27'47'' W; 27[deg]53'22'' N,
082[deg]27'10'' W; 27[deg]52'36'' N, 082[deg]27'55'' W; 27[deg]53'02''
N, 082[deg]28'31'' W.
    (c) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 6
p.m. on January 27, 2018.

Holly L. Najarian,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Saint Petersburg.
[FR Doc. 2018-01564 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


   Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Natamycin

                    Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0352
                            Date: November 7, 2014

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if the EPA determines that the exemption is "safe." Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines "safe" to mean that "there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information." This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, the EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require the EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance exemption, and to "ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue...." Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the EPA consider "available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity."
The EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, the EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, the EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
I.  Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance Exemption
In the Federal Register of August 1, 2014 (79 FR 44729) (FRL-9911-67), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 4F8233) by DSM Food Specialties B.V. (the Petitioner), Alexander Fleminglaan 1, 2613 AX Delft, The Netherlands. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of natamycin for post-harvest indoor use on pineapples. The notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the Petitioner, which is available in Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0352 via http://www.regulations.gov.
II. Toxicological Profile
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, the EPA reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information on natamycin, and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. The EPA also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
A.  Overview of Natamycin

Natamycin is a naturally occurring compound derived from the common soil microorganisms Streptomyces natalensis, Streptomyces lydicus, and Streptomyces chattanoogensis. Natamycin was originally discovered in Streptomyces natalensis in South Africa in the early 1950s, and was subsequently discovered to also occur naturally in North America in Streptomyces lydicus and Streptomyces chattanoogensis. It is commercially produced by a submerged oxygen-based fermentation of Streptomyces natalensis, Streptomyces lydicus, or Streptomyces chattanoogensis. Natamycin has been used as a food preservative worldwide for over 40 years (Ref.1) and is approved as a food additive/preservative by the European Union, the World Health Organization, and individual countries including New Zealand and Australia for use as a fungistat to suppress mold on cheese, meats and sausage. In the United States, natamycin is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a direct food additive/preservative for the inhibition of mold and yeast on the surface of cheeses (21CFR 172.155) and as an additive to the feed and drinking water of broiler chickens to retard the growth of specific molds (21CFR 573.685). Natamycin is also FDA approved for use as a treatment to suppress fungal eye infections such as blepharitis, conjunctivitis, and keratitis.

As a biochemical pesticide active ingredient, natamycin is intended for use as a fungistat to prevent and control the germination of mold and yeast spores in the growth media of mushrooms produced in enclosed mushroom production facilities (77 FR 29543), and to control fungal growth post-harvest on pineapples treated indoors. Natamycin has a non-toxic mode of action, has no effects on fungal mycelia, and development of antibiotic resistance to natamycin has not been reported during its entire history of use (77 FR 29543).

Based on the data submitted in support of this petition (summarized in Unit II. B., below) and the comprehensive risk assessment conducted by the Agency (Ref. 2, below), EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposures to natamycin, including the consumption of food treated with this active ingredient in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices. EPA has made this determination because available toxicology data indicate that the active ingredient is of low acute toxicity and is not a developmental toxicant, a mutagen, or toxic via repeat oral exposure.

B.  Biochemical Pesticide Toxicology Data Requirements

All applicable mammalian toxicology data requirements supporting the request for an amendment to the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of natamycin when used post-harvest, indoors, on pineapples, have been fulfilled with data submitted by the petitioner. The following is a summary of EPA's review of the toxicity profile of this biochemical:

Acute Toxicity: Acute toxicity studies on natamycin (98.17% and 98.27% pure), confirm a low toxicity profile. The acute toxicity data show virtual nontoxicity for all routes of exposure. Therefore, it can be concluded that any dietary risks associated with this biochemical would be negligible.

1.	The acute oral median lethal dose (LD50) in rats was greater than 2,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) bodyweight. There were no observed toxicological effects on the test subjects in the acute oral study submitted (MRID No. 48105505). Natamycin is classified as Toxicity Category III for acute oral toxicity.

2.	The acute dermal LD50 in rats was greater than 5,050 mg/kg body weight (MRID 48105506). Natamycin is classified as Toxicity Category IV for acute dermal toxicity.

 3.	The acute inhalation median lethal concentration (LC50) was greater than 2.39 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in rats and showed no significant inhalation toxicity (MRID 48105507). Natamycin is classified as Toxicity Category IV for acute inhalation toxicity.

 4.	A primary eye irritation study on rabbits indicates that natamycin is severely irritating to the eye but with no effects observed at 24 hours after treatment (MRID 48015508). Natamycin is classified as Toxicity Category III for primary eye irritation.

 5.	A skin irritation study on rabbits indicates that natamycin is slightly irritating (MRID 48105509). Natamycin is classified as Toxicity Category IV for primary skin irritation.
 6.	Data indicate that natamycin is not a dermal sensitizer (MRID 48105510).

Mutagenicity: Two mutagenicity studies, using natamycin (98.17% and 98.27% pure) as the test substance, were performed. These studies are sufficient to confirm that there are no expected dietary or non-occupational risks of mutagenicity with regard to food use of natamycin.
1. A Bacterial Reverse Gene Mutation Test (MRID No. 48105513) investigating doses of test substance up to those that were cytotoxic, both with and without metabolic S9 activation, found no incidences of a 2-fold or greater increase in the number of revertants compared to the corresponding solvent control in two independently repeated experiments. Therefore, natamycin is considered to be non-mutagenic under the conditions of this assay.
2. An in vitro Mammalian Cell Chromosome Aberration Test (MRID No. 48105514) tested natamycin genotoxicity on cultured peripheral human lymphocytes in the presence and absence of metabolic S9 activation. Natamycin did not induce a statistically significant or biologically relevant increase in the number of cells with chromosome aberrations in the absence and in the presence of S9-mix, in two independently repeated experiments. In addition, all of the negative, solvent, and positive controls gave appropriate responses. Therefore, under the conditions of this assay, natamycin is considered to be non-mutagenic and does not cause chromosome aberrations.

Subchronic Toxicity: In a subchronic oral toxicity study using natamycin (98.17% and 98.27% pure) as the test substance, doses of 125 and 500 mg/kg/day showed no treatment related findings. The highest concentration level, 2,000 mg/kg/day, showed reduced weight for both male and female rats (MRID 48105511). The Agency does not consider the temporary decrease in body weight or food intake observed in the 2,000 mg/kg bw/day test group to be an adverse effect, as this is likely due to the palatability of the food containing this high dose of test substance. Therefore, the Agency establishes the NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level) for this study as 2,000 mg/kg bw/day. A LOAEL (Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level) was not identified, suggesting that the test animals could have tolerated a higher dose.

Developmental Toxicity: A developmental toxicity study using natamycin (98.17% and 98.27% pure) as the test substance (MRID 48105512) showed no discernable effects on growth, reproduction, teratological or mutagenic responses, or on gross and microscopic pathology, at concentration levels 0, 5, 15 and 50 mg/kg bw/day.

III.  Aggregate Exposure

In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs the EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).

Food Exposure: Dietary exposure to residues of natamycin via pesticidal use is expected to be insignificant, even in the event of exposure. Some dietary exposure to natamycin might occur through other nonpesticidal sources as a result of its use as a food additive/preservative. Should exposure occur, however, minimal to no risk is expected for the general population, including infants and children, due to the low toxicity of natamycin. The active ingredient is of low acute toxicity and is not a developmental toxicant, a mutagen, or toxic via repeat oral exposure.

Drinking Water Exposure:  Exposure of humans to natamycin in drinking water is not expected because natamycin is approved for application indoors only (enclosed mushroom houses or pineapple packing facilities).

Other Non-occupational Exposure: Non-occupational exposure is not expected because natamycin is not approved for residential uses. The active ingredient is applied directly to commodities and degrades rapidly.

IV.  Cumulative Effects from Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the EPA consider "available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity."

The EPA has not found natamycin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and natamycin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, the EPA has assumed that natamycin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Following from this, the EPA concludes that there are no cumulative effects associated with natamycin that need to be considered. For information regarding the EPA's efforts to determine chemicals that have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

V.  Determination of Safety for the United States Population, Infants and Children

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that, in considering the establishment of a tolerance or tolerance exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, the EPA shall assess the available information about consumption patterns among infants and children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide chemical residues, and the cumulative effects on infants and children of the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. In addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that the EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure, unless the EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. In applying this provision, the EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional or no safety factor when reliable data are available to support a different additional or no safety factor.

Because there are no threshold effects associated with this biochemical, an additional margin of safety for infants and children is not necessary.

EPA has determined that there are no foreseeable dietary risks to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from the use of natamycin as a pesticide (fungicide) on mushrooms in enclosed mushroom facilities and on pineapples when label instructions and good agricultural practices are followed. The available data and information indicate that the chemical is of low toxicity and not a developmental toxicant. Therefore, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to the residues of natamycin when it is used as labeled and in accordance with good agricultural practices. Such exposure includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. EPA has arrived at this conclusion because the data and information available on natamycin do not demonstrate significant toxic potential to mammals, including infants and children.

VI.  Conclusions
EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of natamycin. Therefore, an exemption is established for residues of the biochemical pesticide natamycin when used on mushrooms in enclosed mushroom production facilities and when used on pineapples in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

VII.  References

1. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). 1968, 1969, 1976, 2002, 2006, and
      2007. See EFSA 2009 for specific reference citations.

2. EPA (2014) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Risk Assessment:
Request for new food use (post-harvest treatment of pineapples) to the active ingredient, Natamycin. October 1, 2014.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2947-2950]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00877]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93964; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2022-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Fee Schedule

January 12, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 4, 2022, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'' or ``EDGX
Equities'') proposes to amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``EDGX Equities'') to (1) modify the
criteria of Growth Tier 4, and (2) adopt a new Retail Growth Tier 1,
effective January 3, 2022.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow.
Based on publicly available information,\3\ no single registered
equities exchange has more than 18% of the market share. Thus, in such
a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order
flow. The Exchange in particular operates a ``Maker-Taker'' model
whereby it pays rebates to members that add liquidity and assesses fees
to those that remove liquidity. The Exchange's Fee Schedule sets forth
the standard rebates and rates applied per share for orders that
provide and remove liquidity, respectively. Currently, for orders in
securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard
rebate of $0.00160 per share for orders that add liquidity and assesses
a fee of $0.0030 per share for orders that remove liquidity. For orders
in securities priced below $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard
rebate of $0.00009 per share for orders that add liquidity and assesses
a fee of 0.30% of total dollar value for orders that remove liquidity.
Additionally, in response to the competitive environment, the Exchange
also offers tiered pricing which provides Members opportunities to
qualify for higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume
criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides an incremental
incentive for Members to strive for higher tier levels, which provides
increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying increasingly
more stringent criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (December 20, 2021), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently offers
various Add/Remove Volume Tiers. In particular, the Exchange offers
four Growth Tiers that each provide an enhanced rebate for Members'
qualifying orders yielding fee codes B,\4\ V,\5\ Y,\6\ 3 \7\ and 4,\8\
where a Member reaches certain add volume-based criteria, including
``growing'' its volume over a certain baseline month. Currently, Growth
Tier 4 is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``B'' are orders adding liquidity
to EDGX (Tape B).
    \5\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``V'' are orders adding liquidity
to EDGX (Tape A).
    \6\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``Y'' are orders adding liquidity
to EDGX (Tape C).
    \7\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``3'' are orders adding liquidity
to EDGX in the pre and post market (Tapes A or C).
    \8\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``4'' are orders adding liquidity
to EDGX in the pre and post market (Tape B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Growth Tier 4 provides a rebate of $0.0034 per share to
qualifying orders (i.e., orders yielding fee codes B, V, Y, 3, or 4)
where (1) the Member adds a Step-Up ADAV from October 2021 equal to or
greater than 0.10% of the TCV or the Member adds a Step-Up ADAV from
October 2021 equal to or greater than 10 million shares; and (2) the
Member has a total remove ADV equal to or greater than 0.60% of TCV.
    Now, the Exchange proposes to amend the second prong of the
criteria. Specifically, proposed Growth Tier 4 is as follows:
     Proposed Growth Tier 4 provides a rebate of $0.0034 per
share to qualifying orders (i.e., orders yielding fee codes B, V, Y, 3,
or 4) where (1) the Member adds a Step-Up ADAV from October 2021 equal
to or greater than 0.10% of the TCV or the Member adds a Step-Up ADAV
from October 2021 equal to or greater than 10 million shares; and (2)
the Member has a total remove ADV equal to or greater than 0.60% of TCV
or the Member has a total remove ADV equal to or greater than 60
million shares.
    The proposed modification to Growth Tier 4 is designed to provide
Members an additional opportunity to meet the tier.
    Under footnote 2 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently offers
various Retail Volume Tiers, which provide an enhanced rebate for
Members' qualifying orders yielding fee code ZA.\9\ Now, the Exchange
proposes to adopt a Retail Growth Tier 1, which would provide for the
same required criteria as Growth Tier 4, as modified. Specifically, the
proposed Retail Growth Tier 1 is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``ZA'' are retail orders adding
liquidity to EDGX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed Growth Tier 4 [sic] provides a rebate of $0.0034
per share to qualifying orders (i.e., orders yielding fee code ZA)
where (1) the Member adds a Step-Up ADAV from October 2021 equal to or
greater than 0.10% of the TCV or the Member adds a Step-Up ADAV from
October 2021 equal to or greater than 10 million shares; and (2) the
Member has a total remove ADV equal to or greater than 0.60% of TCV or
the Member has a total remove ADV equal to or greater than 60 million
shares.
    The proposed Retail Growth Tier 1 is designed to provide Members an
opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate by meeting the Retail Growth
Tier 1 criteria. Further, overall the Growth Tiers are intended to
provide Members an opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate by
increasing their order flow to the Exchange, which further contributes
to a deeper, more liquid market and provides even more execution
opportunities for active market participants. Incentivizing an increase
in liquidity adding or removing volume, through enhanced rebate
opportunities, encourages liquidity adding Members on the Exchange to
contribute to a deeper, more liquid market, and liquidity executing
Members on the Exchange to increase transactions and take execution
opportunities provided by such increased liquidity, together providing
for overall enhanced price discovery and price improvement
opportunities on the Exchange. As such, increased overall order flow
benefits all Members by contributing towards a robust and well-balanced
market ecosystem.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\11\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \12\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged

in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest, and, particularly, is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule changes
reflect a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market
participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all
Members. Additionally, the Exchange notes that relative volume-based
incentives and discounts have been widely adopted by exchanges,\13\
including the Exchange,\14\ and are reasonable, equitable and non-
discriminatory because they are open to all Members on an equal basis
and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably
related to (i) the value to an exchange's market quality and (ii)
associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of
liquidity provision and/or growth patterns. Competing equity exchanges
offer similar tiered pricing structures, including schedules of rebates
and fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume and/or
growth thresholds, as well as assess similar fees or rebates for
similar types of orders, to that of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See BZX Equities Fee Schedule, Footnote 1, Add/Remove
Volume Tiers.
    \14\ See EDGX Equities Fee Schedule, Footnote 1, Add/Remove
Volume Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes Growth Tier 4, as modified,
and the proposed Retail Growth Tier 1 are reasonable because they will
be available to all Members and provide all Members with an additional
opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate. The Exchange further
believes the proposed Growth Tier 4 and Retail Growth Tier 1 will
provide a reasonable means to encourage overall and retail growth,
respectively, in Members' order flow to the Exchange and to incentivize
Members to continue to provide liquidity adding and removing volume to
the Exchange by offering them an additional opportunity to receive an
enhanced rebate on qualifying orders. An overall increase in activity
would deepen the Exchange's liquidity pool, offers additional cost
savings, support the quality of price discovery, promote market
transparency and improve market quality, for all investors.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes are
reasonable as it does not represent a significant departure from the
criteria currently offered in the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the
proposed change to Growth Volume Tier 4 merely adds additional criteria
to achieve the Tier, and the proposed Retail Growth Tier 1 is nearly
identical to the Growth Volume Tier 4, as modified. Additionally, the
Exchange believes that the enhanced rebates under Growth Tier 4, which
is not being changed, and the Proposed Retail Growth Tier 1 is
commensurate with the criteria.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposal represents an
equitable allocation of fees and rebates and is not unfairly
discriminatory because all Members will be eligible for Growth Tier 4
and the proposed Retail Growth Tier 1 and have the opportunity to meet
the Tiers' criteria and receive the corresponding enhanced rebate if
such criteria is met. Without having a view of activity on other
markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing
whether this proposed rule change would definitely result in any
Members qualifying for Growth Tier 4, as amended, or the proposed
Retail Growth Tier 1. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with
certainty how the proposed changes will impact Member activity, the
Exchange anticipates that at least one Member will be able to satisfy
the criteria proposed under each tier. The Exchange also notes that
proposed changes will not adversely impact any Member's ability to
qualify for reduced fees or enhanced rebates offered under other tiers.
Should a Member not meet the proposed new criteria, the Member will
merely not receive that corresponding enhanced rebate.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed changes would encourage the
submission of additional order flow to a public exchange, thereby
promoting market depth, execution incentives and enhanced execution
opportunities, as well as price discovery and transparency for all
Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes
further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering
competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of
individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.''
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes do not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
changes to Growth Tier 4 and the proposed Retail Growth Tier 1 will
apply to all Members equally in that all Members are eligible for each
of the Tiers, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the Tiers' criteria
and will receive the enhanced rebate on their qualifying orders if such
criteria is met. The Exchange does not believe the proposed changes
burdens competition, but rather, enhances competition as it is intended
to increase the competitiveness of EDGX by amending an existing pricing
incentive and adopting a pricing incentive in order to attract order
flow and incentivize participants to increase their participation on
the Exchange, providing for additional execution opportunities for
market participants and improved price transparency. Greater overall
order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency benefits
all market participants on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and
continuing to encourage Members to send orders, thereby contributing
towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
and direct their order flow, including other equities exchanges, off-
exchange venues, and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the
Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on
publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more
than 18% of the market share.\15\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Indeed,
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission

has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory
intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the
securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \16\ The fact that this market is competitive
has also long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v.
Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows:
``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . .
As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and
sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-
routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders
for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .''.\17\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Supra note 1.
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \17\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \19\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-001 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-001. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-001, and should be
submitted on or before February 9, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00877 Filed 1-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 76956]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26726]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4286-DR]; [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

South Carolina; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4286-DR), dated October 11, 2016,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective October 19, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Carolina is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of October 11, 2016.

    Calhoun, Clarendon, and Marlboro Counties for Individual
Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency
protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
    Horry for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public
Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-26726 Filed 11-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 52050]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22382]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Research, Engineering & Development Advisory Committee meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on November 14, 2018-9:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chinita A. Roundtree-Coleman at (609)
485-7149 or website at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is
hereby given of a meeting of the Research, Engineering and Development
(RE&D) Advisory Committee.

Agenda

    The meeting agenda will include receiving guidance for FAA's
research and development investments in the areas of air traffic
services, airports, aircraft safety, human factors and environment and
energy from the Committee.

Public Participation

    Attendance is open to the interested public but seating is limited.
With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present
oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to attend the meeting,
present statements, or obtain information should contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the
public may present a written statement to the Committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 9, 2018.
Chinita A. Roundtree-Coleman,
Computer Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2018-22382 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P