[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26954-26959]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11117]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0144; FRL-9346-9]
RIN 2070-ZA16

1-Naphthaleneacetic acid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of 1-
naphthaleneacetic acid, potassium and sodium salts in or on potatoes.
Stehekin, LLC petitioned EPA for clearance of use of this pesticide
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective May 8, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 9, 2012, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0144. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Mary Kearns, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; 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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the
harmonized test guidelines referenced in this document electronically,
please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and
Guidelines.''

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-2004-0144 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
July 9, 2012. 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 that does not contain any 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 a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0144, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of September 8, 2010 (75 FR 54629) (FRL-
8843-3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a (d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
0F7687) by Stehekin, LLC, 1012 Good Lander Drive, Selah, Washington
98942. The petition requested that a tolerance exemption be established
for residues of the fungicide 1-naphthaleneacetic acid (1-
naphthaleneacetamide), on potatoes. That notice referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by Stehekin, LLC, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon a revised petition which requested a tolerance and
review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has determined that it
is appropriate to establish a tolerance in association with the use of
1-naphthaleneacetic acid (1-naphthaleneacetamide) on potatoes.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.''

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated
dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * *
*''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for 1-naphthalneactic acid,
its salts, ester, and acetamide which are collectively referred to as
naphthalene acetates (NAA) including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures
and risks associated with NAA 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.
    Based on structural activity relationship and metabolism data, all
forms of 1-naphthaleneacetic acid, its salts, ester, and acetamide are
expected to exhibit similar toxicological effects. Therefore the Agency
concluded that required toxicity testing on any form should serve for
all members of this group of chemicals.
    Naphthalene acetates have low acute toxicity via the oral,
inhalation and dermal routes of exposure. 1-Naphthaleneacetic acid is
not a skin irritant or a dermal sensitizer. The 1-naphthaleneacetic
acid and its sodium salt were found to be irritating to the eye.
Repeated exposure oral toxicity studies in rats and dogs resulted in
decreased body weights and body weight gains accompanied by decreased
food consumption.
    The major target organs of subchronic and chronic oral exposure
were the liver, stomach and lung. Repeated oral exposure also resulted
in decreased hematocrit and hemoglobin along with reduced RBC count in
rats and dogs and hypocellularity of the bone marrow in dogs.
    There was no developmental toxicity at the highest dose of 1-
naphthaleneacetic acid tested in the rat or in the rabbit, but
developmental toxicity (decreased fetal weight and minor skeletal
changes) were seen in rats orally gavaged with the sodium salt.
    Reproductive effects of naphthaleneacetic acid sodium salt were
limited to reduced litter survival and pup weight throughout lactation
in both generations of offspring in a 2-generation reproduction study.
    Naphthaleneacetic acid and it's acetamide and the ethyl ester were
tested for mutagenic effects in a gene mutation bacterial assay, mouse
lymphoma assay, and mouse erythrocyte micronucleus assay, mouse
lymphoma assay, and mouse erythrocyte micronucleus assay and were not
mutagenic. Additionally 1-naphthaleneacetic acid was tested for mitotic
gene conversion and dominant lethality in rats and found to be
negative.
    Carcinogenicity studies of NAA in mice and in rats for the 1-
naphthaleneacetic acid group showed no evidence of carcinogenicity.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by NAA 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 ``Naphthalene Acetates HED Risk
Assessment for Section 3 Proposed New Use on Potato Seed Pieces'' at
pages 10 through 14 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0144.

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://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for 1-naphthaleneaetic
acid used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for 1-Naphthaleneacetic Acid for Use in Human Health Risk
                                                   Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and  uncertainty/    RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety  factors      risk  assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population  An acute RfD for the general population subgroups was not selected because no
 including infants and children).   effect attributable to a single (or few) day(s) oral exposure was observed
                                    in animal studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day  Chronic RfD = 0.15   Chronic Toxicity--Dog.
                                   UFA = 10x...........   mg/kg/day.          LOAEL = 75 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.15 mg/kg/    stomach lesions in 75% of the
                                                          day.                 males and by slight sinusoidal
                                                                               histocytosis in the liver of 50%
                                                                               of the males.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days).  Dermal (or oral)      LOC for MOE = 100..  Dermal Toxicity Study-Rat.
                                    study NOAEL = 300                         LOAEL = 1000 mg/kg/day based on
                                    mg/kg/day.                                 reduced body weight gain and food
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        efficiency.
                                   UFH = 10x...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal intermediate-term (1 to 6   Dermal (or oral)      LOC for MOE = 100..  Dermal Toxicity Study--Rat.
 months).                           study NOAEL = 300                         LOAEL = 1000 mg/kg/day based on
                                    mg/kg/day.                                 reduced body weight gain and food
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        efficiency.
                                   UFH = 10x...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30     Inhalation (or oral)  LOC for MOE = 100..  Developmental Toxicity Study--Rat.
 days).                             study NOAEL= 50 mg/                       LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based on
                                    kg/day (inhalation                         decreased body weight gain during
                                    absorption rate =                          the gestation period.
                                    100%).
                                   UFA = 10x...........
                                   UFH = 10x...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation (1 to 6 months).......  Inhalation (or oral)  LOC for MOE = 100..  Subchronic Study--Dog.
                                    study NOAEL = 25 mg/                      LOAEL = for systemic toxicity =
                                    kg/day (inhalation                         150 mg/kg/day based on lesions of
                                    absorption rate =                          the GI tract and hypocellularity
                                    100%).                                     of the bone marrow.
                                   UFA = 10x...........
                                   UFH = 10x...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (all routes)..............                        A ``not likely'' human carcinogen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. LOC = level of concern. MOE = margin of exposure. N/A = not
  applicable. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic).
  POD = Point of Departure = A data or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data and
  used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant
  human exposures. RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human
  (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to NAA, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.155. EPA
assessed dietary exposures from NAA in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
NAA; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is
unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance
level residues for all registered uses, 100% crop treated for all
commodities with existing tolerances, and default processing factors.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that NAA does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a
dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for 1-naphthaleneacetic. Tolerance level residues
and/or 100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for NAA in drinking water. These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of 1-naphthaleneacetic acid. Further, information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of naphthaleneacetic acetates for
peak and average concentrations of naphthalene acetates in surface
water are 0.02 ppm and 0.003 ppm respectively. The modeled peak and
average EDWCs for ground water is 0.00002 ppm.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model.
    For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of
value .003

ppm was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). There is a potential
for short-term residential exposure to NAA from ornamental uses.
    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 naphthalene acetates to share a common mechanism
of toxicity with any other substances, and NAA does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that NAA
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 Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is low concern (and no
residual uncertainty) for prenatal and/or postnasal toxicity resulting
from exposure to the NAA group of chemicals. The available data
provided no indication of increased susceptibility (quantitative or
qualitative) to rats or rabbits to in utero exposure to naphthalene
acetates or to prenatal and postnatal exposure in rat reproduction
studies.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. Acceptable developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit,
and an acceptable reproduction study in the rat are available. Recent
changes to 40 CFR part 158 require acute and subchronic neurotoxicity
and immunotoxicity studies. An immunotoxicity study is not available.
However, the toxicology data base for NAA does not show any evidence of
treatment-related effects on the immune system and the overall weight
of evidence suggests that this chemical does not directly target the
immune system. Consequently, the Agency does not believe that
conducting a functional immunotoxicity study will result in a lower POD
than that currently used for overall risk assessment, and therefore, an
additional safety factor is not needed to account for lack of this
study. The toxicity database does not show any indications of
neurotoxicity or neuropathology (the liver, stomach, lung, and
hematological parameters are the target organs based on repeat toxicity
studies in rats, mice and dogs).
    ii. There is no indication that NAA is a neurotoxic chemical and
there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional
UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that NAA results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in dietary
assessment and in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess
exposure to NAA in drinking water. EPA made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the residential handler assessment. Post-application
exposure to residents is not expected.

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.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
NAA is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
NAA, from food and water will utilize 2% of the cPAD for children 1-2
years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    There is potential for short-term residential exposure to NAA from
ornamental uses. Oral, dermal and inhalation exposures cannot be
combined for short-term aggregate risk assessment, however, because
oral exposure endpoints are not based on common toxicological effects
with either dermal or inhalation endpoints. Estimated dermal and
inhalation MOEs for residential exposure to naphthalene acetates are
3,800 and 58,000 respectively. These estimated exposures are greater
than the target MOE of 100 and therefore not of concern. Although a POD
from an oral study was used to assess residential handler inhalation
risks for NAA, the Agency does not believe this assessment is under-
protective of adult handlers. Inhalation MOEs calculated for
residential handlers were all >58,000, thus providing an ample margin
of safety to account for any uncertainties in route-to-route
extrapolation.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Intermediate-term exposure to NAA is not expected based on
residential use patterns. Therefore, NAA is not expected to pose an
intermediate-term risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies,

NAA is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to NAA residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate enforcement methodology (HPLC methods (Method NAA-AM
001 and Method NAA-AM-002) for determination of NAA in plant
commodities have been submitted and reviewed. These methods have been
subjected to successful independent laboratory validations. Acceptable
recoveries were obtained from apples, olives and olive oil fortified
with NAA at the method limit of quantitation (LOQ; 0.01 ppm) and at 1.0
ppm.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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 U.N. 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.
    No Codex, Canadian, or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) have
been established for residues of naphthalene acetates. Therefore, there
are no trade issues with this action.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    The applicant's petition requested an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for this seed potato application but upon
review of submitted information, the Agency determined that a potato
tolerance is needed. In lieu of providing field trial data, a
theoretical calculation was provided, to show that residues of 1-
naphthaleneacetic acid on potatoes will be less than the analytical
method's level of quantitation (0.01 ppm) when using the label
application rates on potato seed pieces. The Agency determined that a
tolerance at the level of quantitation is appropriate and that an
exemption is not appropriate because some residues below the level of
quantitation may be present and there is toxicological concern for NAA.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of 1-
naphthaleneacetic acid and its conjugates calculated as 1-
naphthaleneacetic acid from the application of 1-naphthaleneacetic
acid, its ammonium, sodium, or potassium salts, ethyl ester, and
acetamide in or on food commodities as follows: in or on potato at 0.01
ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 27, 2012.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, 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. Section 180.155 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodity to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.155  1-Naphthaleneacetic acid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Potato......................................................        0.01

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-11117 Filed 5-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48834-48835]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-521-000]

Michigan Consolidated Gas Company and Dawn Gateway Pipeline, LLC;
Notice of Application

    Take notice that on July 26, 2011, Michigan Consolidated Gas
Company (MichCon), and Dawn Gateway Pipeline, LLC (Dawn Gateway), whose
offices are co-located at One Energy Plaza, Detroit, Michigan 48226,
filed in Docket No. CP11-521-000, a joint application pursuant to
section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting Commission
authorization to (1) Permit MichCon to relinquish its existing NGA
section 3 authorization and Presidential Permit that was issued to
MichCon for the Belle River-St. Clair Pipeline on September 13, 1989;
and (2) issue a new NGA section 3 authorization and Presidential Permit
to Dawn Gateway to reflect its anticipated lease from MichCon of the
Belle River-St. Clair Pipeline. Dawn Gateway states that incorporating
MichCon's Belle River-St. Clair Pipeline into the new 21-mile long Dawn
Gateway Pipeline system, which includes other pipeline segments in
Canada, will improve the connections between Michigan and the Dawn
Ontario market hub. MichCon and Dawn Gateway further have requested
that the Commission grant these approvals to become effective on the
date that the lease takes effect.
    The application is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY, (202)
208-3676.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Mark
Bering, Director, Marketing & Optimization, DTE Pipeline/Dawn Gateway
LLC, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's

environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be
required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties.
However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all
documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except
for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission)
and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's
final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

    Comment Date: August 24, 2011.

    Dated: August 3, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20146 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 188 (Friday, October 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54494-54497]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21353]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93130; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2021-020]

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

September 27, 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 September 13, 2021, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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 EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGA'' or ``EDGA
Equities'') proposes to amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/edga/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``EDGA Equities'') to modify the fee or
rebate associated with certain routing fee codes and eliminate a
particular routing fee code.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes
September 1, 2021 (SR-CboeEDGA-2021-019). On September 13, 2021, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow.
Based on publicly available information,\4\ no single registered
equities exchange has more than 14% of the market share. Thus, in such
a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order
flow. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among
the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants
can shift order flow, discontinue, or reduce use of certain categories
of products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive
forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market
participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing
levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (August 26, 2021), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange assesses fees in connection with orders routed away to
various exchanges. Now, the Exchange proposes to modify certain routing
fee codes currently under the Fee Codes and Associated Fees section of
the Fee Schedule. First, the Exchange proposes to modify fee code C,
which is appended to orders routed to Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``Nasdaq BX''),
and currently provides a rebate of $0.00110 per share for securities
priced at or above $1.00 and 0.10% of the dollar value for securities
priced below $1.00. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify the
description of the fee code to identify Nasdaq BX and to reduce the
rebate for securities priced at or above $1.00 to $0.0005 per share.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to modify fee code NX, which is
appended to orders routed to NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'')
using the ROBB, ROCO or ROUC routing strategy, and currently provides a
rebate of $0.00200 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00
and is free for securities priced below $1.00. The Exchange proposes to
reduce the rebate for securities priced at or above $1.00 to $0.0005
per share.
    Third, the Exchange proposes to modify fee code S, which is
appended to directed intermarket sweep orders (``ISOs''), and currently
assesses a fee of $0.00320 per share for securities priced at or above
$1.00 and 0.30% of the dollar value for securities priced below $1.00.
The Exchange proposes to increase the fee for securities priced at or
above $1.00 to $.00330.
    Finally, as a result of minimal use in the last months, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate fee code IX in its entirety. Fee code IX
is appended to orders routed to the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'')
using the DIRC routing strategy, and currently assesses a fee of
$0.00300 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.30% of
the dollar value for securities priced below $1.00. The Exchange
believes that because so few users elect to route their orders with
specifications to which fee code IX is applicable, the current demand
does not warrant the infrastructure and ongoing Systems maintenance
required to support the separate fee code. Therefore, the Exchange now
proposes to delete fee code IX in the Fee Schedule. The Exchange notes
that users will continue to be able to choose to route their orders
with the same specifications to which fee codes IX currently applies--
such orders will simply be assessed the fees currently in place for
routed orders generally.\5\ That is, if any of the routed orders to
which fee code IX currently apply fee code X will be appended to such
orders, which also assesses a fee of $0.00300 per share for securities
priced at or above $1.00 and 0.30% of the dollar value for securities
priced below $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that there are other fee codes that apply
to certain other routing specifications, however, those routed
orders not otherwise specified in such other routing fee code
descriptions yield the general routing fee code X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\7\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \8\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The Exchange believes that
its proposal to reduce the rebates applicable to fee codes C and NX and
to increase the fee applicable to fee code S is fair, equitable, and
reasonable because the proposed fees and rebate remain consistent with
pricing offered by the Exchange's affiliates and competitors and does
not represent a significant departure from the Exchange's general
pricing structure. Specifically, the proposed fee applicable to fee
code S is equal to the fee currently charged for directed ISOs on the
Exchange's affiliate, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Equities'').\9\
Similarly, the proposed rebates applicable to fee codes C and NX are
more than that offered by the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''),
which does not provide a standard rebate for similar orders.\10\
Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed fees and rebates
associated with fee codes C, NX, and S remain consistent with pricing
previously

offered by the Exchange's affiliates and other exchanges and does not
represent a significant departure from such pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See the standard rate associated with fee code S, appended
to Directed ISOs, on the BZX Equities fee schedule at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
    \10\ See ``Route Rates'' on the Nasdaq fee schedule at http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to remove fee code
IX is reasonable as the Exchange has observed a minimal amount of
volume in orders yielding the fee code and, therefore, the continuation
of this fee code does not warrant the infrastructure and ongoing
Systems maintenance required to support separate fee codes for specific
routed orders. As such, the Exchange also believes that is reasonable
and equitable to assess routed orders which meet the specifications to
which fee code IX are currently applicable the standard routing fee
currently in place for all other routed orders--via fee code X, which
also assesses a fee of $0.00300 per share for securities priced at or
above $1.00 and 0.30% of the dollar value for securities priced below
$1.00. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because Members will continue to have
the option to elect to route their orders in the same manner (i.e.,
routed to IEX using the DIRC strategy) and will be automatically and
uniformly assessed the applicable standard rates in place for generally
all other routed orders. Further, if members do not favor the
Exchange's pricing for routed orders, they can send their routable
orders directly to away markets instead of using routing functionality
provided by the Exchange. Routing through the Exchange is optional, and
the Exchange operates in a competitive environment where market
participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues or
providers of routing services if they deem fee levels to be excessive.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed modifications represent a significant departure from
previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the
Exchange's competitors. Further, while the Exchange is proposing to
eliminate fee code IX, orders that meet specifications of fee code IX
going forward will be assessed the rate for orders routed generally.
Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Members
or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
fee and rebate modifications will continue to apply to all Members
equally, and as noted above, orders currently meeting the
specifications of fee code IX will be assessed the rate for orders
routed generally under fee code X. The Exchange believes the proposed
rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that
is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they
may participate on and direct their order flow, including other
equities exchanges, off-exchange venues, and alternative trading
systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of
the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single
equities exchange has more than 14% of the market share.\11\ Therefore,
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
order flow. Indeed, participants can readily choose to send their
orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee
levels at those other venues to be more favorable. Moreover, the
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \12\ The fact that this market is
competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers' . . . .''.\13\ Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Supra note 3.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \13\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \15\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) \16\
of the Act 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)(2).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-

CboeEDGA-2021-020 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-CboeEDGA-2021-020. 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 will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGA-2021-020 and should be
submitted on or before October 22, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21353 Filed 9-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 35122-35123]
[DOCID:fr21jn10-160]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Approval of Noise Compatibility Program for Buckeye Municipal
Airport, Town of Buckeye, AZ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
findings on the noise compatibility program submitted by the Town of
Buckeye under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq. (formerly the
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as
``the Act'') and 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150
(hereinafter referred to as ``Part 150''). On September 22, 2008, the
FAA determined that the noise exposure maps submitted by the Town of
Buckeye under Part 150 were in compliance with applicable requirements.
On May 13, 2010, the FAA approved the Buckeye Municipal Airport noise
compatibility program. All of the recommendations of the program were
approved.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's approval of the
Noise Compatibility Program for Buckeye Municipal Airport is May 13,
2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruben Cabalbag, Acting Manager, Los
Angeles Airports District Office, Room 3000, 15000 Aviation Boulevard,
Lawndale, CA 90261,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Documents reflecting this FAA
action may be reviewed at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has given
its overall approval to the Noise Compatibility Program for Buckeye
Municipal Airport, effective May 13, 2010.
    Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has
previously submitted a Noise Exposure Map may submit to the FAA a Noise
Compatibility Program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed
by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible
land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within
the area covered by the Noise Exposure Maps. The Act requires such
programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected
parties including local communities, government agencies, airport
users, and FAA personnel.
    Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance
with Part 150 is a local program, not a Federal program. The FAA does
not substitute its judgment for that of the airport proprietor with
respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA's
approval or disapproval of Part 150 program recommendations is measured
according to the standards expressed in Part 150 and the Act and is
limited to the following determinations:
    a. The Noise Compatibility Program was developed in accordance with
the provisions and procedures of Part 150;
    b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the
goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport
and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
    c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate
or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or
intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
    d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be
implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating
safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the
navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator
prescribed by law.
    Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport
noise compatibility program are delineated in Part 150, section 150.5.
Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land
uses under Federal, State, or local law. Approval does not by itself
constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or
approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be
required. Prior to an FAA decision on a request to implement the
action, an environmental review of the proposed action may be required.
Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that
all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid
funding from the FAA under applicable law contained in Title 49

U.S.C. Where Federal funding is sought, requests for project grants
must be submitted to the FAA Los Angeles Airports District Office in
Hawthorne, California.
    The Town of Buckeye submitted to the FAA the noise exposure maps,
descriptions, and other documentation produced during the noise
compatibility study. The Buckeye Municipal Airport noise exposure maps
were determined by the FAA to be in compliance with applicable
requirements on September 22, 2008. Notice of this determination was
published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2009, Volume 74,
Number 36, Page 8612.
    The Buckeye Municipal Airport study contains a proposed noise
compatibility program comprised of actions designed for phased
implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions. It was
requested that the FAA evaluate and approve this material as a Noise
Compatibility Program as described in section 47504 of the Act. The FAA
began its review of the program on December 4, 2009, and was required
by a provision of the Act to approve or disapprove the program within
180 days (other than the use of new or modified flight procedures for
noise control). Failure to approve or disapprove such program within
the 180-day period shall be deemed to be an approval of such program.
    The submitted program contained five proposed actions for noise
abatement, noise mitigation, land use planning and program management
on and off the airport. The FAA completed its review and determined
that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and Part
150 have been satisfied. The overall program was approved by the FAA,
effective May 13, 2010.
    Outright approval was granted for five of specific program
measures. The approved measures include such items as: Developing a
pilot and community outreach program; Developing project review
guidelines for development of proposals within the Public Airport
Disclosure Area: Town of Buckeye to discourage re-zoning of parcels
near the airport that would allow more than one dwelling unit per acre;
Update noise exposure maps and noise compatibility programs; Oversee
implementation of the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program.
    These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of
Approval signed by the Western-Pacific Region Airports Division Manager
on May 13, 2010. The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation
materials and the documents comprising the submittal, are available for
review at the FAA office listed above and at the administrative offices
of the Town of Buckeye. The Record of Approval also will be available
online at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/airport_noise/
part_150/states/.

    Issued in Hawthorne, California on June 8, 2010.
Debbie Roth,
Acting Manager, Airports Division, Western-Pacific Region, AWP-600.
[FR Doc. 2010-14971 Filed 6-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 43766]
[DOCID:fr28jy08-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1763-DR]

Iowa; Amendment No. 14 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1763-DR), dated May 27, 2008, and related
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 17, 2008.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of May 27, 2008.

    Montgomery County for Individual Assistance (already designated
for Public Assistance.)
    Appanoose and Monroe Counties for Public Assistance.
    Lucas County for Public Assistance (already designated for
Individual Assistance.)

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

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-17226 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P