[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 23 (Friday, February 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8413-8416]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02396]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91028; File No. SR-CBOE-2021-008]

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

February 1, 2021.
    Pursuant to 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 January 19, 2021, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), 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 Fees Schedule in connection with
Related Future Cross (``RFC'') orders, effective January 19, 2021.
    By way of background, from March 16 to June 12, 2020, the Exchange
closed its trading floor in response to the coronavirus pandemic. As a
result, the Exchange operated in an all-electronic configuration.
Because the trading floor was closed during this time, floor brokers
could not execute crosses of option combos (i.e., synthetic futures) on
the trading floor on behalf of market participants who were exchanging
futures contracts in either VIX or SPX for related options positions in
order to swap related exposures, and there was no means to
electronically pair and execute the options legs of these transactions
on the Exchange. To enable Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') to execute
the options part of these transactions when the floor was closed, the
Exchange adopted the electronic RFC order type for when the trading
floor facilities were inoperable.\3\ Footnote 12 of the Fees Schedule
was also amended to, among other things, (1) provide a waiver for SPX/
SPXW Execution Surcharges \4\ for RFC orders, and (2) adopt an RFC
Execution Surcharge for all SPX/SPXW and VIX initiating orders,
applicable while the trading floor remained inoperable.\5\ More
specifically, pursuant to the Underlying Symbol List A Rate Table in
the Fees Schedule, a $0.05 per contract fee is assessed for SPX and
SPXW RFC initiating orders and a $0.04 per contract fee is assessed for
VIX RFC initiating orders while the trading floor is inoperable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88447 (March 20,
2020), 85 FR 17129 (March 26, 2020) (CBOE-2020-023).
    \4\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, ``Rate Table--Underlying
Symbol List A'', which assesses an SPX Execution Surcharge of $0.21
per contract and a SPXW Execution Surcharge of $0.13 per contract
for non-Market Maker orders in SPX and SPXW, respectively.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Exchange reopened its trading floor, the Exchange
submitted a rule filing which permanently adopted RFC orders for
trading in the Exchange's normal hybrid trading environment under Rule
5.33(b)(5).\6\ The Exchange plans to launch the RFC order type for its
normal hybrid trading environment on January 19, 2021. For purposes of
electronic trading, an RFC order is an SPX or VIX complex order
comprised of an option combo order coupled with a contra-side order or
orders totaling an equal number of option combo orders. For purposes of
open outcry trading, an RFC order is an SPX or VIX complex order
comprised of an option combo that may execute against a contra-side RFC
order or orders totaling an equal number of option combo orders. An RFC
order must be identified to the Exchange as being part of an exchange
of option contracts for related futures positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89768 (September 4,
2020), 85 FR 55869 (September 10, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-060).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule in light of the
adoption of RFC orders on a permanent basis. As noted above, footnote
12 currently provides that the SPX and SPXW Execution Surcharges will
be waived for SPX/SPXW RFC orders, and that the RFC Execution Surcharge
for SPX/SPXW and VIX will apply to all SPX/SPXW and VIX RFC initiating
orders, only when the trading floor is inoperable.\7\ The proposed rule
change removes the SPX/SPXW Execution Surcharge waiver language in
connection with RFC orders from footnote 12 and relocates it to
footnote 21, which footnote sets forth other exceptions to the SPX and
SPXW Execution Surcharges.\8\ Particularly, the Exchange proposes to
relocate the language as the waiver will now apply at all times (once
the RFC order type is implemented on the Exchange), as RFC orders will
be available at all times rather than only when the trading floor is
inoperable. Additionally, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
include the waiver language in a footnote that already contains other
exceptions to the SPX and SPXW Execution Surcharges. Specifically,
footnote 25 as proposed provides that all electronic executions in SPX,
SPXW and SPESG shall be assessed the SPX, SPXW and SPESG Execution
Surcharge, respectively, except that this fee shall not apply to SPX/
SPXW Related Future Cross (``RFC'') orders (among the current list of
other orders). Likewise, the proposed rule change also removes the
language from footnote 12 providing that the RFC Execution Surcharge
for SPX/SPXW and VIX RFC initiating orders will apply to all SPX/SPXW
and VIC RFC initiating orders, and relocates it to new footnote 25, as
the RFC Execution Surcharges will now apply at all times.\9\ As a
result of the proposed relocation of the RFC execution surcharge
language from footnote 12 to footnote 25, the proposed rule change also
removes footnote 12 appended to the RFC Execution Surcharge Fee in the
``Rate Table--Underlying Symbol List A'' section of the Fees Schedule.
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change does not alter the
current waiver language or surcharge rates already in place pursuant to
footnote 12 for transactions in temporary RFC orders (while the
Exchange's trading floor was inoperable), but merely removes the
applicable RFC waiver and execution surcharge language in footnote 12
and relocates it to footnotes 21 and 25, respectively so that the same
waiver and

surcharge rates may apply to permanent RFC orders trading in the
Exchange's normal hybrid environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Footnote 12 also provides that contracts executed as an RFC
order during a time when the Exchange operates in a screen-based
only environment will not count towards the 1,000 contract
thresholds for the SPX/SPXW, VIX and RUT Tier Appointment Fees. The
Exchange notes that the proposed rule change does not amend this
exclusion applicable during which the trading floor may be
inoperable because if the trading floor become inoperable then a TPH
would only have the option of using electronic RFC orders, which may
cause a TPH to hit the Electronic Tier Appointment surcharge where a
TPH may not have hit the threshold before when using the trading
floor to execute RFC orders.
    \8\ The proposed rule change appends footnote 21 to the RFC
Execution Surcharge Fee in the ``Rate Table--Underlying Symbol List
A'' section of the Fees Schedule.
    \9\ The proposed rule change appends footnote 25 to the RFC
Execution Surcharge Fee in the ``Rate Table--Underlying Symbol List
A'' section of the Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\10\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ 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
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act, in that, it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. The proposed rule change is reasonable because it does
not alter the SPX/SPXW Execution Surcharge fee waiver and SPX/SPXW and
VIX RFC Execution Surcharges currently applicable to RFC orders (while
the trading floor may be inoperable), but merely updates the waiver and
surcharge language to appropriately reflect its application to the
permanent RFC orders recently adopted by the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that, generally, the SPX/SPXW Execution Surcharge waiver in
place for RFC orders is reasonable and equitable because it will
encourage market participants to submit volume executed as RFC orders
both electronically and on the trading floor, assisting the Exchange in
maintaining a robust hybrid environment. Also, the Exchange believes
that, generally, the RFC Execution Surcharges currently in place are
reasonable and equitable, as they are generally in line with or lower
than other execution surcharges assessed under the Fees Schedule,\13\
and are less than the SPX/SPXW Execution Surcharges ($0.21 and $0.13,
respectively) that will ultimately be waived for RFC transactions.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the SPX/SPXW
Execution Surcharge waiver and the RFC Execution Surcharge will
continue to apply in the same uniform manner for the same transactions,
both electronically and in open outcry, for all TPHs that submit RFC
orders to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, ``Rate Table--Underlying
Symbol List A'', which assesses a VIX Customer Priority Surcharge of
$0.20 per contract, and AIM Surcharge fees (while the trading floor
is operating in an all-electronic environment) ranging between $0.04
and $0.10 per contract depending on the type of AIM order and
options class (i.e., SPX, SPXW, SPESG or VIX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the SPX/
SPXW Execution Surcharge waiver and the RFC Execution Surcharges will
continue to apply to all TPHs that submit RFC orders to the Exchange as
it does today, and will uniformly apply to RFC orders executed
electronically and in open outcry. The Exchange does not believe that
the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because the transaction fee waiver will continue to
apply to RFC orders available only for Exchange proprietary products,
SPX/SPXW and VIX.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \15\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2021-008 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-CBOE-2021-008. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal offices 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-CBOE-2021-008, and should be submitted
on or before February 26, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02396 Filed 2-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 35)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9506-9507]
[DOCID:fr21fe08-29]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2005-ME-0008; A-1-FRL-8526-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maine; Open Burning Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Maine. This revision limits open
burning of construction and demolition debris to on-site burning for
the disposal of wood wastes and painted and unpainted wood, and adds
restrictions to open burning conducted for training, research and
recreational purposes. The revised rule also defines which open-burning
recreational activities do not require a permit, such as residential
use of outdoor grills and fireplaces, and recreational campfires while
the ground is covered in snow. The revised rule eliminates provisions
that allowed permits to be issued for open burning of rubbish where no
rubbish collection is available or ``reasonably located'' and where
``there is no other suitable method for disposal.'' In addition, the
revised rule includes a reference to reasonable precautions required by
Maine statute 38 MRSA section 1296 to prevent the introduction of lead
into the environment from lead-based paint. This action will have a
beneficial effect on air quality in Maine by reducing emissions of
particulate matter, air toxics, and other pollutants, especially from
the burning of lead-painted wood, plastics, metals, and other non-wood
materials. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air
Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 24, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2005-ME-0008 by one of the following methods:

    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R01-OAR-2005-ME-0008'', Anne Arnold, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One
Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
Section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments,
the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule located in
the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: January 16, 2008.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA, New England.
 [FR Doc. E8-3302 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28641-28642]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11700]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66952; File No. 4-443]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Amendment to the Plan for the Purpose of Developing and Implementing
Procedures To Facilitate the Listing and Trading of Standardized
Options To Add BOX Options Exchange LLC as a Sponsor

May 9, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 2, 2012, BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') an
amendment to the Plan for the Purpose of Developing and Implementing
Procedures to Facilitate the Listing and Trading of Standardized
Options (``OLPP'').\3\ The amendment proposes to add BOX as a Sponsor
of the OLPP. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3).
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ On July 6, 2001, the Commission approved the OLPP, which was
proposed by the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''), Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), International
Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE''), Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC''), Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''), and Pacific
Exchange, Inc. (``PCX'') (n/k/a NYSE Arca). See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 44521, 66 FR 36809 (July 13, 2001). On February 5,
2004, Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'') was added as a Sponsor
to OLPP. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49199, 69 FR 7030
(February 12, 2004). On March 21, 2008, the Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC
(``Nasdaq'') was added as a Sponsor to the OLPP. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 57546, 73 FR 16393 (March 27, 2008). On
February 17, 2010, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') was added as a
Sponsor to the OLPP. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61528,
75 FR 8415 (February 24, 2010). On October 22, 2010, C2 Options
Exchange Incorporated (``C2'') was added as a Sponsor to the OLPP.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63162, 75 FR 66401 (October
28, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description and Purpose of the Amendment

    The current Sponsors of the OLPP are BATS, BSE., CBOE, C2, ISE.,
NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca, OCC, Phlx and Nasdaq. The proposed amendment to
the OLPP would add BOX as a Sponsor of the OLPP. A national securities
exchange may become a Sponsor if it satisfies the requirement of
Section 7 of the OLPP. Specifically an Eligible Exchange \4\ may become
a Sponsor of the OLPP by: (i) Executing a copy of the OLPP, as then in
effect; (ii) providing each current Plan Sponsor with a copy of such
executed Plan; and (iii) effecting an amendment to the OLPP, as
specified in Section 7(ii) of the OLPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The OLPP defines an ``Eligible Exchange'' as a national
securities exchange registered with the Commission pursuant to
Section 6(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78f(a), that (1) has
effective rules for the trading of options contracts issued and
cleared by the OCC approved in accordance with the provisions of the
Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder and (2) is a
party to the Plan for Reporting Consolidated Options Last Sale
Reports and Quotation Information (the ``OPRA Plan''). C2 has
represented that it has met both the requirements for being
considered an Eligible Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 7(ii) of the OLPP sets forth the process by which an
Eligible Exchange may effect an amendment to the OLPP. Specifically, an
Eligible Exchange must: (a) execute a copy of the OLPP with the only
change being the addition of the new sponsor's name in Section 8 of the
OLPP; \5\ and (b) submit the executed OLPP to the Commission. The OLPP
then provides that such an amendment will be effective at the later of
either the amendment being approved by the Commission or otherwise
becoming effective pursuant to Section 11A of the Act. BOX has
submitted a signed copy of the OLPP to the Commission and to each Plan
Sponsor in accordance with the procedures set forth in the OLPP
regarding new Plan Sponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission notes that the list of plan sponsors is set
forth in Section 9 of the OLPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Effectiveness of the Proposed Linkage Plan Amendment

    The foregoing proposed OLPP amendment has become effective pursuant
to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) \6\ because it involves solely technical or
ministerial matters. At any time within sixty days of the filing of
this amendment, the Commission may summarily abrogate the amendment and
require that it be refiled pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) of Rule
608,\7\ if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary
or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors
or the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number 4-443 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number 4-443. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at BOX's principal office. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. 4-443 and should be submitted on
or before June 5, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11700 Filed 5-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 25890-25891]
[DOCID:fr10my10-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62028; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-65]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. To Add
Seventy-Five Options Classes to the Penny Pilot Program

May 4, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on April 27, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to designate
seventy-five options classes to be added to the Penny Pilot Program
(``Penny Pilot'' or ``Pilot'') on May 3, 2010.\3\ The Exchange is not
proposing to amend any rule text, but simply administering or enforcing
an existing rule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Penny Pilot was established in January 2007 and in
October 2009 was expanded and extended through December 31, 2010.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55153 (January 23, 2007),
72 FR 4553 (January 31, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2006-74) (notice of filing
and approval order establishing Penny Pilot); 60873 (October 23,
2009), 74 FR 56675 (November 2, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-91) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness expanding and extending Penny
Pilot); and 60966 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59331 (November 17,
2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-94) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); and 61454
(February 1, 2010), 75 FR 6233 (February 8, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-12)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five
classes to Penny Pilot).
    \4\ See Rule 1034 regarding the Penny Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/
Filings/, at the principal office of the Exchange, 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 purpose of this filing is to identify the next seventy-five
options classes to be added to the Penny Pilot effective May 3, 2010.
    In the Exchange's immediately effective filing to extend and expand
the Penny Pilot through December 31, 2010,\5\ the Exchange proposed
expanding the Pilot four times on a quarterly basis. Each such
quarterly expansion would be of the next seventy-five most actively
traded multiply listed options classes based on the national average
daily volume (``ADV'') for the six months prior to selection, closing
under $200 per share on the Expiration Friday prior to expansion;
however, the month immediately preceding the addition of options to the
Penny Pilot will not be used for the purpose of the six month analysis.
Index option products would be included in the quarterly expansions if
the underlying index levels were under 200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60873 (October 23,
2009), 74 FR 56675 (November 2, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-91) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is identifying, in the chart below, seventy-five
options classes that it will add to the Penny Pilot on May 3, 2010,
based on ADVs for the six months ending March 31, 2010.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Nat'l ranking          Symbol          Security name     Nat'l ranking          Symbol         Security name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
153...............  XLV...............  Health Care       247..............  JCP..............  JC Penney Co
                                         Select Sector                                           Inc.
                                         SPDR Fund.
155...............  CIEN..............  Ciena Corp......  248..............  ACL..............  Alcon Inc.
157...............  AMLN..............  Amylin            249..............  STP..............  Suntech Power
                                         Pharmaceuticals                                         Holdings Co
                                         Inc.                                                    Ltd.
158...............  CTIC..............  Cell              250..............  TLB..............  Talbots Inc.
                                         Therapeutics
                                         Inc.
159...............  MDT...............  Medtronic Inc...  251..............  SYMC.............  Symantec Corp.
162...............  TIVO..............  TiVo Inc........  253..............  AMED.............  Amedisys Inc.
163...............  MNKD..............  MannKind Corp...  255..............  TM...............  Toyota Motor
                                                                                Corp.
171...............  MDVN..............  Medivation Inc..  257..............  HK...............  Petrohawk Energy
                                                                                Corp.
176...............  BRKB..............  Berkshire         258..............  ENER.............  Energy
                                         Hathaway Inc.                                           Conversion
                                                                                Devices Inc.
178...............  APOL..............  Apollo Group Inc  259..............  STT..............  State Street
                                                                                Corp.
181...............  BSX...............  Boston            260..............  BHP..............  BHP Billiton
                                         Scientific Corp.                                        Ltd.
185...............  XLY...............  Consumer          261..............  NFLX.............  NetFlix Inc.
                                         Discretionary
                                         Sel. Sec. SPDR
                                         Fund.
188...............  CLF...............  Cliffs Natural    262..............  LDK..............  LDK Solar Co
                                         Resources Inc.                                          Ltd.
190...............  ZION..............  Zions             263..............  SPG..............  Simon Property
                                         Bancorporation.                                         Group Inc.
194...............  IOC...............  InterOil Corp...  264..............  TIF..............  Tiffany & Co.
197...............  ITMN..............  InterMune Inc...  265..............  BUCY.............  Bucyrus
                                                                                International
                                                                                Inc.
204...............  GME...............  GameStop Corp...  266..............  WAG..............  Walgreen Co.
209...............  XLK...............  Technology        268..............  IP...............  International
                                         Select Sector                                           Paper Co.
                                         SPDR Fund.
210...............  AKS...............  AK Steel Holding  271..............  XME..............  SPDR S&P Metals
                                         Corp.                                                   & Mining ETF.
212...............  GRMN..............  Garmin Ltd......  272..............  KGC..............  Kinross Gold
                                                                                Corp.
213...............  MRVL..............  Marvell           273..............  EP...............  El Paso Corp.
                                         Technology
                                         Group Ltd.
215...............  XLP...............  Consumer Staples  274..............  SEED.............  Origin Agritech
                                         Select Sector                                           Ltd.
                                         SPDR Fund.

216...............  UNP...............  Union Pacific     275..............  WIN..............  Windstream Corp.
                                         Corp.
220...............  DTV...............  DIRECTV.........  279..............  DHI..............  DR Horton Inc.
223...............  WMB...............  Williams Cos Inc/ 280..............  ADBE.............  Adobe Systems
                                         The.                                                    Inc.
225...............  MEE...............  Massey Energy Co  281..............  PCX..............  Patriot Coal
                                                                                Corp.
227...............  CELG..............  Celgene Corp....  282..............  SPWRA............  SunPower Corp.
229...............  GMCR..............  Green Mountain    284..............  LCC..............  US Airways Group
                                         Coffee Roasters                                         Inc.
                                         Inc.
231...............  WDC...............  Western Digital   285..............  PRU..............  Prudential
                                         Corp.                                                   Financial Inc.
234...............  DAL...............  Delta Air Lines   286..............  LEN..............  Lennar Corp.
                                         Inc.
235...............  FXE...............  CurrencyShares    287..............  EWT..............  iShares MSCI
                                         Euro Trust.                                             Taiwan Index
                                                                                Fund.
237...............  COST..............  Costco Wholesale  288..............  KBH..............  KB Home.
                                         Corp.
239...............  MJN...............  Mead Johnson      289..............  CREE.............  Cree Inc.
                                         Nutrition Co.
240...............  ALL...............  Allstate Corp/    290..............  SIRI.............  Sirius XM Radio
                                         The.                                                    Inc.
241...............  SII...............  Smith             291..............  MMR..............  McMoRan
                                         International                                           Exploration Co.
                                         Inc.
242...............  RTN...............  Raytheon Co.....  292..............  CENX.............  Century Aluminum
                                                                                Co.
243...............  DVN...............  Devon Energy      293..............  GFI..............  Gold Fields Ltd.
                                         Corp.
244...............  MT................  ArcelorMittal...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that it is 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 facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system, by identifying the options classes
to be added to the Penny Pilot in a manner consistent with prior
approvals and filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(1) thereunder,\9\ the Exchange has designated this proposal as one
constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect
to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-65 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-65. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-65 and should be
submitted on or before June 1, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10964 Filed 5-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN 3751 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ Office of Air and Radiation/ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 2. OMB control number b. X None a__ __ __ __  __ __ __ __ _ 20 6_ 0_

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NSPS: Other Solid Waste Incineration ( OSWI) Units ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart EEEE)( Proposed Rule)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable): 2163.01 9. Keywords:

Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control, Solid Waste Disposal, Recordkeeping and Reporting 10. Abstract: Each owner or operator of a source affected by the NSPS is required to submit a siting analysis and waste management plan, maintain operator training and qualification records, perform testing and monitoring, submit one time and periodic reports, and maintain records. However, no new OSWI units are expected to be constructed or operated, so there will be no annual burden.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. P Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 0 b. Total annual responses 1 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 c. Total hours requested 1 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 1 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 1 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 0 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 0 d. Current OMB inventory $ 0 e. Difference $ 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change $ 0 2. Adjustment $ 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) One time 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Mary Johnson, U. S. EPA, Phone: 919 541 5025 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 183 (Friday, September 20, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49480-49481]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19998]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0007; FRL-9999-63-Region 8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Intermountain Waste Oil
Refinery Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces
the deletion of the Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery Superfund Site
(Site) located in Bountiful, Salt Lake County, Utah, from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and
the State of Utah, through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality
(UDEQ), have determined that all appropriate response actions under
CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance, and five-year reviews,
have been completed. However, this

deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: This action is effective September 20, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0007. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information 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 either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the site information repositories. Locations, contacts,
phone numbers and viewing hours are: Utah Department of Environmental
Quality, Salt Lake City, UT 84047; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); Hours: M-Th:
9 a.m.--9 p.m.; Fri-Sat: 9 a.m.--5:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erna Waterman, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode: SEM-
RB, Denver, CO 80202,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is:
Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery Superfund Site, Bountiful, Salt Lake
County, Utah. A Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site was published
in the Federal Register (84 FR 35356) on July 23, 2019.
    The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was
August 22, 2019. One public comment in support of the deletion was
received; no adverse comments were received.
    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action.
Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of
the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not
affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future
conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

     Dated: September 4, 2019.
Gregory E. Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry
``UT, Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery, Bountiful''.
[FR Doc. 2019-19998 Filed 9-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11133-11139]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03624]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0233; FRL-10005-77]

Tetraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
tetraniliprole in or on multiple commodities that are identified and
discussed later in this document. Bayer CropScience requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 24, 2021. Objections and

requests for hearings must be received on or before April 26, 2021, 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: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0233, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0233 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 26, 2021. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0233, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 15, 2017 (82 FR 59604) (FRL-
9970-50), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
7F8558) by Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended
by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide,
tetraniliprole in or on tuberous and corm vegetables, crop group 1C at
0.015 parts per million (ppm); potato, wet peel at 0.02 ppm; leafy
vegetables, crop group 4-16 at 20 ppm; Brassica head and stem
vegetables, crop group 5-16 at 1.5 ppm; fruiting vegetables, crop group
8-10 at 0.40 ppm; tomato paste at 1.5 ppm; citrus fruit, orange
subgroup 10-10A at 0.50 ppm; citrus fruit, lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B
at 0.80 ppm; citrus fruit, grapefruit subgroup 10-10C at 0.50 ppm;
citrus oil at 4.0 ppm; pome fruit, crop group 11-10 at 0.40 ppm; stone
fruit, crop group 12-12 at 1.0 ppm; plum, dried (prune) at 2.0 ppm;
small fruit, vine climbing subgroup, except fuzzy kiwi, crop subgroup
13-07F at 1.5 ppm; tree nuts, crop group 14-12 at 0.03 ppm; almond
hulls at 4.0 ppm; corn, field, grain at 0.015 ppm; corn, field, forage
at 4.0 ppm; corn, field, stover at 15 ppm; corn, pop, grain at 0.015
ppm; corn, pop, stover at 15 ppm; corn, sweet, kernel plus cobs with
husks removed at 0.01 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 6.0 ppm; corn, sweet,
stover at 20 ppm; cottonseed, crop group 20C at 0.40 ppm; cotton, gin
byproducts at 30 ppm; soybean seed at 0.20 ppm; soybean hulls at 0.60
ppm; aspirated grain fractions at 45 ppm; soybean forage at 0.07 ppm;
soybean hay at 0.20 ppm; alfalfa, forage and hay at 0.06 ppm; forage,
fodder and straw of cereal grains, crop group 16, except field, pop and
sweet corn at 0.10 ppm; foliage of legume vegetables, crop group 7,
except soybeans at 0.03 ppm; milk at 0.06 ppm; fat of cattle, horses,
sheep and goats at 0.30 ppm; muscle of cattle, horses, sheep and goats
at 0.03 ppm; meat by-products of cattle, horses, sheep and goats at
0.30 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared
by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of
filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the levels at which tolerances are being established as well
as some of the commodity definitions used. The reasons for these
changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA 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 tetraniliprole including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with tetraniliprole
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The submitted animal toxicity studies on tetraniliprole demonstrate
low toxicity, which is expected based on two factors. Tetraniliprole is
an anthranilimide insecticide that targets the activation of insect
ryanodine receptors, which leads to insect paralysis and death. In
contrast, mammalian ryanodine receptors are substantially less
sensitive (i.e., 350 to >2,500 times less sensitive) to the effects of
anthranilic diamides than insect ryanodine receptors. Moreover,
available data indicate that tetraniliprole has limited absorption at
the higher dose levels (>20 mg/kg), which may contribute to the low
toxicity seen in the animal testing.
    In subchronic toxicity studies (28-day and 90-day) in rats and
mice, no adverse effects were seen at dose levels ranging from
approximately 600 to 1,228 mg/kg/day. In the subchronic studies (28-day
and 90-day) in dogs, an increase in the incidence and frequency of
salivation was found, but this finding did not show a dose related-
response, was a common occurrence in dogs, and was not considered to be
adverse.
    No systemic or dermal toxicity was seen in a 28-day dermal toxicity
study at 1,000 mg/kg/day; this finding was consistent with rather low
dermal absorption as the DAF for humans was estimated to be
approximately 9% (upper limit).
    No adverse maternal or developmental effects were found at the
limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day) in the developmental toxicity studies in
rats and rabbits. In the reproduction study, the offspring effect,
slight decrease in pup weight near and above the limit dose, was found
in the absence of any adverse parental effect. Because the potential
increase in susceptibility occurred at the limit dose and on postnatal
days (PND) 14 to 21 at which time the pups were exposed to the test
material through both milk and food resulting in a higher compound
intake, the Agency's concern for the potential risk to infants and
children is low. Tetraniliprole did not cause any effects on
reproductive parameters.
    The combined chronic/carcinogenicity study in rats showed a
decrease in body weights, increased incidence of squamous cell
hyperplasia in the cervix and vagina, and corpora lutea depletion in
the ovary at the limit dose. In addition, a slight increase in the
incidence of uterine tumor was observed at a dose slightly above the
limit dose. No genotoxic potential was detected in the battery of
genotoxicity studies. There were no treatment-related tumors seen in
mice and no adverse effects were observed in male rats. The only
adverse effects observed in female rats occurred at the limit dose,
which was the only dose where pre-neoplastic or neoplastic lesions were
observed. Furthermore, there is no concern for mutagenicity and none of
the identified structurally-related compounds induced tumors in rats or
mice. Based on the available data that indicates that the increased
incidence of uterine tumor was seen in only one species (rat), one sex
(female), and is only slightly outside of the historical control range,
EPA has classified tetraniliprole as having ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential.''
    Typically, for chemicals so classified, EPA recommends that a non-
linear or RfD approach be used because the RfD would be protective for
all toxicity, including carcinogenicity. However, in the case of
tetraniliprole, EPA determined that the existing data do not support
establishing toxicity endpoints and that a qualitative assessment is
more appropriate for assessing tetraniliprole. This analysis is
discussed more fully in Unit III.B. below. Similarly, because of the
suggestive nature of the carcinogenicity effects and the fact that the
only tumor effects are seen at doses above the limit dose, EPA has
determined that a qualitative risk assessment would be appropriate in
this case to account for all toxicity including carcinogenicity.
    No acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies were submitted for
tetraniliprole because this requirement was waived. However, no
evidence of neurotoxicity was seen in any of the other studies in the
tetraniliprole database.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by tetraniliprole 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.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Tetraniliprole: New Active
Ingredient, First Food Use. Human Health Risk Assessment for the
Establishment of Permanent Tolerances on Brassica Head and Stem
Vegetables, Corn (Field, Pop and Sweet), Citrus Fruit, Fruiting
Vegetables, Leafy Vegetables, Pome Fruit, Small Fruit Vine Growing
(except Fuzzy Kiwifruit) including Grape, Soybean, Stone Fruit, Tree
Nuts, and Tuberous and Corm Vegetables, Plus Registration for Seed
Treatment Uses on Corn (Field, Pop and Sweet), Use on Tobacco, and Use
on Golf Course Turf, Sport Fields, and Sod Farms'' on pages 33-69 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0233.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are

observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used
in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--
generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a
reference dose (RfD)--and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-
threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will
lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms
of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a
lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in
risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment
process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    Based on a thorough analysis of the toxicology database of
tetraniliprole, the Agency has determined that a qualitative risk
assessment is more appropriate for tetraniliprole based on the
following reasons:
     All the adverse effects (decrease in pup body weights and
non-neoplastic uterine lesions, characterized by prolapsed vagina,
squamous cell hyperplasia in the cervix) in rats were found at or
slightly above the limit dose. Although informative for hazard
characterization for purposes of risk assessment, a toxicity test dose
at or above the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day represents an exposure
that is not expected to occur either daily or over an extended period
of time and therefore is not relevant to exposure levels expected from
the use of tetraniliprole.
     EPA determined that the body weight reduction effects seen
in the 90-day and 1-year oral studies with the dog, (approximately 500
mg/kg/day) were not robust enough to be employed as a toxicity endpoint
for risk assessment, due to the marginal nature of those effects and
the fact that the rat (for which effects were seen at the 1,000 mg/kg/
day, limit dose) was more sensitive, based on a human equivalent dose
analysis.
     Available data indicate no potential inhalation risk of
concern.
     Available data indicate no adverse systemic effects at the
limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day) for dermal exposure.
     Potential offspring susceptibility was not of concern as
the decrease in pup weight seen in the reproduction study was marginal
and occurred at or above the limit dose (890/1,032 mg/kg/day (males/
females)). In addition, the decrease occurred on postnatal days (PND)
14 to 21, at which time the pups were likely to be exposed to the test
material through both milk and feed resulting in a much higher compound
intake.
     Finally, taking into account expected exposures, EPA does
not anticipate dietary exposure levels to occur daily, or over an
extended period of time that would reach levels anywhere near that of
the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). An unrefined chronic dietary (food
only) exposure estimate of tetraniliprole was calculated using
tolerance-level residues for all crops and assuming 100% crop treated,
as well as default processing factors. The screening estimate indicated
that the highest exposure group is children 1 to 2 years old, with an
estimated exposure of 0.027 mg/kg/day. To reach a dose of 1,000 mg/kg/
day, an individual of this subpopulation would need to ingest 37,000
times the estimated dietary exposure. Further, the highest current
application rate is approximately 0.18 lb ai/acre; and in order to
yield residues that would lead to dietary exposures of 1,000 mg/kg/day,
the application rate would have to be greater than 6,000 lb ai/acre.
Consequently, EPA does not believe that an effect at or about the limit
dose is relevant to human health risk assessment for tetraniliprole.
    Taking all the foregoing into consideration, EPA has concluded that
a qualitative analysis of tetraniliprole is appropriate.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. There is potential for
exposure to tetraniliprole via food and feed based on the proposed
uses. However, no adverse effects were observed in the submitted
toxicological studies for tetraniliprole regardless of the route of
exposure. Thus, no quantitative dietary exposure assessments are needed
for EPA to conclude with reasonable certainty that dietary exposures to
tetraniliprole do not pose a significant human health risk.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. There are no residues of
toxicological concern expected in drinking water from the use of
tetraniliprole. Thus, no drinking water exposure assessments are needed
for the Agency to conclude with reasonable certainty that drinking
water exposures to tetraniliprole do not pose a significant human
health risk.
    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).
    Based upon the proposed labels, EPA does not anticipate residential
handler exposures. Tetraniliprole is being proposed for registration as
a liquid formulation for use on golf course turf and sports fields that
could result in residential post-application exposures. However, no
adverse effects were observed in the submitted toxicological studies
for tetraniliprole regardless of the route of exposure; therefore, a
quantitative residential post-application exposure assessment was not
conducted. Thus, no residential exposure assessments are needed for the
Agency to conclude with reasonable certainty that residential exposures
to tetraniliprole do not pose a significant human health risk.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found tetraniliprole to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and tetraniliprole does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
tetraniliprole does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires the application of an additional
tenfold margin of safety to account for potential risks to infants and
children, in the case of threshold effects. For tetraniliprole, EPA has
not identified any toxicological endpoints of concern associated with
any threshold effects and is conducting a qualitative assessment. That
qualitative assessment does not use safety factors for assessing risk,
and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants
and children. EPA has also evaluated the available data and concluded
that there are no residual uncertainties concerning the

potential risks to infants and children that would impact its
conclusions about threshold effects.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    No adverse effects were observed in the submitted toxicological
studies at doses relevant to human health pesticide risk assessment for
tetraniliprole regardless of the route of exposure. Effects observed in
the data base (e.g., decreased body weight) were both marginal, and
only seen at doses not expected to occur daily or over an extended
period. Based on a lack of toxicity at exposure levels expected from
approved application rates and an expectation that aggregate exposures
to residues of tetraniliprole will not reach the levels required to
cause any adverse effects, 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 tetraniliprole
residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate analytical method (01414) which uses high-performance
liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS) to
quantitate residues of tetraniliprole in various crops is available for
enforcement. An adequate HPLC/MS/MS method, Method FV-002-A16-01, is
proposed as the enforcement method for determination of residues of
tetraniliprole in livestock matrices. The methods may be requested
from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center,
701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-
2905; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established any MRLs for tetraniliprole.

C. Response to Comments

    Five comments were received to the notice of filing. Four of the
comments were not related specifically to tetraniliprole or pesticides
in general, dealing instead with ``anti-environmental morons'',
electric cars, and wind farms and their impact on birds and bats. The
fifth comment was submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological
Diversity that was primarily concerned about EPA's consideration of the
impacts of tetraniliprole on the environment, pollinators, and
endangered species. None of these comments are relevant to the Agency's
evaluation of safety of the tetraniliprole tolerances under section 408
of the FFDCA, which requires the Agency to evaluate the potential harms
to human health, not effects on the environment.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The Agency is establishing tolerances based on the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) rounding class practice and
to reflect the preferred commodity definitions currently used by the
Agency, which results in some variations between established tolerances
and the tolerances the petitioner requested.
    For field corn and popcorn, the available data support a tolerance
of 0.01 ppm, slightly lower than the petitioned-for tolerance (0.015
ppm).
    The petitioner requested tolerances on dried fruit (prune) and
potato wet peel. The available data indicates that residues on those
commodities do not concentrate so the new tolerances on stone fruit
group 12-12 (1.0 ppm) and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C
(0.015 ppm), respectively, are adequate to cover residues in these
commodities.
    For citrus fruits (subgroups 10-10A, 10B, and 10C), the Agency used
the OECD statistical calculation procedures to determine the
appropriate tolerance value based on the available field trial residue
data, which resulted in a higher tolerance value for each of these
subgroups than what the petitioner requested.
    Based on the highest average field trial (HAFT) (0.767 ppm) for
lime and using a processing factor of 8.6, the Agency calculated that a
tolerance of 7 ppm is necessary to cover residues in citrus oil.
Similarly, based on the HAFT (0.136 ppm) for soybean seed and using a
processing factor of 2.6, the Agency determined that a tolerance of 0.4
ppm is appropriate for soybean hulls.
    Although the petitioner did not expressly identify certain
tolerances as intended to cover indirect or inadvertent residues in
rotational crops, because certain crops are only approved as crops that
may be rotated into treated fields on the label, EPA is establishing
tolerances for indirect or inadvertent residues for those commodities:
alfalfa, forage at 0.015 ppm; alfalfa, hay at 0.06 ppm; cottonseed
subgroup 20C at 0.4 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts at 30 ppm; grain,
cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, except field corn,
popcorn, and sweet corn at 0.1 ppm; and vegetable, foliage of legume,
except soybean, subgroup 7A.
    All the proposed tolerances for livestock commodities were revised
based on calculation of the dietary burden.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
tetraniliprole, including its metabolites and degradates. Compliance
with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only
tetraniliprole 1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-
[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-3-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2H-tetrazol-2-
yl]methyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, in or on almond, hulls at 4 ppm;
cattle, fat at 0.04 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.02 ppm; cattle, meat
byproducts at 0.3 ppm; corn, field, forage at 4 ppm; corn, field, grain
at 0.01 ppm; corn, field, stover at 15 ppm; corn, pop, grain at 0.01
ppm; corn, pop, stover at 15 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 6 ppm; corn,
sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.01 ppm; corn, sweet,
stover at 20 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10, oil at 7 ppm; fruit,
pome, group 11-10 at 0.5 ppm; fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy
kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 1.5 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 1
ppm; goat, fat at 0.04 ppm; goat, meat at 0.02 ppm; goat, meat
byproducts at 0.3 ppm; grain, aspirated fractions at 50 ppm; grapefruit

subgroup 10-10C at 0.9 ppm; horse, fat at 0.04 ppm; horse, meat at 0.02
ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.3 ppm; lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B at
1.5 ppm; milk at 0.05 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.03 ppm; orange
subgroup 10-10A at 1 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.04 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.02
ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 0.3 ppm; soybean, forage 0.07 ppm;
soybean, hay at 0.2 ppm; soybean, hulls at 0.4 ppm; soybean, seed at
0.2 ppm; tomato, paste at 1.5 ppm; vegetable, brassica, head and stem,
group 5-16 at 1.5 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.4 ppm;
vegetable, leafy, group 4-16 at 20 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and
corm, subgroup 1C at 0.015 ppm.
    Additionally, tolerances are established for inadvertent residues
of tetraniliprole, including its metabolites and degradates. Compliance
with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only
tetraniliprole 1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-
[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-3-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2H-tetrazol-2-
yl]methyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide in or on alfalfa, forage at 0.015
ppm; alfalfa, hay at 0.06 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts at 30 ppm;
cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.4 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and
straw, group 16, except field corn, popcorn, and sweet corn at 0.1 ppm;
and vegetable, foliage of legume, except soybean, subgroup 7A at 0.03
ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) 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 action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). This action 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 FFDCA section 408(d), 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 action 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    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 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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
the rule in the Federal Register. This action 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: January 19, 2021.
Edward Messina,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    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. Add Sec.  180.709 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.709  Tetraniliprole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of
tetraniliprole, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in table 1 in this paragraph (a). Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in table 1 in this paragraph (a) is to be
determined by measuring only tetraniliprole 1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-
[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-3-[[5-
(trifluoromethyl)-2H-tetrazol-2-yl]methyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide.

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls...........................................               4
Cattle, fat.............................................            0.04
Cattle, meat............................................            0.02
Cattle, meat byproducts.................................             0.3
Corn, field, forage.....................................               4
Corn, field, grain......................................            0.01
Corn, field, stover.....................................              15

Corn, pop, grain........................................            0.01
Corn, pop, stover.......................................              15
Corn, sweet, forage.....................................               6
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed.........            0.01
Corn, sweet, stover.....................................              20
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10, oil.........................               7
Fruit, pome, group 11-10................................             0.5
Fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,                  1.5
 subgroup 13-07F........................................
Fruit, stone, group 12-12...............................               1
Goat, fat...............................................            0.04
Goat, meat..............................................            0.02
Goat, meat byproducts...................................             0.3
Grain, aspirated fractions..............................              50
Grapefruit subgroup 10-10C..............................             0.9
Horse, fat..............................................            0.04
Horse, meat.............................................            0.02
Horse, meat byproducts..................................             0.3
Lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B..............................             1.5
Milk....................................................            0.05
Nut, tree, group 14-12..................................            0.03
Orange subgroup 10-10A..................................               1
Sheep, fat..............................................            0.04
Sheep, meat.............................................            0.02
Sheep, meat byproducts..................................             0.3
Soybean, forage.........................................            0.07
Soybean, hay............................................             0.2
Soybean, hulls..........................................             0.4
Soybean, seed...........................................             0.2
Tomato, paste...........................................             1.5
Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16..........             1.5
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10.........................             0.4
Vegetable, leafy, group 4-16............................              20
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C...............           0.015
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b)-(c) [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. Tolerances are established
for indirect or inadvertent residues of tetraniliprole, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in table 2 in this
paragraph (d). Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in table
2 in this paragraph (d) is to be determined by measuring only
tetraniliprole 1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-
[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-3-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2H-tetrazol-2-
yl]methyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide.

                        Table 2 to Paragraph (d)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa, forage.........................................           0.015
Alfalfa, hay............................................            0.06
Cotton, gin byproducts..................................              30
Cottonseed subgroup 20C.................................             0.4
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16,                   0.1
 except field corn, popcorn and sweet corn..............
Vegetable, foliage of legume, except soybean, subgroup              0.03
 7A.....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-03624 Filed 2-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P