[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44440-44444]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15934]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95342; File No. SR-C2-2022-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Rules Regarding Complex Orders

July 20, 2022.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on July 14, 2022, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II 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 C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'') proposes to
amend its Rules regarding complex orders. 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 (https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/), 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 Rules regarding complex orders.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to make trading available for
complex orders in any ratio, as well as makes [sic] a clarifying change
to the complex order rules.
    Currently, the definition of complex order in Rule 1.1 provides
that the term ``complex order'' means any order involving the
concurrent purchase and/or sale of two or more different series in the
same class (the ``legs'' or ``components'' of the complex order), for
the same account, in a ratio equal to or greater than one-to-three
(.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for the
purposes of executing a particular investment strategy. As such, only
complex orders with a ratio equal to or greater than one-to-three
(.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) may currently be
submitted for trading on the Exchange. The proposed rule change amends
the definition of complex order in Rule 1.1 to provide that a ``complex
order'' is any order involving the concurrent purchase and/or sale of
two or more different series in the same class (the ``legs'' or
``components'' of the complex order), for the same account, in any
ratio and for the purposes of executing a particular investment
strategy. The Exchange notes that its affiliated options exchange, Cboe
Options, recently amended its complex order rules in the same manner as
proposed herein to permit complex orders with ratios less than one-to-
three and greater than three-to-one to be eligible for electronic
processing.\3\ The Exchange proposes to accept complex orders with
ratios larger than three-to-one or smaller than one-to-three for
execution in order to provide execution opportunities for all complex
orders, including those with investment strategies that do not fit
within the three-to-one ratio requirement (which opportunities are
afforded to those complex orders submitted to Cboe Options today).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94204 (February 9,
2022), 87 FR 8625 (February 15, 2022) (SR-CBOE-2021-046). The Cboe
Options' filing SR-CBOE-2021-046 also amended Cboe Option's complex
order rules to allow the minimum increment for bids and offers on
complex orders with any ratio to be in $0.01 or greater (legs were
already permitted to be executed in pennies on Cboe Options). The
Exchange notes that Rule 5.33(f)(1) currently provides that the
minimum increment for bids and offers on a complex order is $0.01,
and the components of a complex order may be executed in $0.01
increments, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise
applicable to the individual components of the complex order. As a
result, all complex orders (including those with larger ratios as
proposed in this filing) and their legs will be able to execute in
pennies, and all bids and offers on all complex orders (including
those with larger ratios, as proposed) will be able to be expressed
in a minimum increment of $0.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposed rule change will allow complex orders of any
ratio to be traded on the Exchange, the Exchange does not propose to
extend the complex order priority in Rule 5.33(f)(2) \4\ to complex
orders with ratios equal to or greater than one-to-three and less than
or equal to three-to-one to complex orders with larger ratios. Instead,
the proposed rule change amends Rule 5.33(f)(2) to provide that, if a
complex order has a ratio less than one-to-three (.333) or greater than
three-to-one (3.00), the component(s) of the complex order for the
leg(s) with a Customer order at the BBO must execute at a price that
improves the price of that Customer order(s) on the Simple Book (the
Exchange notes that this proposed rule change is described below in
further detail). The proposed rule change also makes certain
nonsubstantive changes to the complex priority rule. The Exchange notes
that execution of complex orders with any ratio will continue to not be
permitted at net prices: (i) that would cause any component of the
complex strategy to be executed at a price of zero; (ii) worse than the
Synthetic Best Bid or Offer (``SBBO''); (iii) that would cause any
component of the complex strategy to be executed at a price worse than
the individual component prices on the Simple Book; or (iv) worse than
the price that would be available if the complex order legged into the
Simple Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The System does not execute a complex order pursuant to this
Rule 5.33 at a net price (1) that would cause any component of the
complex strategy to be executed at a price of zero; (2) worse than
the SBBO; (3) that would cause any component of the complex strategy
to be executed at a price worse than the individual component price
on the Simple Book; (4) worse than the price that would be available
if the complex order Legged into the Simple Book; or (5) ahead of
orders on the Simple Book without improving the BBO on at least one
component of the complex strategy by at least $0.01. The Exchange
notes pursuant to Rule 5.33(d)(5) and (e), complex orders will
execute against orders and quotes in the Simple Book (including
customer orders) prior to executing against complex orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, regarding the nonsubstantive changes to Rule
5.33(f)(2), the proposed rule change combines subparagraph (2) with (5)
(and reformats the subparagraphs with lettering, which is consistent
with the general format of the Exchange Rules), as the provisions are
interlinked. Specifically, Rule 5.33(f)(2)(2) provides that the System
does not execute a complex order pursuant to 5.33 at a net price worse
than the SBBO. Separately, Rule 5.33(f)(2)(5) provides that the System
does not execute a complex order pursuant to Rule 5.33 ahead of orders
on the Simple Book without improving the BBO on at least one component
of the complex strategy by at least $0.01--in other words, a complex
order could only execute against complex interest by improving the SBBO
(and thus not worse than the SBBO). Because these two provisions are
interrelated, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to combine them
into proposed Rule 5.33(f)(2)(D).\5\ The proposed rule change amends
language in proposed Rule 5.33(f)(2)(D) to provide that the System does
not execute a complex order pursuant to Rule 5.33 at a net price worse
than the SBBO and adds subparagraph (i) to additionally provide that if
a complex order has a ratio equal to or greater than one-to-three
(.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00), at least one
component of the complex order must execute at a price that improves
the BBO for that component, which is consistent with the current rule
and current functionality for complex orders in ratios that may
currently be submitted on the Exchange. The proposed nonsubstantive
rule changes to restructure Rule 5.33(f)(2) have no impact on complex
order priority with respect to complex orders that may

currently execute on the Exchange and are consistent with and align the
Exchange's complex order priority rule with the structure of Cboe
Options Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A), which governs Cboe Options complex order
priority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed rule change makes other nonsubstantive changes
to the sentence structure as a result of the combination of
provisions, as well as other nonsubstantive changes to the
formatting and paragraph structure for added clarity and consistency
with the structure of corresponding Cboe Options Rule 5.33(f)(2).
    \6\ See Cboe Options Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A); and see Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 95006 (May 31, 2022), 87 FR 34334 (June 6,
2022) (SR-CBOE-2022-024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the proposed rule change to incorporate complex orders
with larger-ratios, as proposed, into the complex order priority
provision, the proposed rule change adds subparagraph (ii) to Rule
5.33(f)(2)(D), as proposed. As described above, Rule 5.33(f)(2)(D), as
proposed, provides that the System does not execute a complex order
pursuant to Rule 5.33 at a net price worse than the SBBO, and, as
proposed subparagraph (ii) provides, if the complex order has a ratio
less than one-to-three (.333) or greater than three-to-one (3.00), the
component(s) of the complex order for the leg(s) with a Customer order
at the BBO must execute at a price that improves the price of that
Customer order(s) on the Simple Book. As a result, to the extent a
complex order with a ratio of four-to-one (for example) is submitted
for electronic execution, the complex order may be executed at a net
debit or credit price only if each leg of the order betters the
corresponding bid (offer) of a customer order(s) in the Simple Book.
Therefore, the complex order priority rules will continue to protect
Customer interest on the Simple Book. The proposed rule change
regarding complex order priority for complex order ratios less than
one-to-three (.333) or greater than three-to-one (3.00) is consistent
with the corresponding complex priority rule on Cboe Options \7\ as it
applies to complex order ratios less than one-to-three (.333) or
greater than three-to-one (3.00) electronically submitted to Cboe
Options, as previously approved by the Commission.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Cboe Options Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A)(iv)(b). The Exchange
notes priority on the Exchange is slightly different than on Cboe
Options, has the Exchange does not have the concept of priority
customer and thus will always execute complex orders against
interest in the Simple Book if possible prior to executing complex
orders against other complex interest.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94204 (February 9,
2022), 87 FR 8625 (February 15, 2022) (SR-CBOE-2021-046). SR-CBOE-
2021-046 did not make any changes to complex orders with ratios
equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal
to three-to-one (3.00) available on Cboe Options and Cboe Options
continues to allow trading in such complex orders with smaller
ratios today. Likewise, the Exchange notes that this proposal does
not make any changes to currently permissible complex order ratios
(equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal
to three-to-one (3.00)) and such complex orders with smaller ratios
will continue to be available for trading on the Exchange,
consistent with Cboe Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also updates Rule 5.33(g) to reflect that
the System accepts for electronic processing complex orders with more
than four legs. Current Rule 5.33(g) states that a complex order may
execute against orders and quotes resting in the Simple Book pursuant
to Rule 5.33(d)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(1) if it can execute in full or in a
permissible ratio and if it has no more than a maximum number of legs
(which the Exchange determines on a class-by-class basis and may be
two, three or four), subject to certain restrictions, including that
non-Customer complex orders with two option legs that are both buy or
both sell and that are both calls or both puts may not leg into the
Simple Book and all complex orders with three or four option legs that
are all buy or all sell may not leg into the Simple Book. The proposed
rule change modifies the parenthetical regarding legging restrictions
to indicate that the maximum number the Exchange may determine on a
class-by-class basis may be up to 16, as the Exchange's System
currently accepts complex orders with up to that many legs for
electronic processing.\9\ The proposed rule change makes no changes to
which or how complex orders may leg into the Simple Book but rather
updates this provision to reflect current functionality. This proposed
rule change is consistent with the corresponding Cboe Options Rule
5.33(g).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Cboe Notice C2021060800, Cboe Options Introduces 16-Leg
Maximum for Non-FLEX Complex Orders (June 8, 2021), available at
Cboe Options Introduces 16-Leg Maximum for Non-FLEX Complex Orders;
see also Cboe US Options Complex Book Process (technical
specifications last updated April 20, 2022), Section 2.3.2,
available at US Options Complex Book Process.
    \10\ See Cboe Options Rule 5.33(g); and see Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 95006 (May 31, 2022), 87 FR 34334 (June 6, 2022)
(SR-CBOE-2022-024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\11\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and benefit investors, because it will provide market
participants with execution opportunities on the Exchange for all their
complex trading and hedging strategies, regardless of ratio. Market
participants may determine that investment and hedging strategies with
ratios greater than three-to-one or less than one-to-three are
appropriate for their investment purposes, and the Exchange believes it
will benefit market participants if they have the flexibility to submit
their investment and hedging strategies on the Exchange to achieve
their desired investment results. The proposed rule change will further
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, as it will allow complex orders to
be submitted on the Exchange in the same manner as complex orders may
already be submitted on its affiliated options exchange, Cboe
Options,\14\ which currently permits orders of any ratio to be
submitted to the exchange, as previously approved by the
Commission.\15\ Additionally, the proposed rule change will continue to
protect customer order interest on the Simple Book, as all complex
orders with a ratio greater than three-to-one or less than one-to-three
will be executed only if each leg of the order improves the price of a
customer order on the Simple Book on each leg. Again, as noted above,
the proposed rule change regarding

complex order priority for complex order ratios less than one-to-three
(.333) or greater than three-to-one (3.00) is consistent with the
corresponding complex priority rule on Cboe Options as it applies to
larger ratio orders submitted for electronic trading on Cboe
Options.\16\ The nonsubstantive proposed rule change to restructure the
provisions regarding complex order priority in Rule 5.33(f)(2) is
intended to simplify the rule text regarding when legs of complex
orders must improve prices of orders on the Simple Book, while adding
clarity to the rule text through an update in its formatting and
aligning such provision with the structure of Cboe Option's
corresponding complex priority rule. This proposed rule change has no
impact on electronic complex order priority while still increasing
investor understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange notes that its affiliated options exchange,
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), also intends to file a similar
rule filing to allow complex orders of any ratio to be submitted on
EDGX.
    \15\ See supra note 10. Prior to the Commission's approval of
SR-CBOE-2022-046, larger ratio complex orders were already permitted
to be submitted to Cboe Options' trading floor for execution in open
outcry. The Commission's approval of SR-CBOE-2022-046 allowed larger
ratio complex orders to be submitted for electronic trading.
    \16\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed nonsubstantive rule change to the provision regarding
complex order legging in Rule 5.33(g) will protect investors, as it
merely updates the provision to reflect that the System accepts for
electronic processing complex orders with more than four legs. The
proposed rule change makes no changes to which or how complex orders
may leg into the Simple Book but rather updates this provision to
reflect current functionality and align with Cboe Options corresponding
rule.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule change to allow for complex orders in any
ratio to be submitted to the Exchange will impose any burden on
intramarket competition, as the proposed rule change will apply in the
same manner to all Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs''). TPHs will have
the discretion to submit complex orders with any ratio for trading on
the Exchange. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change
will impose any burden on intermarket competition as it relates to the
execution of orders on the Exchange and will continue to protect the
leg markets, including customer orders on the Simple Book. The Exchange
believes the proposed rule change may promote competition, as market
participants will have additional flexibility to execute their trading
and hedging strategies in any ratio, and in the same manner that is
already permitted on the Exchange's affiliated options exchange, Cboe
Options. Also, other options exchanges are welcome to modify their
systems to permit higher/lower ratio orders to execute electronically
or on their trading floors.
    The proposed nonsubstantive rule change to restructure the
provisions regarding complex order priority in Rule 5.33(f)(2) and the
proposed nonsubstantive rule change to Rule 5.33(g) are not intended
for competitive purposes, but rather are intended to, respectively,
simplify and add clarity to the complex priority rule text and to
clarify a provision, reflecting more accurately current System
functionality. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed
nonsubstantive rule changes will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act, because the change will apply in the same manner
to all investors. The proposed nonsubstantive rule changes have no
impact on trading and thus will not change how any investors' complex
orders are processed or executed on the Exchange. As noted above, the
proposed rule changes make no changes to which or how complex orders
may leg into the Simple Book. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposed nonsubstantive rule changes will impose any burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the proposed rule
changes have no impact on how complex orders trade, as they merely make
a structural update and clarifying updates.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \18\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \20\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\21\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange notes
that complex orders with any ratio currently are eligible for
electronic processing on Cboe Options, and that the proposal does not
introduce any new or novel functionality.\22\ The Exchange states that
waiver of the operative delay will benefit investors by providing them
with the flexibility to submit bona-fide multi-legged trading or
hedging strategies in any ratio to the Exchange. In addition, the
Exchange states that waiver of the operative delay with respect to the
proposed non-substantive rule changes to clarify and simplify rule text
will benefit investors by providing additional transparency regarding
the Exchange's rules as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \22\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Commission believes that the proposal will benefit investors by
providing investors with an additional venue for trading complex orders
with any ratio, including complex orders with a ratio less than one-to-
three or greater than three-to-one. As discussed above, the Commission
approved a Cboe Options proposal allowing complex orders with any ratio
to trade electronically and to be quoted, as well as executed, in $0.01
increments.\23\ The Commission notes that the priority provisions in
proposed Exchange Rule 5.33(f)(2)(D)(ii) for complex orders with a
ratio less than one-to-three or greater than three-to-one--which
require each component leg of such an order with a Customer order at
the BBO to execute at a price that improves the price of the Customer
order(s) on the Simple Book--are consistent with the requirements of

Cboe Options Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A)(iv)(b).\24\ Accordingly, the Exchange's
proposal to allow market participants to submit complex orders with any
ratio to the Exchange does not raise new or novel regulatory issues.
The Commission believes that the proposed non-substantive changes to
Exchange Rules 5.33(f)(2) will modify the format of that rule so that
it is consistent with the format of Cboe Rule 5.33(f)(2), and that the
proposed non-substantive change to Exchange Rule 5.33(g) will update
the rule and make it consistent with Cboe Rule 5.33(g). Accordingly,
the Commission waives the operative delay and designates the proposed
rule change operative upon filing.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id.
    \24\ As noted above, unlike Cboe Options, the Exchange does not
have the concept of a priority customer. See supra note 7. The
Exchange notes that pursuant to Exchange Rules 5.33(d)(5) and (e),
complex orders execute against orders and quotes in the Simple Book
(including customer orders) prior to executing against complex
orders. See supra note 4.
    \25\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-C2-2022-015 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-C2-2022-015. 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 (https://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-C2-2022-015, and should be
submitted on or before August 16, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15934 Filed 7-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50834-50835]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20885]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0033; FRL-9995-79-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; EPA's ENERGY STAR[supreg] Product Labeling
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), EPA's ENERGY STAR Product
Labeling (EPA ICR No. 2078.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0528), to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through September 30,
2019. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal
Register on April 10, 2019, during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 28,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0033, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Kwon, Climate Protection
Partnerships Division, Office of Air and Radiation, Mailcode 6202A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: ENERGY STAR is a voluntary program developed in
collaboration with industry to create a self-sustaining market for
energy efficient products. The center piece of the program is the
ENERGY STAR label, a registered certification label that helps
consumers identify products that save energy, save money, and help
protect the environment without sacrificing quality or performance. In
order to protect the integrity of the label and enhance its
effectiveness in the marketplace, EPA must ensure that products
carrying the label meet program requirements.
    EPA partners with retailers, energy efficiency program sponsors
(EEPS), and product brand owners who wish to use the ENERGY STAR label
to differentiate products as more energy efficient. Retailers, EEPS,
and product brand owners sign and submit a Partnership Application to
become a partner, indicating that they voluntarily agree to fulfill the
relevant program requirements referenced in the Partnership Agreement
Form and Participation Form.
    Prior to labeling a product as ENERGY STAR, partners have eligible
products tested in an EPA-recognized laboratory and certified by an
EPA-recognized third-party certification body (CB). The CBs share
information with EPA on products they review from EPA-recognized
laboratories during the certification process. An XML-based data
exchange allows the CBs to automatically transmit information on
certified products to EPA from their database via web services,
eliminating the need for paper submissions. EPA runs a series of
automated validations to ensure the integrity of the data and confirm
the credentials of the organizations associated with the data prior to
incorporating it into the ENERGY STAR product database. EPA then
provides the relevant information to consumers and purchasers in user-
friendly formats that facilitate the purchase of energy efficient
products.
    The certification process also includes requirements for CBs to
report to EPA products that were reviewed, but not eligible for
certification, as well as to conduct post-market verification testing
of a sampling of ENERGY STAR certified products. CBs complete a minimum
amount of verification testing and share information with EPA on
products verified twice a year. CBs report to EPA any post-market test
data indicating a product may no longer meet the program requirements.
This process helps maintain consumer confidence in the ENERGY STAR
label and protect the investment of partners.
    While most product-related information is provided by CBs, partners
are asked to submit to EPA annual unit shipment data for their ENERGY
STAR certified products. EPA is flexible as to the methods partners may
use to submit unit shipment data.
    Finally, partners that wish to receive recognition for their
efforts in ENERGY STAR may submit an application for the Partner of the
Year Award. Partners that have ENERGY STAR certified central air
conditioners, air-source heat pumps, furnaces, geothermal heat pumps,
and windows that meet the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient criteria may
submit an application to gain ENERGY STAR Most Efficient recognition.
    Form Numbers: 5900-252, 5900-251, 5900-33, 5900-253, 5900-168,
5900-206, 5900-207, 5900-28, 5900-208, 5900-210, 5900-228, 5900-234,
5900-229, 5900-235, 5900-47, 5900-349, 5900-350, 5900-351, 5900-348,
5900-35, 5900-37, 5900-38, 5900-39, 5900-41, 5900-42, 5900-43, 5900-44,
5900-48, 5900-49, 5900-50, 5900-51, 5900-54, 5900-55, 5900-56, 5900-57,
5900-58, 5900-230, 5900-224, 5900-227, 5900-166, 5900-165, 5900-164,
5900-226, 5900-163, 5900-34, 5900-216, 5900-217, 5900-218, 5900-388,
5900-254, 5900-255, 5900-439, 5900-440, 5900-415, 5900-416, 5900-438,
5900-417.
    Respondents/affected entities: Partners and potential partners in
EPA's ENERGY STAR program.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 2,732.
    Frequency of response: Initially/one-time, on occasion, semi-
annually, annually.
    Total estimated burden: 40,391 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $2,531,810 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 818 hours in the
total estimated burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.
This decrease results from EPA's adjustments to the number of
respondents. EPA's adjustments are based on its analysis of the
program's historical data and trends on respondent activity and
submissions.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-20885 Filed 9-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 117)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34639-34641]
[DOCID:fr18jn10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0293]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Reedville July 4th Celebration, Cockrell's Creek,
Reedville, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Cockrell's Creek in the vicinity of Reedville, Virginia in support of
the Reedville July 4th Celebration event. This action is intended to
restrict vessel traffic movement on Cockrell's Creek to protect
mariners from the hazards associated with fireworks displays.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 2,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2010-0293 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0293 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail LT Tiffany Duffy, Chief Waterways Management
Division, Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On May 11, 2010 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled Reedville July 4th Celebration, Cockrell's Creek, Reedville,
VA in the Federal Register (75 FR 26157). We received no comments on
the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.
    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. Due to the need for immediate
action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to protect life,
property and the environment; therefore, a 30-day notice is
impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the
safety zone's intended objectives of protecting persons and vessels
involved in the event, and enhancing public and maritime safety.

Basis and Purpose

    On July 2, 2010 Greater Reedville Association will sponsor a
fireworks display on Cockrell's Creek at position 37[deg]49'54'' N/
076[deg]16'44'' W (NAD 1983). Due to the need to protect mariners and
spectators from the hazards associated with the fireworks display,
access to Cockrell's Creek within 420 feet of the fireworks display
will be temporarily restricted.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard did not receive comments in response to the notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation restricts access
to the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant
because: (i) The safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration;
(ii) the zone is of limited size; and (iii) the Coast Guard will make
notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their
plans accordingly.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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 because the zone will only be in place for a limited duration
and maritime advisories will be issued allowing the mariners to adjust
their plans accordingly. However, this rule may affect the following
entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators
of vessels intending to transit or anchor in that portion of Cockrell's
Creek from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 2, 2010.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    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.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
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, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a temporary safety
zone around a fireworks display. This zone is designed to protect
mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with aerial
fireworks displays. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0293 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0293  Safety Zone; Reedville July 4th Celebration,
Cockrell's Creek, Reedville, VA

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a safety zone: specified
waters of Cockrell's Creek located within a 420 foot radius of the
fireworks display at approximate position 37[deg]49'54''N/
076[deg]16'44''W (NAD 1983) in the vicinity of Reedville, Virginia.
    (b) Definition. For the purposes of this part, Captain of the Port
Representative means any U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his behalf.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated
representatives.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this
safety zone shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel
that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast
Guard Ensign.
    (3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads can be reached through
the Sector Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia
at telephone Number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) The Coast Guard Representatives enforcing the safety zone can
be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65Mhz) and
channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
    (d) Enforcement Period. This regulation will be enforced on July 2,
2010 from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m.

    Dated: June 3, 2010.
M.S. Ogle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2010-14742 Filed 6-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46914-46919]
[DOCID:fr22au07-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0889; FRL-8142-4]

Pyriproxyfen; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
pyriproxyfen in or on animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage; animal
feed, nongrass, group 18, hay; animal feed, nongrass, group 18, seed;
banana; beet, sugar, dried pulp; cacao bean, dried; caneberry, subgroup
13-A; canola, seed; coffee, instant; coffee, green bean; cranberry;
date; grain, cereal, group 15; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw,
group 16; pawpaw; peanut; pineapple; pineapple, process residue;
pomegranate; potato, chips; potato, granules/flakes; potato, wet peel;
rice, hulls; safflower, seed; sesame, seed; sugarcane; tea; vegetable,
bulb, group 3, except onion, bulb; and vegetable, root and tuber, group
1. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road
East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540 requested these tolerances under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective August 22, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 22, 2007,
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-2006-0889. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced

Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja R. Brothers, 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), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
    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 Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

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

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, 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-2006-0889 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 October 22, 2007.
    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-2006-0889, 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'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 November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67571) (FRL-
8102-2), 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
6E7003) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.510 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide, pyriproxyfen,
2-1-methyl-2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy)ethoxypyridine, in or on vegetable, root
and tuber, group 1 at 0.15 part per million (ppm); vegetable, leaves of
root and tuber, group 2 at 2.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3, except
onion, dry bulb at 0.70 ppm; vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4
at 2.0 ppm; vegetable, legume, group 6 at 0.2 ppm; vegetable, foliage
of legume, group 7 at 2.0 ppm; caneberry, subgroup 13A at 1.0 ppm;
grain, cereal, group 15 at 1.1 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and
straw, group 16 at 1.1 ppm; animal feed, nongrass, group 18 at 0.7 ppm
for forage, 2.0 for seed, and 1.1 for hay; asparagus at 2.0 ppm; banana
and plantain at 0.2 ppm; cacao bean at 0.02 ppm; canola, seed at 0.20
ppm; coffee at 0.02 ppm; cranberry at 1.0 ppm; date at 0.3 ppm; grass,
forage at 0.5 ppm; grass, hay at 1.0 ppm; kiwifruit at 0.1 ppm; pawpaw
at 1.0 ppm; peanut at 0.2 ppm; pineapple at 0.3 ppm; pomegranate at
0.20 ppm; safflower, seed at 0.2 ppm; sesame, seed at 0.02 ppm;
sugarcane at 1.1 ppm; tea at 0.02 ppm; watercress at 2.0 ppm; and
artichoke, globe at 2.0 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Valent USA Corporation, the registrant, which is
available to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One

comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to comment
is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that proposed tolerances for vegetable, leaves of root, and
tuber, group 2; vegetable, leafy, except, Brassica, group 4; vegetable,
legume, group 6; vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7; artichoke,
globe; asparagus; kiwifruit; and watercress will not be established at
this time. Further, the Agency is establishing the following additional
tolerances in conjunction with the tolerances that were requested:
Beet, sugar, dried, pulp; potato, granules/flakes; potato, chips;
potato, wet peel; rice, hulls; coffee, instant; and pineapple, process
residue. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide pyriproxyfen residue in or
on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.''
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that
``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide pyriproxyfen 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 the FFDCA requires EPA to give
special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide pyriproxyfen 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
pyriproxyfen residue....'' These provisions were added to the FFDCA by
the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 tolerances
for residues of pyriproxyfen on animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage
at 0.70 ppm; animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay at 1.1 ppm; animal
feed, nongrass, group 18, seed at 2.0 ppm; banana at 0.20 ppm; beet,
sugar, dried pulp at 3.0 ppm; cacao bean, dried at 0.02 ppm; caneberry,
subgroup 13-A at 1.0 ppm; canola, seed at 0.20 ppm; coffee, instant at
0.10 ppm; coffee, green bean at 0.02 ppm; cranberry at 1.0 ppm; date at
0.30 ppm; grain, cereal, group 15 at 1.1 ppm; grain, cereal, forage,
fodder and straw, group 16 at 1.1 ppm; pawpaw at 1.0 ppm; peanut at
0.20 ppm; pineapple at 0.30 ppm; pineapple, process residue at 1.1 ppm;
pomegranate at 0.20 ppm; potato, chips at 0.75 ppm; potato, granules/
flakes at 0.75 ppm; potato, wet peel at 0.75 ppm; rice, hulls at 5.5
ppm; safflower, seed at 0.20 ppm; sesame, seed at 0.02 ppm; sugarcane
at 1.1 ppm; tea at 0.02 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3, except onion,
bulb at 0.70 ppm; and vegetable, root and tuber, group 1 at 0.15 ppm.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing
the tolerances follow.

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. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by pyriproxyfen as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/May/Day-14/p12022.htm
 in Federal

Register of May 14, 2003 (68 FR 25831) (FRL-7305-9).

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from 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) is
sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UF) are
used in conjunction with the LOC 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
risks by comparing aggregate 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 LOC
by all applicable uncertainty/safety factors. Short-, intermediate, and
long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the
LOC to ensure that the margin of exposure (``MOE'') called for by the
product of all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded.
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. 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/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm
.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pyriproxyfen used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document

title Pyriproxyfen Human Health Risk Assessment Use on Numerous Crops.
IR-4 Tolerance Plan (Reduced Data Set Translations) on pages 9-10 in
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0889.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pyriproxyfen, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing pyriproxyfen tolerances in (40
CFR 180.510). EPA assessed dietary exposures from pyriproxyfen 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 one-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for pyriproxyfen; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the 1994-1996 and
1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA performed a Tier 1 chronic
analysis which assumed 100% crop treated (CT), default processing
factors, and tolerance level residues for all commodities.
    iii. Cancer. A cancer dietary risk assessment was not performed
because no evidence of carcinogenicity has been found for pyriproxyfen.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for pyriproxyfen in drinking water.
Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on
simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental
fate characteristics of pyriproxyfen. 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 EPA's Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Groundwater (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of
pyriproxyfen for acute and chronic exposures for surface water are
estimated to be 2.15 parts per billion (ppb), and 0.40 ppb,
respectively. The EEC for chronic exposure is estimated to be 0.006 ppb
for groundwater. Both models assumed a maximum seasonal application
rate of 0.11 lb ai/A, 3 times per year (citrus and stone fruit).
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 0.40 ppb was used to
access 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).
    Pyriproxyfen is the active ingredient in many registered
residential products for flea and tick control (home environment and
pet treatments) as well as products for ant and roach control (indoor
and outdoor applications). Formulations include carpet powders,
foggers, aerosol sprays, liquids (shampoos, sprays and pipettes for pet
treatments), granules, bait (indoor and outdoor), and impregnated
materials (pet collars). Only a post-application residential assessment
was conducted as the Agency did not select any short-term dermal or
inhalation endpoints. Toddlers are anticipated to have the highest
exposures from treated home environments and pets due to typical hand-
to-mouth behavior. EPA assessed residential exposure using the
following assumptions:
     Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term toddler hand-
to-mouth exposures (consisting of petting treated animals and touching
treated carpets/flooring).
      Long-term dermal exposures for products with anticipated
efficacy more than 6 months (carpet powders and pet collars).
     Combined treatment toddler exposure scenarios as a result
of treatments to the home environment and the pet in the same period
(such as carpet powder and pet shampoo treatments). Episodic ingestion
of granules by toddlers is anticipated, but an assessment for this
scenario is not included, since an acute dietary endpoint was not
selected.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the 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.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to pyriproxyfen and any other
substances and pyriproxyfen does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that pyriproxyfen has
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 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional (``10X'') tenfold 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 data base 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. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X when reliable data do not support the choice of a
different factor, or, if reliable data are available, EPA uses a
different additional FQPA safety factor value based on the use of
traditional uncertainty/safety factors and/or special FQPA safety
factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Based on the available data,
there is no quantitative and qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility observed following in utero pyriproxyfen exposure to
rats and rabbits or following prenatal/postnatal exposure in the 2-
generation reproduction study.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for pyriproxyfen is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that pyriproxyfen is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional uncertainty factors to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that pyriproxyfen 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 dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. Conservative ground water and
surface water modeling estimates were used. Similarly conservative
Residential Standard Operating Procedues (SOPs) were used to assess
post-application exposure to children as well as incidental oral
exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by pyriproxyfen.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable uncertainty/
safety factors. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability
of additional cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-term,
intermediate-term, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing
aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the
product of all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. No such effects were identified in the toxicological
studies for pyriproxyfen; therefore, a quantitative acute risk
assessment is unnecessary.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
pyriproxyfen from food and water will utilize 10% of the cPAD for the
population group children 1-2 years old. A long-term post-application
residential assessment was performed for toddlers only since they are
anticipated to have the higher exposures than adults from treated home
environments and pets due to their behavior patterns. The total chronic
dietary and residential aggregate MOEs range from 570 to 4,700.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short and intermediate-
term aggregate exposures take into account residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background
exposure level). Pyriproxyfen is currently registered for use that
could result in short-term and intermediate-term residential exposures
and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate
chronic food and water for short-term and intermediate-term exposures
for pyriproxyfen.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded that food, water, and residential
exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs range from 1,200 to
14,000 for children 1-2 years old, and females 13-49 years old,
respectively.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food, water, and
residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs range from
430 to 4,700 for children 1-2 years old, and females 13-49 years old,
respectively.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Pyriproxyfen is
classified as a ``Group E'' chemical (negative for carcinogenicity to
humans). This classification is based on the lack of evidence of
carcinogenicity in mice and rats. EPA does not expect pyriproxyfen 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 pyriproxyfen residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/nitrogen-
phosphorous detector (GC/NPD)) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. 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

    There are currently no established Codex maximum residue limits
(MRLs) for pyriproxyfen.

C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received by the Agency from a private citizen. The
comment applies to the use of ``available data'' concerning the
cumulative effects of the pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' In this case, EPA did not
assume that this chemical has a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances as the chemical does not generate metabolites produced also
by other chemicals. For specific information regarding EPA's approach
to the use of common mechanism of toxicity to evaluate the cumulative
effects of chemicals, please refer to EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/
 to see policy statements.

V. Conclusion

    Following review of the residue data submitted with the petition,
EPA has made several revisions to the petition's request for the
establishment of tolerances. First, due to absence of confirmatory
data, the Agency is not establishing in this regulation the tolerances
proposed for vegetable, leaves of root, and tuber, group 2; vegetable,
leafy, except, Brassica, group 4; vegetable, legume, group 6;
vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7; artichoke, globe; asparagus;
kiwifruit; and watercress at this time. Second, EPA determined that
proposed tolerances for various raw agricultural commodities (beets,
potatoes, rice, coffee, pineapples) did not appropriately address
residue levels that could occur in foods processed from those raw
commodities. Accordingly, relying on the theoretical processing factors
or processing factors from the Agency's pyriproxyfen database, EPA is
establishing tolerances for the processed commodities of beet, dry
pulp; potato granules/flakes, chips, and wet peel; rice, hulls; coffee,
instant; and pineapple processed residue.
    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyriproxyfen,
2-[1-methyl-2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy)ethoxypyridine, in or on the
commodities listed in Unit III. paragraph 2.

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 rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, 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 6,
2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This 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: August 9, 2007.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting 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 180.510 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.510  Pyriproxyfen; tolerances for residues.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18,                                    0.70
 forage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay                                 1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18,                                     2.0
 seed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Banana                                                              0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beet, sugar, dried pulp                                              3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Cacao bean, dried                                                   0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caneberry, subgroup 13-A                                             1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canola, seed                                                        0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Coffee, instant                                                     0.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coffee, green bean                                                  0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Cranberry                                                            1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Date                                                                0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Grain, cereal, group 15                                              1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and                                    1.1
 straw, group 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Pawpaw                                                               1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peanut                                                              0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pineapple                                                           0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pineapple, process residue                                           1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Pomegranate                                                         0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potato, chips                                                       0.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potato, granules/flakes                                             0.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potato, wet peel                                                    0.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Rice, hulls                                                          5.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Safflower, seed                                                     0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Sesame, seed                                                        0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sugarcane                                                            1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tea                                                                 0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vegetable, bulb, group 3, except                                    0.70
 onion, bulb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1..                                0.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-16310 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: December 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 76050-76051]
[DOCID:fr22de05-55]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0006; FRL-8013-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Partial Update of the TSCA
Section 8(b) Inventory Data Base, Production and Site Reports; EPA ICR
Number 1884.03, OMB Number 2070-0162

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that the following Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval: Partial Update of the TSCA
Section 8(b) Inventory Data Base, Production and Site Reports; EPA ICR
No. 1884.03, OMB No. 2070-0162. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection activity and its
expected burden and costs.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 23,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0006, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:

Document Control Office (DCO), Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 7407T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Cunningham, Acting Director,
Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 7408, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-
554-1404; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On March 23, 2005 (70 FR 14677), EPA sought comments on this
renewal ICR. EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.8(d). EPA received two comments during the comment period, which
are addressed in the Supporting Statement of the ICR. Any comments
related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0006, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket, or in person inspection at the OPPT Docket

in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Use http://www.regulations.gov to submit or

view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,''
then key in the docket ID number identified above.
    EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted
electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing
in http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless

the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a
comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference
to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in
http://www.regulations.gov. The entire printed comment, including the

copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although
identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as
CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not
included in the official public docket, and will not be available for
public viewing in http://www.regulations.gov. For further information about

the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: Partial Update of the TSCA Section 8(b) Inventory Data Base,
Production and Site Reports.
    ICR Status: This is a request to renew an existing approved
collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Section 8(b),
requires EPA to compile and keep current a complete list of chemical
substances manufactured or processed in the United States. EPA updates
this inventory of chemicals every four years by requiring
manufacturers, processors and importers to provide production volume,
plant site information and site-limited status information. This
information allows EPA to identify what chemicals are or are not
currently in commerce and to take appropriate regulatory action as
necessary. EPA also uses the information for screening chemicals for
risks to human health or the environment, for priority-setting efforts,
and for exposure estimates.
    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40
CFR 710). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice as CBI. EPA
will disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim only to the
extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40 CFR
part 2.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing
in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and included on
the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to range between
265 hours and 609 hours per response, depending upon the type(s) of
chemical(s) that a respondent must report. Burden means the total time,
effort or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are companies that manufacture, process or import chemical
substances, mixtures or categories.
    Frequency of Collection: Every four years.
    Estimated total/average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated No. of Respondents: 3,026.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 413,575 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Costs: $28,362,706.
    Changes in Burden Estimates: This request reflects a decrease of 2
hours (from 413,577 hours to 413,575 hours) in the total estimated
respondent burden from that currently in the OMB inventory, reflecting
a rounding error. This change is an adjustment.

    Dated: December 14, 2005.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E5-7725 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P