[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 109 (Friday, June 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34717-34718]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12192]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0125; FMCSA-2014-0102; FMCSA-2015-0327; FMCSA-
2015-0328; FMCSA-2015-0329; FMCSA-2017-0059; FMCSA-2017-0060]

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 22
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: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided
below. Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0125, FMCSA-2014-0102,
FMCSA-2015-0327, FMCSA-2015-0328, FMCSA-2015-0329, FMCSA-2017-0059, or
FMCSA-2017-0060 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-2013-0125, FMCSA-2014-0102, FMCSA-2015-0327,
FMCSA-2015-0328, FMCSA-2015-0329, FMCSA-2017-0059, or FMCSA-2017-0060),
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-2013-0125, FMCSA-2014-0102, FMCSA-2015-
0327, FMCSA-2015-0328, FMCSA-2015-0329, FMCSA-2017-0059, or FMCSA-2017-
0060, 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-2013-0125, FMCSA-2014-0102, FMCSA-2015-
0327, FMCSA-2015-0328, FMCSA-2015-0329, FMCSA-2017-0059, or FMCSA-2017-
0060, 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.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Docket Operations.

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 22 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 22
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the hearing requirement. The 22 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.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of June and
are discussed below.
    As of June 17, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Paul Aseka (TX)
James Bogart (KS)
Thomas Buretz (FL)
Glenn Ferguson (TX)
Anthony Panto (NJ)
William Symonds (IL)
Steven Tipton (IA)
Daniel Tricolici (MA)
Wayne Turner (IL)
Fernando Velasquez (TX)
Scott Weeaks (OK)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2013-0125, FMCSA-
2015-0327, FMCSA-2015-0328, FMCSA-2015-0329, and FMCSA-2017-0059. Their
exemptions are applicable as of June 17, 2020, and will expire on June
17, 2022.
    As of June 25, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Alfredo Ramirez (TX)
Julie Ramirez (TX)
Hayden Teesdale (TX)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0102. Their
exemptions are applicable as of June 25, 2020, and will expire on June
25, 2022.
    As of June 29, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following eight individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Robert Cates (NM)
Leroy Carter (OH)
Brodey DiPasquale (MD)
Richard Fisher (PA)
Kimberly Foss (OR)
Dustin McFaddin (TX)
Marcel Paul (WA)
Jason Winemiller (IL)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2017-0060. Their
exemptions are applicable as of June 29, 2020, and will expire on June
29, 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 22 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 two years
unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-12192 Filed 6-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: December 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 230)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63074-63079]
[DOCID:fr02de09-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0556; FRL-8799-2]

Fenpyroximate; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for combined residues
of fenpyroximate and its Z-isomer in or on berry, low growing, subgroup
13-07G, at 1.0 part per million (ppm). Nichino America, Inc. requested
this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 2, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 1, 2010,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0556. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Rosanna Louie, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Electronic Access to Other Related Information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR cite at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0556 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178
on or before February 1, 2010.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0556, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 8, 2009 (74 FR 15971) (FRL-8407-
4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9F7520) by Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New Linden Hill Road, Suite 501,
Wilmington, DE, 19808. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.566 be
amended by establishing tolerances for combined residues of the
insecticide fenpyroximate, (E)-1,1-dimethylethyl 4-[[[[(1,3-dimethyl-5-
phenoxy-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)methylene]amino]oxy]methyl] benzoate, and its
Z-isomer, (Z)-1,1-dimethylethyl 4-[[[[(1,3-dimethyl-5-phenoxy-1H-
pyrazol-4-yl)methylene]amino]oxy]methyl] benzoate, in or on berry, low
growing, subgroup 13-07G, at 1.0 part per million (ppm). That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Nichino America, Inc.,
the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, http://
www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(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.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance 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....''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerance for combined residues of fenpyroximate and its Z-isomer in or
on berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G, at 1.0 ppm. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with establishing tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity,

completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the
results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available
information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major
identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
    Fenpyroximate has moderate oral and inhalation toxicity. It has low
dermal toxicity and is not an eye or skin irritant. Fenpyroximate is a
slight to moderate skin sensitizer.
    Subchronic oral toxicity studies in the rat show the primary
effects included decreased body weight and weight gain at the lowest
observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) while there were hematological
effects at higher doses. In the 21-day dermal toxicity study in rats,
there were clinical signs in the females (including red nose/mouth/
nasal discharge); decreased body weights, body weight gains, and food
consumption in males and females; and increased liver weights and
hepatocellular necrosis in the females. In the subchronic oral dog
study, there was bradycardia observed at the LOAEL. This effect was
present at 6 weeks (first time point measured) and did not appear to
increase in severity with time. Also observed at this dose level were
diarrhea, decreased body weight, body weight gain, and food
consumption. At higher doses, there was also emesis (vomiting). The
highest dose resulted in first- and second-degree heart block,
increased urea concentration, decreased glucose and altered plasma
electrolyte levels among other signs of toxicity.
    In the chronic oral rat and mouse studies, signs of toxicity were
similar to those in the oral subchronic rat study. The chronic dog
study also revealed signs of toxicity including bradycardia, diarrhea,
decreased body weight gain, and food consumption.
    The 2-generation reproductive toxicity study indicated that
maternal (decreased body weight) and offspring toxicity (decreased
lactational weight gain) occurred at the same dose, suggesting no
evidence of sensitivity or susceptibility. Reproductive parameters were
not affected in this 2-generation reproduction study. The rat and
rabbit developmental toxicity studies were tested at doses that
produced minimal or no maternal or offspring toxicity.
    There are no neurotoxicity studies other than a negative delayed
acute neurotoxicity study in the hen. There was no indication of
neurotoxicity present in any of the existing subchronic or chronic
toxicity studies.
    There was no concern for mutagenic activity in several studies
including: Salmonella, E. Coli, in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation
assay at the Hypoxanthine guanine phophoribosyl transferase (HGPRT)
locus, mammalian cell chromosome aberration assay, in vivo mouse bone
marrow micronucleus assay, DNA repair disk diffusion assay, and an
unscheduled DNA synthesis assay.
    There was no evidence of carcinogenic potential in either the rat
or mouse study. Therefore, fenpyroximate is classified as ``not likely
to be carcinogenic to humans'' by all relevant routes of exposure.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fenpyroximate as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be
found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Fenpyroximate. Human-
Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Uses on Berry, Low
growing Subgroup 13-07G,'' pages 10-13, in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2008-0556.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-term,
intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded. This latter value is referred to as the Level of
Concern (LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fenpyroximate used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
document ``Fenpyroximate. Human-Health Risk Assessment for Proposed
Section 3 Uses on Berry, Low growing Subgroup 13-07G,'' page 5, in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0556.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fenpyroximate, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerance, as well as all existing fenpyroximate
tolerances in (40 CFR 180.566). EPA assessed dietary exposures from
fenpyroximate in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. An acute dietary exposure
assessment was conducted for females 13-49 years old. Since an effect
of concern attributable to a single dose in toxicity studies was not
identified for the general U.S. population, an acute dietary exposure
assessment was not performed for subgroups other than females 13-49
years old.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted acute dietary
analysis for fenpyroximate assuming 100% crop treated (CT) and existing
and proposed tolerance-level residues for all commodities. Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM\(TM)\) (ver. 7.81) default processing
factors were assumed for all commodities excluding apple, pear, and
grape juice (0.11X); grape, raisin (2.7X); orange, grapefruit,
tangerine, lemon and lime juice (0.06X); tomato paste and puree (1.0X);
and peppermint and spearmint oil (0.08X). The petitioner submitted
adequate tomato processing data indicating that residues of
fenpyroximate per se did not concentrate in tomato paste or puree as

all processing factors were <1.0X. Residues of the Z-isomer did not
concentrate in tomato puree; however, residues of Z-isomer concentrated
slightly in tomato paste. When residues are combined, the average
processing factors were <0.89X for tomato paste and <0.57X for tomato
puree. Default processing factor of 1.0X was assumed for both tomato
paste and tomato puree.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100% CT and
existing and proposed tolerance-level residues for all commodities.
DEEM(\TM\) (ver.7.81) default processing factors were assumed with the
exceptions listed in Unit III.C.1.
    iii. Cancer. Fenpyroximate is classified as ``not likely to be a
human carcinogen.'' There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in mouse
studies or in combined chronic/carcinogenicity studies in the rat. In
addition, bacterial reverse mutation and in vitro mammalian cell gene
mutation studies showed no mutagenic effects. Therefore, a dietary
exposure assessment to evaluate cancer risk was not performed.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary
assessment for fenpyroximate. Tolerance level residues and/or 100% CT
were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fenpyroximate in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of fenpyroximate. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on proposed application rates and the environmental fate
properties of fenpyroximate, some surface and ground water
contamination may occur. However, the risk of water contamination from
parent compound is relatively low, based on its high sorption
potential. Unlike its parent compound, the sorption of the M-3
metabolite is much less, and it may move into water resources more
readily. Environmental fate data indicate that parent and its Z-isomer
are stable to photolysis in soil and immobile in soil. Major degradates
formed in the aqueous layer were M-3 (50%), M-8 (36%), M-16 (4-
hydroxymethylbenzoic acid, 58%) and M-11 (25 to 30%), and M-3 (>10%),
M-11 (25 to 30%) and M8 (16 to 19%) in the soil. However, data from a
field dissipation study showed M3 (32%) being the only significant
degradate found in the field.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC) of fenpyroximate, and
its degradates, M1 and M3, for acute exposures are estimated to be 8.74
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.001 ppb for ground
water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments the EDWCs are
estimated to be 0.51 ppb for surface water and 0.001 ppb for ground
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 8.74 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 0.51 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Fenpyroximate is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. 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
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found fenpyroximate to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and fenpyroximate does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
fenpyroximate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that 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 EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no concern for
prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity resulting from exposure to
fenpyroximate. There is no evidence (qualitative or quantitative) of
increased susceptibility following prenatal and postnatal exposure in
adequate developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and a 2-
generation reproduction study in the rat.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for fenpyroximate is adequate to
characterize potential prenatal and postnatal risk for infants and
children. Acceptable/guideline studies for developmental toxicity in
rats and rabbits and reproduction toxicity in rats are available for
FQPA assessment.
    EPA began requiring functional immunotoxicity testing of all food
and non-food use pesticides on December 26, 2007. Since this
requirement went into effect relatively recently, these studies are not
yet available for fenpyroximate. In the absence of an immunotoxicity
study, EPA evaluated the available fenpyroximate toxicity data to
determine whether an additional database uncertainty factor (UF) is
needed to account for potential toxicity. No evidence of immunotoxicity
was found in studies conducted with fenpyroximate. Due to the lack of
evidence of immunotoxicity for fenpyroximate, EPA does not believe that
conducting an immunotoxicity study with fenpyroximate will result in a
NOAEL less than the chronic Reference dose (cRfD) NOAEL of 0.97
milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) already established for
fenpyroximate, and an additional database UF is not

needed to account for potential immunotoxicity.
    Acute and subchronic neurotoxicity testing in rats is also required
as a result of the changes to the pesticide data requirements in
December of 2007 (40 CFR part 158). Although neurotoxicity studies in
rats have not yet been submitted, there is no evidence of neurotoxicity
in any study in the toxicity database for fenpyroximate. Therefore, EPA
has concluded that an additional UF is not needed to account for the
lack of these data.
    ii. There is no indication that fenpyroximate is a neurotoxic
chemical in available studies, and there is no need for a developmental
neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that fenpyroximate results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were
performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues for existing
and proposed uses. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in
the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
fenpyroximate in drinking water. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by fenpyroximate.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE
called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to
fenpyroximate will occupy 7.6% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old,
the only population subgroup of interest.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
fenpyroximate from food and water will utilize 42% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population subgroup receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for fenpyroximate.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term aggregate
exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background
exposure level). Similarly, intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes
into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Fenpyroximate is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in residential exposure. Therefore, the short- and intermediate-
term aggregate risk is the sum of risk from exposure to fenpyroximate
through food and drinking water and will not be greater than the
chronic aggregate risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. There was no evidence
of carcinogenicity in mouse studies or in combined chronic/
carcinogenicity studies in the rat. In addition, bacterial reverse
mutation and in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation studies showed no
mutagenic effects. Therefore, fenpyroximate is not expected to pose a
cancer risk.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to fenpyroximate residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An acceptable enforcement method, gas chromatography with nitrogen-
phosphorus detector (GC/NPD) method DFG S19, is available for
enforcement of tolerances for residues in or on plant commodities. This
method has undergone a petition method validation and is listed in the
U.S. EPA Index of Residue Analytical Methods under fenpyroximate,
Method ID 2000--109M, ``Quantification of Fenpyroximate Residues in Raw
Agricultural and Processed Commodities.'' Method S19 has a limit of
quantitation of 0.02 ppm for the combined residues of fenpyroximate and
its Z-isomer in strawberries.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    Codex and Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) are established for
residues of fenpyroximate per se in or on several crop commodities but
not for the crops requested. Harmonization with the other Codex and
Mexican MRLs is not possible because the U.S. tolerance expressions
include additional metabolites/isomers. There are currently no
established Canadian MRLs.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for combined residues of the
insecticide fenpyroximate parent and its Z-isomer, (E)-1,1-
dimethylethyl 4-[[[[(1,3-dimethyl-5-phenoxy-1H-pyrazol-4-
yl)methylene]amino]oxy]methyl] benzoate, and its Z-isomer, (Z)-1,1-
dimethylethyl 4-[[[[(1,3-dimethyl-5-phenoxy-1H-pyrazol-4-
yl)methylene]amino]oxy]methyl] benzoate, in or on berry, low growing,
subgroup 13-07G at 1.0 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not

require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 13, 2009.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.566 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodity to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.566  Fenpyroximate; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * * (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Berry, low growing, crop subgroup 13-07G.............                1.0
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-28676 Filed 12-01-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62993-62995]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24952]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73366; File No. SR-BYX-2014-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change to Rules 11.9 of BATS Y-
Exchange, Inc. To Add Price Adjust Functionality

October 15, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On August 26, 2014, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rules 11.9 to add Price Adjust
functionality to the Exchange. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on September 4, 2014.\3\ The
Commission did not receive any comments on the proposed rule change.
This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72946 (August 28,
2014), 79 FR 52780 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange has proposed to amend BYX Rule (``Rule'') 11.9 to add
a new, optional Price Adjust functionality.\4\ The Price Adjust
functionality would have to be elected by a User \5\ in order to be
applied by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See proposed Rule 11.9(g).
    \5\ As defined in Rule 1.5(cc), a User is ``any Member or
Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the
System pursuant to Rule 11.3.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange offers price sliding to ensure compliance
with Regulation NMS and Regulation SHO. With respect to price sliding
offered to ensure compliance with Regulation NMS (``display-price
sliding''), under the Exchange's current rules, if, at the time of
entry, a non-routable order would lock or cross a Protected Quotation
\6\ displayed by another trading center, the Exchange ranks (and in the
case of a cross, re-prices) such order at the locking price, and
displays such order at one minimum price variation below the NBO for
bids and above the NBB for offers.\7\ The Exchange currently offers
display-price sliding functionality to avoid locking or crossing other
markets' Protected Quotations, but does not price slide to avoid
executions on the Exchange's order book (``BATS Book''). Specifically,
when the Exchange receives an incoming order that could execute against
resting displayed liquidity but an execution does not occur because
such incoming order is designated as an order that will not remove
liquidity (e.g., a BATS Post Only Order), then the Exchange will cancel
the incoming order unless it is permitted to remove liquidity upon
entry.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As defined in Rule 1.5(t), a ``Protected Quotation'' is ``a
quotation that is a Protected Bid or Protected Offer.'' In turn, the
term ``Protected Bid'' or ``Protected Offer'' means ``a bid or offer
in a stock that is (i) displayed by an automated trading center;
(ii) disseminated pursuant to an effective national market system
plan; and (iii) an automated quotation that is the best bid or best
offer of a national securities exchange or association.''
    \7\ See Rule 11.9(g)(1).
    \8\ The Exchange notes that BATS Post Only Orders are permitted
to remove liquidity from the BATS Book if the value of price
improvement associated with such execution equals or exceeds the sum
of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that
would be provided if the order posted to the BATS Book and
subsequently provided liquidity. See Rule 11.9(c)(6). Similarly,
Partial Post Only at Limit Orders are permitted to remove price
improving liquidity as well as a User-selected percentage of the
remaining order at the limit price if, following such removal, the
order can post at its limit price. See Rule 11.9(c)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed Price Adjust process, by contrast, an order
eligible for display by the Exchange that, at the time of entry, would
create a violation of Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS by locking or
crossing a Protected Quotation of an external market or the Exchange
will be ranked and displayed at one minimum price variation below the
current NBO (for bids) or to one minimum price variation above the
current NBB (for offers).\9\ Thus, the proposed Price Adjust process
differs from the Exchange's current display-price sliding process in
two main ways. First, the Price Adjust process would both rank and
display such an order at one minimum price variation below the current
NBO or above the current NBB (rather than ranking the order at the
locking price). Second, Price Adjust would be based on Protected
Quotations at external markets and at the Exchange (rather than just
Protected Quotations at external markets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Rule 11.9(g)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Exchange will route orders to external markets with
locking or crossing quotations, the Exchange notes that the Price
Adjust process would only be applicable to non-routable orders,
including BATS Only Orders, BATS Post Only Orders and Partial Post Only
at Limit Orders. In turn, because BATS Only Orders will execute against
locking or crossing interest on the Exchange (including both Protected
Quotations as well as any non-displayed interest), the fact that Price
Adjust would be based on Protected Quotations at the Exchange is only
relevant for BATS Post Only Orders and Partial Post Only at Limit
Orders. The Price Adjust process would adjust, as described above, the
price of a display-eligible BATS Post Only Order or Partial Post Only
at Limit Order that would lock or cross a Protected Quotation displayed
by the Exchange unless such order is permitted to remove liquidity as
described in Rules 11.9(c)(6) and (c)(7), respectively,\10\ whereas the
display-price sliding process would cancel such order back to the User
unless it is permitted to remove liquidity under Rules 11.9(c)(6) or
(c)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed Rule 11.9(g)(2)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange has proposed that, in the event the NBBO
changes such that an order subject to Price Adjust would not lock or
cross a Protected Quotation, the order will receive a new timestamp,
and will be displayed at the price that originally locked the NBO (for
bids) or NBB (for offers) on entry.\11\ All orders that are re-ranked
and re-displayed pursuant to Price Adjust would retain their priority
as compared to other orders subject to Price Adjust based upon the time
such orders were initially received by the Exchange.\12\ Further, as
proposed, following the initial ranking and display of an order subject
to Price Adjust, an order will only be re-ranked and re-displayed to
the extent it achieves a more aggressive price.\13\ In order to offer
multiple-price sliding to Exchange Users that select Price Adjust, the
Exchange also has proposed that the ranked and displayed prices of an
order subject to Price Adjust may be adjusted once or multiple times
depending upon the instructions of a User and changes to the prevailing
NBBO.\14\ Multiple-price sliding pursuant to Price Adjust would be
optional and would have to be explicitly selected by a User before it
will be applied (the same is true for display-price sliding). Orders
subject to multiple price sliding for Price Adjust would be permitted
to move all the way back to their most aggressive price, whereas orders
subject to Price Adjust without an explicit selection of multiple price
sliding may not be adjusted to their most aggressive price, depending
upon market conditions and the limit price of the order upon entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See proposed Rule 11.9(g)(2)(B).
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ See proposed Rule 11.9(g)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange has proposed that in the event the NBBO
changes such that display-eligible orders subject to display-price
sliding and Price Adjust

would not lock or cross a Protected Quotation and are eligible to be
displayed at a more aggressive price, the System will first display all
orders subject to display-price sliding at their ranked price followed
by orders subject to Price Adjust, which will be re-ranked and re-
displayed as set forth in proposed Rule 11.9(g)(2).\15\ The Exchange
believes it is reasonable to un-slide orders subject to display-price
sliding before it un-slides orders subject to Price Adjust because
Price Adjust is a less aggressive form of price sliding than display-
price sliding, in that an order submitted by a User that elects Price
Adjust will be displayed and ranked at the same price rather than
ranked at the locking price and displayed at a less aggressive price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed Rule 11.9(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently applies display-price sliding to Non-
Displayed Orders that cross Protected Quotations of external markets.
The Exchange is not proposing to change its handling of Non-Displayed
Orders other than by updating the language of its rule to reflect that
it will handle Non-Displayed Orders for which a User has selected Price
Adjust in the same way as it currently handles Non-Displayed Orders for
which a User has selected display-price sliding.\16\ As such, Non-
Displayed Orders that are subject to Price Adjust (or display-price
sliding) would be ranked at the locking price on entry.\17\ The
proposed rule also would state that price sliding for Non-Displayed
Orders is functionally equivalent to the handling of displayable orders
except that such orders will not have a displayed price and will not be
re-priced again unless such orders cross a Protected Quotation of an
external market (i.e., such orders are not un-slid).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See proposed Rule 11.9(g)(4).
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange does not propose to modify its current short
sale price sliding functionality, which is designed to ensure
compliance with Regulation SHO, and proposes to apply that
functionality to orders for which Price Adjust is chosen. As a result,
orders for which a User selects either display-price sliding or Price
Adjust will be subject to the Exchange's existing short sale price
sliding functionality.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See proposed Rule 11.9(g)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposal, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national
securities exchange.\20\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In approving the proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to offer Price Adjust
functionality is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ as
well as Rule 610 of Regulation NMS \23\ and Rule 201 of Regulation
SHO.\24\ The Exchange notes that it is not modifying the overall
functionality of price sliding, which, to avoid locking or crossing
quotations of other market centers or to comply with applicable short
sale restrictions, displays orders at permissible prices while
retaining a price at which the User is willing to buy or sell, in the
event display at such price or an execution at such price becomes
possible.\25\ Instead, the Exchange is making changes to adopt an
optional form of price sliding, Price Adjust, which will rank orders at
their displayed price rather than, as with the current display-price
sliding process, at the locking price. The exchange notes that, as a
result, while subject to Price Adjust sliding, an order is ranked at a
less aggressive price than it would be under the display-price sliding
process, which may be preferable to certain Users that wish to provide
liquidity but do not wish to cross the spread (i.e., if buying, do not
wish to trade at the NBO or if selling, do not wish to trade at the
NBB).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
    \23\ 17 CFR 242.610.
    \24\ 17 CFR 242.201.
    \25\ See Notice, supra, note 3 at 52782.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as noted above, in contrast to display-price sliding,
which is based solely on Protected Quotations at equities markets and
options exchanges other than the Exchange, the proposed Price Adjust
process would be based on Protected Quotations at external markets and
at the Exchange. According to the Exchange, applying the Price Adjust
process to orders that, upon entry, cannot be executed or displayed at
their limit price should contribute to more displayed liquidity on the
Exchange than if such orders were cancelled back to the User.\27\
Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposal to apply the Price Adjust
process to orders that cannot be displayed because they would lock or
cross displayed contra-side interest on the Exchange (and not just
external markets) will promote just and equitable principles of trade,
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system.\28\ The Exchange also states that
the proposed Price Adjust process will enable the System to avoid
displaying a locking or crossing quotation in order to ensure
compliance with Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See id. at 52783.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to un-slide
display-price sliding orders before it un-slides Price Adjust orders
because Price Adjust is a less aggressive form of price sliding than
display-price sliding, in that an order submitted by a User would be
displayed and ranked at the same price rather than ranked at the
locking price and displayed at a less aggressive price.\30\ Because
orders subject to display-price sliding are ranked at and subject to
execution at higher prices when buying and lower prices when selling,
the Exchange believes that such orders should be re-displayed before
orders subject to Price Adjust orders in response to changes to the
NBBO.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See id. at 52782.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 610(d) requires exchanges to establish, maintain, and enforce
rules that require members reasonably to avoid ``[d]isplaying
quotations that lock or cross any protected quotation in an NMS
stock.'' \32\ Such rules must be ``reasonably designed to assure the
reconciliation of locked or crossed quotations in an NMS stock,'' and
must ``prohibit . . . members from engaging in a pattern or practice of
displaying quotations that lock or cross any quotation in an NMS
stock.'' \33\ The Exchange believes that the proposed Price Adjust
functionality will assist Users by displaying orders at permissible
prices.\34\ Similarly, Rule 201 of Regulation SHO \35\ requires trading
centers to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to

prevent the execution or display of a short sale order at a price at or
below the current NBB under certain circumstances. The Exchange
represents that its short sale price sliding will continue to operate
the same for Users that select Price Adjust as it does for Users that
select the display-price sliding process currently offered by the
Exchange.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 242.610(d).
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ See Notice, supra, note 3 at 52783.
    \35\ 17 CFR 242.201.
    \36\ See Notice, supra, note 3 at 52783.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons noted above, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act, including Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\37\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of an
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors
and the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\38\ that the proposed rule change, SR-BYX-2014-019, be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24952 Filed 10-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 156)]
[Notices]
[Page 49506]
[DOCID:fr13au10-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1931-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Texas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-1931-DR), dated August 3, 2010,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 3, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 3, 2010, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Texas resulting from Hurricane Alex beginning on June 30, 2010,
and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a
major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the State of Texas.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public
Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout
the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Bradley M. Harris, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Texas have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Cameron, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Maverick, Starr, Val Verde, Webb,
and Zapata Counties for Individual Assistance.
    Cameron, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Maverick, Starr, Webb,
Willacy, and Zapata Counties for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Texas are eligible to apply for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    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. 2010-20007 Filed 8-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P