[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21107-21111]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07456]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0130 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0555; FRL-10449-01-OCSPP]

Ethalfluralin; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
ethalfluralin in or on multiple crops that are referenced later in this
document. The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) and Gowan
Company LLC., requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 10, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 9, 2023, 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 dockets for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0130 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-
0555, are available at https://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 and the OPP Docket is
(202) 566-1744. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services,
docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Rosenblatt, Acting Director,
Registration Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

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 Office of the
Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-180?toc=1.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2021-0130 and/or EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0555 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 June 9, 2023. At this time, the Office
of Administrative Law Judges, in which the Hearing Clerk is located,
encourages people to utilize the electronic system for filing. See
Order Urging Electronic Service and Filing, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_order_urging_electronic_service_and_filing.pdf. The system for filing
electronically can be found at this website, https://www.epa.gov/alj.
    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-2021-0130 and/or
EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0555, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 https://www.epa.gov//where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of October 21, 2021 (86 FR 58239) (FRL-
8792-04-OCSPP), 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 0E8876) in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0130, by IR-4, North
Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Drive, Venture IV, Suite 210,
Raleigh, NC 27606. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.416 be
amended by adding tolerances for ethalfluralin, N-ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2-
propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl) benzenamine in or on the raw
agricultural commodities: Hemp, seed at 0.05 ppm; stevia, dried leaves
at 0.05 ppm; vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.01 ppm;
individual crops of Proposed Crop Subgroup 6-XXE: Dried shelled bean,
except soybean, subgroup at 0.05 ppm; and individual crops of Proposed
Crop Subgroup 6-XXF: Dried shelled pea subgroup at 0.05 ppm. Due to the
length of the list of commodities, please refer to the document EPA
issued in the Federal Register on October 21, 2021, for a complete list
of commodities to be established. The petition also requested to remove
established tolerances for residues of ethalfluralin in or on the raw
agricultural commodities: Bean, dry, seed at 0.05 ppm; pea, dry, seed
at 0.05 ppm; and potato at 0.05 ppm. That document referenced a summary
of the petition, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received in response to the
notice of filing.
    In the Federal Register of March 22, 2022 (87 FR 16133) (FRL-9410-
11-OCSPP) 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
1F8929) in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0555 by Gowan Company LLC, 370 S Main
Street, Yuma, AZ 85366. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.416 be
amended by adding a tolerance for residues of ethalfluralin in or on
the onion, bulb crop subgroup 3-07A at 0.01 ppm. There was one comment
received in response to the notice of filing. EPA's response to this
comment is addressed in section IV.C.
    In the Federal Register of April 28, 2022 (87 FR 25178) (FRL-9410-
12-OCSPP), 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
0E8876) in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0130 by IR-4, North Carolina State
University, 1730 Varsity Drive, Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC
27606. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.416 be amended by
establishing a tolerance for residues of ethalfluralin in or on the raw
agricultural commodity stevia, fresh leaves at 0.05 ppm. There was one
comment received in response to the notice of filing. EPA's response to
this comment is addressed in section IV.C.
    Some of the commodity definitions have been modified to be
consistent with Agency nomenclature and one requested tolerance is not
being established, as explained in section 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 therein, 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 ethalfluralin including exposure resulting from
the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with ethalfluralin follows.
    In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal
Register, EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been
previously published for tolerance rulemaking of the same pesticide
chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical
remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between
tolerance rulemaking, and EPA considers referral back to those sections
as sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA
considered in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.
    EPA has previously published a tolerance rulemaking for
ethalfluralin in which EPA concluded, based on the available
information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would
result from aggregate exposure to ethalfluralin and established
tolerances for residues of that chemical. EPA is incorporating
previously published sections from that rulemaking as described further
in this rulemaking, as they remain unchanged.
    Toxicological profile. For a discussion of the Toxicological
Profile of ethalfluralin, see Unit III.A. of the ethalfluralin
tolerance rulemaking published in the Federal Register of July 28, 2020
(85 FR 45336) (FRL-10008-20).
    Toxicological points of departure/Levels of concern. For a summary
of the Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern for
ethalfluralin used for human risk assessment, please reference Unit
III.B. of the July 28, 2020, rulemaking.
    Exposure assessment from residues in or on food. EPA's dietary
exposure assessments have been updated to include the additional
exposure from the petitioned-for tolerances as well as existing
ethalfluralin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.416. The acute and chronic
dietary (food and drinking water) assessments used tolerance-level
residues and assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT). The cancer dietary
(food and drinking water) analysis was refined and used half the field
trial limit of detection value for all potato commodities; data from
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA's) Pesticide Data
Program (PDP) for dried bean/pea, soybean grain, soy infant formula,
cucurbit vegetables, and peanut butter; tolerance-level residues for
the remaining commodities, as well as average PCT data for canola/
rapeseed, cantaloupe, cucumber, peanut, pumpkin, summer/winter squash,
sunflower, and watermelon and 100 PCT for the remaining commodities.
    Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of
FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, and the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The cancer assessment incorporated average PCT data for the
following commodities: canola/rapeseed (2.5%); cantaloupe (5%);
cucumber (55%); peanut (25%); pumpkin (20%); summer/winter squash
(35%); sunflower (5%); and watermelon (25%).
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and California Department of
Pesticide Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) for the
chemical/crop combination for the most recent 10 years. EPA uses an
average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis and a maximum PCT for
acute dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing
use is derived by combining available public and private market survey
data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to
the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is
less than 1% or less than 2.5%. In those cases, the Agency would use
less than 1% or less than 2.5% as the average PCT value, respectively.
The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the most recent 10 years of available public and private market
survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple
of 5%, except where the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case,
the Agency uses less than 2.5% as the maximum PCT.
    The Agency believes that Conditions a, b, and c discussed above
have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived
from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and
have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the
percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation.
As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and
consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into
account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure
of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of
this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures
that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably
certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher
than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available
through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available
reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which
ethalfluralin may be applied in a particular area.
    Drinking water and non-occupational exposures. An updated drinking
water assessment for all proposed and registered uses was conducted.
The acute, chronic, and cancer assessments incorporated modeled surface
water

estimated drinking water concentrations of 26.1 ppb, 0.57 ppb, and 0.41
ppb, respectively.
    Cumulative exposure. 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.'' The Agency has
determined that although ethalfluralin shares some chemical and/or
toxicological characteristics (e.g., chemical structure or apical
endpoint) with other pesticides, the toxicological database does not
support a testable hypothesis for a common mechanism of action. See:
Dinitroanilines: Screening Analysis of Toxicological Profiles to
Consider Whether a Candidate Common Mechanism Group Can Be Established.
Consequently, no further review of cumulative effects is required for
ethalfluralin at this time.
    Safety factor for infants and children. EPA continues to conclude
that there are reliable data to support the reduction of the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor from 10X to 1X. See Unit
III.D. of the July 28, 2020, rulemaking for a discussion of the
Agency's rationale for that determination.
    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 population adjusted dose
(aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the
appropriate points of departure to ensure that an adequate margin of
exposure (MOE) exists. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the
lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate
exposure.
    Acute dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100%
of the aPAD; they are less than 1% of the aPAD for females 13 to 49
years old, the only population group of concern. Chronic dietary risks
are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the cPAD; they are
less than 1% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the group with
the highest exposure. Because there are no proposed or previously
registered residential uses of ethalfluralin, short- and intermediate-
term residential exposure is not expected; therefore, aggregate risk is
equal to the chronic dietary risk, which is below the Agency's level of
concern. A refined cancer dietary assessment was conducted, using the
Q1* for ethalfluralin of 0.089 (mg/kg/day)-\1\,
resulting in a cancer risk estimate for adults of 1 x
10-\6\, which the Agency considers to be a negligible cancer
risk.
    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to ethalfluralin residues. More detailed information
on this action can be found in the document titled ``Ethalfluralin.
Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Registration for
the New Uses on Hemp, Bulb Onion, and Stevia plus Crop Group
Expansions'' in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0130.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method,
see Unit IV.A. of the July 28, 2020, rulemaking.

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).
    Codex has not established ethalfluralin MRLs in/on any of the
commodities for which tolerances were requested. Therefore,
harmonization is not an issue.

C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received in response to the March 22, 2022, Notice
of Filing. The comment reads in part ``deny application for fluoride
use on onions by gowan profiteering co. the detriment to healthy life
on earth [sic].'' It is unclear whether the commenter intended to
submit a comment on the present action, which includes a request for a
tolerance for residues of ethalfluralin, not fluoride, on onions, among
many other commodities. To the extent the comment is about fluoride
residues, this comment is irrelevant to the present action. To the
extent the comment is about ethalfluralin, the commenter has provided
no information to support a conclusion that the tolerances requested
would not meet the FFDCA safety standard. The existing legal framework
provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such
tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the
safety standard imposed by that statute.
    One comment was received in response to the April 28, 2022, Notice
of Filing. The commenter opposed EPA approving the requested
tolerances, stating that doing so would poison the food and feed in the
U.S. Although the Agency recognizes that some individuals believe that
pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops, the existing legal
framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to
establish tolerances when it determines that the tolerance is safe.
Upon consideration of the validity, completeness, and reliability of
the available data as well as other factors the FFDCA requires EPA to
consider, EPA has determined that the trinexapac-ethyl tolerances are
safe. The commenter has provided no information indicating that a
safety determination cannot be supported.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Several of the commodity definitions have been modified to conform
to Agency nomenclature. Additionally, although the petitioner requested
that EPA establish individual tolerances for the commodities contained
in the proposed crop subgroups 6-XXE (Dried shelled bean, except
soybean) and 6-XXF (Dried shelled pea subgroup), EPA is establishing
tolerances for the corresponding subgroups that have recently been
established by EPA in a final rule. See the Federal Register of
September 21, 2022 (87 FR 57627) (FRL-5031-13-OCSPP). The corresponding
subgroups that are being established are ``Vegetable, legume, pulse,
bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6-22E'' and ``Vegetable,
legume, pulse, pea, dried shelled, subgroup 6-22F''. The commodities in
the established subgroups are the same as the individual commodities
for which the petitioner sought tolerances.
    EPA is not establishing a tolerance for Soybean, vegetable, dry
seed because it is not a commodity that requires a tolerance. Edamame
(vegetable soybean) exists only in the succulent seed and edible podded
forms.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of ethalfluralin
in or on Hemp, seed at 0.05 ppm; Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.01
ppm; Stevia,

dried leaves at 0.05 ppm; Stevia, fresh leaves at 0.05 ppm; Vegetable,
legume, pulse, bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6-22E at
0.05 ppm; Vegetable, legume, pulse, pea, dried shelled, subgroup 6-22F
at 0.05 ppm; and Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.01 ppm.
    Additionally, the following tolerances are removed as unnecessary:
Bean, dry, seed at 0.05 ppm; pea, dry, seed at 0.05 ppm; and potato at
0.01 ppm. Finally, EPA is removing the tolerance on potato at 0.05 ppm
as a housecleaning measure, since that tolerance expired on January 28,
2021.

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 to Executive Order 13045,
entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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 tolerances 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: March 31, 2023.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter 1 as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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. In Sec.  180.416, amend paragraph (a) by revising the table to read
as follows:

Sec.  180.416  Ethalfluralin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dill, dried leaves......................................            0.05
Dill, fresh leaves......................................            0.05
Hemp, seed..............................................            0.05
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A.............................            0.01
Peanut..................................................            0.05
Rapeseed subgroup 20A...................................            0.05
Soybean.................................................            0.05
Stevia, dried leaves....................................            0.05
Stevia, fresh leaves....................................            0.05
Sunflower subgroup 20B..................................            0.05
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9............................            0.05
Vegetable, legume, pulse, bean, dried shelled, except               0.05
 soybean, subgroup 6-22E................................
Vegetable, legume, pulse, pea, dried shelled, subgroup 6-           0.05
 22F....................................................
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C...............            0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-07456 Filed 4-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 131-135]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32989]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76779; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-157]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify the Professional Subscriber Fee for Non-Display Usage via Direct
Access

December 28, 2015.
    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 December 18, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ.
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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify the fee structure applicable to
Professional Subscribers (``Subscribers'') for Non-Display Usage via
Direct Access. While the changes proposed herein are effective upon
filing, the Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on
January 1, 2016.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are bracketed.

NASDAQ Stock Market Rules

Equity Rules

* * * * *

7023. NASDAQ Depth-of-Book Data

    (a) No change.
    (b) Subscriber Fees.
    (1)-(3) No change.
    (4) Professional Subscribers pay a monthly fee for Non-Display
Usage based upon Direct Access to NASDAQ Level 2, NASDAQ TotalView, or
NASDAQ OpenView:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subscribers                          Monthly fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-[10]39...............................  $3[00]75 per Subscriber
[11-29]................................  [$3,300.00]
[30-49]................................  [$9,000.00]
[5]40-99...............................  $15,000.00 per firm
100-249................................  $30,000.00 per firm
250+...................................  $75,000.00 per firm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Professional Subscriber fee for Non-Display Usage via Direct
Access[ed] applies to any Subscriber that accesses any data elements
included in any Depth-of-Book data feed.
    (c)-(f) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ 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 the proposed rule change is to modify and simplify
the fee structure applicable to Professional Subscribers for Non-
Display Usage via Direct Access. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
remove the 11-29 Subscriber and 30-49 Subscriber pricing tiers and
replace the 1-10 Subscriber tier priced at $300 per Subscriber with a
1-39 Subscriber tier priced at $375 per Subscriber. The 50-99
Subscriber tier priced at $15,000 per firm is subsequently being
adjusted to apply between [sic] 40-99 Subscribers. Minor clarificatory
and typographical changes are also being included in the proposed rule
change. This proposed rule change will not affect the pricing of the
NASDAQ Level 2, NASDAQ TotalView or NASDAQ OpenView Non-Professional
Subscriber fees.
    This represents the first price revision since the 2012
introduction of the current tiered Non-Display fee model.
Notwithstanding this, NASDAQ has invested in its systems, networks and
operational controls to ensure that its depth offering meet [sic] the
same high level of performance and resiliency that customers have come
to expect. The Exchange has also upgraded and refreshed its disaster
recovery capabilities, adding to the increased focus on redundancy and
resiliency.
    NASDAQ has also invested in, and continues to make enhancements to,
the Net Order Imbalance Indicator (``NOII''). The NOII is a vital
imbalance data tool, and is included as a part of Nasdaq TotalView. It
is designed to specifically increase the value of auction information,
and provide a greater level of transparency around these events. One
enhancement result is that shares indicated in the imbalance will now
represent the excess shares to buy or sell at the reference price,
inclusive of hidden, reserve and immediate or cancel (``IOC'') orders.
    The new fee structure also represents a realization of the actual
usage by Subscribers, as the tiers being removed were experiencing
limited use.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and

6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it provides an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among Subscribers and recipients of
NASDAQ data and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
them. NASDAQ's proposal to modify and simplify the fee structure
applicable to Professional Subscribers for Non-Display Usage via Direct
Access is also consistent with the Act in that it reflects an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees. The Commission has long recognized the
fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory nature of
assessing different fees for Professional and Non-Professional Users of
the same data. NASDAQ also believes it is equitable to assess a higher
fee per Professional User than to an ordinary Non-Professional User due
to the enhanced flexibility, lower overall costs and value that it
offers Distributors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to
offer new and unique market data to the public.
    The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the
market in proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of
facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

    By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability
of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals
of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If
the free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well. Level 2, NASDAQ TotalView and
NASDAQ OpenView are precisely the sort of market data products that the
Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS.
    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010) (``NetCoalition I''), upheld the Commission's reliance upon
competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for
market data. ``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the
Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay
of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
NetCoalition I, at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975), as
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323). The court agreed with the
Commission's conclusion that ``Congress intended that `competitive
forces should dictate the services and practices that constitute the
U.S. national market system for trading equity securities.' '' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NetCoalition I, at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court in NetCoalition I, while upholding the Commission's
conclusion that competitive forces may be relied upon to establish the
fairness of prices, nevertheless concluded that the record in that case
did not adequately support the Commission's conclusions as to the
competitive nature of the market for NYSE Arca's data product at issue
in that case. As explained below in NASDAQ's Statement on Burden on
Competition, however, NASDAQ believes that there is substantial
evidence of competition in the marketplace for data that was not in the
record in the NetCoalition I case, and that the Commission is entitled
to rely upon such evidence in concluding fees are the product of
competition, and therefore in accordance with the relevant statutory
standards.\7\ Accordingly, any findings of the court with respect to
that product may not be relevant to the product at issue in this
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ It should also be noted that Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank
Act'') has amended paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act, 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3), to make it clear that all exchange fees, including
fees for market data, may be filed by exchanges on an immediately
effective basis. See also NetCoalition v. SEC, 715 F.3d 342 (D.C.
Cir. 2013) (``NetCoalition II'') (finding no jurisdiction to review
Commission's non-suspension of immediately effective fee changes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ believes that the allocation of the proposed fee is fair and
equitable in accordance with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, and not
unreasonably discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act. As described above, the proposed fee is based on pricing
conventions and distinctions that exist in NASDAQ's current fee
schedule. These distinctions are each based on principles of fairness
and equity that have helped for many years to maintain fair, equitable,
and not unreasonably discriminatory fees, and that apply with equal or
greater force to the current proposal.
    As described in greater detail below, if NASDAQ has calculated
improperly and the market deems the proposed fees to be unfair,
inequitable, or unreasonably discriminatory, firms can discontinue the
use of their data because the proposed product is entirely optional to
all parties. Firms are not required to purchase data and NASDAQ is not
required to make data available or to offer specific pricing
alternatives for potential purchases. NASDAQ can discontinue offering a
pricing alternative (as it has in the past) and firms can discontinue
their use at any time and for any reason (as they often do), including
due to their assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. NASDAQ
continues to establish and revise pricing policies aimed at increasing
fairness and equitable allocation of fees among Subscribers.
    NASDAQ believes that periodically it must adjust the Subscriber
fees to reflect market forces. NASDAQ believes it is an appropriate
time to adjust this fee to more accurately reflect the investments made
to enhance this product through capacity upgrades and regulatory data
sets added. This also reflects that the market for this information is
highly competitive and continually evolves as products develop and
change.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Notwithstanding its determination that the Commission may rely upon
competition to establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market
data, the NetCoalition [sic] court found that the Commission had not,
in that case, compiled a record that adequately supported its
conclusion that the market for the data at issue in the case was
competitive. NASDAQ believes that a record may readily be established
to demonstrate the competitive nature of the market in question.
    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data
products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are

a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. Data
products are valuable to many end Subscribers only insofar as they
provide information that end Subscribers expect will assist them or
their customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer
(``BD'') will direct orders to a particular exchange only if the
expected revenues from executing trades on the exchange exceed net
transaction execution costs and the cost of data that the BD chooses to
buy to support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The
choice of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the
products in making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the
product exceeds its expected value, the BD will choose not to buy it.
Moreover, as a BD chooses to direct fewer orders to a particular
exchange, the value of the product to that BD decreases, for two
reasons. First, the product will contain less information, because
executions of the BD's orders will not be reflected in it. Second, and
perhaps more important, the product will be less valuable to that BD
because it does not provide information about the venue to which it is
directing its orders. Data from the competing venue to which the BD is
directing orders will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Thus, an increase in the fees charged for either transactions or
data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. ``No one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.'' NetCoalition
[sic] at 24. However, the existence of fierce competition for order
flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs with
order flow, since they may readily reduce costs by directing orders
toward the lowest-cost trading venues. A BD that shifted its order flow
from one platform to another in response to order execution price
differentials would both reduce the value of that platform's market
data and reduce its own need to consume data from the disfavored
platform. Similarly, if a platform increases its market data fees, the
change will affect the overall cost of doing business with the
platform, and affected BDs will assess whether they can lower their
trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the
need for the more expensive data.
    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. NASDAQ pays rebates to attract orders, charges relatively
low prices for market information and charges relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting relatively high
prices for market information. Still others may provide most data free
of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to recover their
costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by providing
opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to charge
lower direct fees for executions and data.
    In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating
maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which
suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint
offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an ``excessive'' price
for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in
lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm
will experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse
to its overall profitability. In other words, an increase in the price
of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the
cost of executions, or the volume of both data and executions will
fall.
    The level of competition and contestability in the market is
evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow,
including eleven SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction
reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this competition
by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple
markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. Competitive
markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide
pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and BATS/Direct Edge.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple BDs'
production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of
proprietary products are virtually limitless. Notably, the potential
sources of data include the BDs that submit trade reports to TRFs and
that have the ability to consolidate and distribute their data without
the involvement of FINRA or an exchange-operated TRF.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and NYSE Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing proprietary book data on the Internet. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in a core data product,
an SRO proprietary product, and/or a non-SRO proprietary product, the
data available in proprietary products is exponentially greater than
the actual

number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. A
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While BDs have
previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation
NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary
products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Multiple
market data vendors already have the capability to aggregate data and
disseminate it on a profitable scale, including Bloomberg and Thomson
Reuters. In Europe, Cinnober aggregates and disseminates data from over
40 brokers and multilateral trading facilities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See http://www.cinnober.com/boat-trade-reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of TRFs, the rapid entry of several exchanges into this
space in 2006-2007 following the development and Commission approval of
the TRF structure demonstrates the contestability of this aspect of the
market.\9\ Given the demand for trade reporting services that is itself
a by-product of the fierce competition for transaction executions--
characterized notably by a proliferation of ATSs and BDs offering
internalization--any supra-competitive increase in the fees associated
with trade reporting or TRF data would shift trade report volumes from
one of the existing TRFs to the other \10\ and create incentives for
other TRF operators to enter the space. Alternatively, because BDs
reporting to TRFs are themselves free to consolidate the market data
that they report, the market for over-the-counter data itself, separate
and apart from the markets for execution and trade reporting services--
is fully contestable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The low cost exit of two TRFs from the market is also
evidence of a contestable market, because new entrants are reluctant
to enter a market where exit may involve substantial shut-down
costs.
    \10\ It should be noted that the FINRA/NYSE TRF has, in recent
weeks, received reports for almost 10% of all over-the-counter
volume in NMS stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, consolidated data provides two additional measures of
pricing discipline for proprietary data products that are a subset of
the consolidated data stream. First, the consolidated data is widely
available in real-time at $1 per month for non-professional users.
Second, consolidated data is also available at no cost with a 15- or
20- minute delay. Because consolidated data contains marketwide
information, it effectively places a cap on the fees assessed for
proprietary data (such as last sale data) that is simply a subset of
the consolidated data. The mere availability of low-cost or free
consolidated data provides a powerful form of pricing discipline for
proprietary data products that contain data elements that are a subset
of the consolidated data, by highlighting the optional nature of
proprietary products.
    In this environment, a super-competitive increase in the fees
charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair
revenues from both products. ``No one disputes that competition for
order flow is `fierce'.'' NetCoalition I at 539. The existence of
fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price
sensitivity on the part of BDs with order flow, since they may readily
reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.
A BD that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in
response to order execution price differentials would both reduce the
value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume
data from the disfavored platform. If a platform increases its market
data fees, the change will affect the overall cost of doing business
with the platform, and affected BDs will assess whether they can lower
their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening
the need for the more expensive data.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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)(ii) of the Act.\11\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NASDAQ-2015-157 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-NASDAQ-2015-157. 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-
NASDAQ-2015-157 and should be submitted on or before January 25, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32989 Filed 12-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 134 (Monday, July 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40664-40666]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16301]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0649; FRL-9913-41-Region-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA requires
states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic
program elements, including, but not limited to regulatory structure,
monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary
to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements
are referred to as infrastructure requirements. The State of Maryland
has made a submittal addressing the infrastructure requirements for the
2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0649. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment,
1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Knapp,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA established a new 1-hour
primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion
(ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly
distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS.
Specifically, section 110(a)(1) requires states to submit SIPs meeting
the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years
following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period
as EPA may prescribe, and section 110(a)(2) requires states to address
specific elements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal
authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the
newly established or revised NAAQS.
    The contents of a SIP submission may vary depending upon the data
and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the provisions
already contained in the state's SIP at the time in which the state
develops and submits the submission for a new or revised NAAQS. States
were required to submit such SIPs for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS to
EPA no later than January 2013.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On April 15, 2014 (79 FR 21173), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of

Maryland proposing approval of Maryland's August 14, 2013 submittal to
satisfy several requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of the
following infrastructure elements: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof.
This action does not include any action on section 110(a)(2)(I) of the
CAA which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I
of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the
3-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1), and will be
addressed in a separate process if necessary. The rationale which
supports EPA's proposed action, including the scope of infrastructure
SIPs in general, is explained in the NPR and the technical support
document (TSD) accompanying the NPR and will not be restated here. The
TSD is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2013-0649.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving as a revision to the Maryland SIP the following
infrastructure elements in Maryland's August 14, 2013 submittal for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E),
(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This rulemaking action does not
include section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains to the
nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA, since this
element is not required to be submitted by the three year submission
deadline of section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a separate
process.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 12, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action, addressing infrastructure requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M)
of the CAA for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for the State of Maryland,
may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 25, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of non- regulatory SIP         Applicable      State submittal                            Additional
             revision                geographic area         date        EPA approval date       explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure   Statewide.........       8/14/2013   7/14/2014 [Insert    This action
 Requirements for the 2010                                               Federal Register     addresses the
 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS.                                                 citation].           following CAA
                                                                                elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2) (A),
                                                                                (B), (C), (D),
                                                                                (E), (F), (G),
                                                                                (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-16301 Filed 7-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24599-24601]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08799]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94762; File No. SR-ICEEU-2022-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe Delivery Procedures

April 20, 2022.
    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 April 12, 2022, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'' or
the ``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by
ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii)
thereunder,\4\ such that the proposed rule change was immediately
effective upon filing with the

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The principal purpose of the proposed amendments is for ICE Clear
Europe to amend Part N of its Delivery Procedures (``Delivery
Procedures'' or ``Procedures'') to include delivery specifications
applicable to a new ICE Futures Europe futures contract, the ICE
Deliverable Carbon Credit Contract, and to make certain conforming
changes elsewhere in the Delivery Procedures. Such contracts would be
settled by delivery of qualifying carbon credits through a Registry
approved by the Clearing House and in the same manner as delivery under
ICE Deliverable US Emissions Contracts.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe is proposing to amend Part N of its Delivery
Procedures to include delivery procedures applicable to settlement of a
new ICE Futures Europe futures contract, the ICE Futures Europe Carbon
Credit Contract, which will be cleared by ICE Clear Europe. The
amendments to Part N would detail settlement procedures applicable to
ICE Futures Europe Carbon Credit Contracts (i) for which physical
delivery is specified as being ``Applicable'' in the relevant Contract
Terms, and (ii) which go to physical delivery on the expiry date (such
contracts ``ICE Deliverable Carbon Credit Contracts''). The amendments
would make certain other clarifications to Part N, which also addresses
ICE Deliverable US Emissions Contracts, as well as conforming changes
elsewhere in the Delivery Procedures. As a result of the amendments,
settlement under ICE Deliverable Carbon Credit Contracts would
generally be made under the same delivery procedures as settlement
under ICE Deliverable US Emissions Contracts, except as noted in the
amended procedures.
    The amendments to Part N would clarify that the definition of
``Allowance'' means any and all transferrable or assignable interests
(in property, equity, contract or otherwise) in an instrument,
certificate, permit, asset, security, right, contract or allowance that
is designed as a deliverable instrument for an ICE Deliverable US
Emissions Contract in the relevant Contract Terms.
    A parallel definition of ``Carbon Credit'' would be added for the
ICE Deliverable Carbon Credit Contract, which would provide that such
any and all transferrable or assignable interests (in property, equity,
contract or otherwise) in an instrument, certificate, permit, asset,
security, right, contract or allowance that is designed as a
deliverable instrument for an ICE Deliverable Carbon Contract in the
relevant Contract Terms.
    The definition of ``Registry'' and the details about the procedures
relating to bilateral delivery (i.e., delivery directly between a
seller and buyer, rather than through a Clearing House account) through
a Registry approved by the Clearing House would be updated to apply to
the physical delivery of Carbon Credits under ICE Deliverable Carbon
Credit Contracts (as applicable) in addition to the physical delivery
of Allowances under US Emissions Contracts (as applicable).
    The discussion about the Clearing House's processes with respect to
Exchange for Physicals (EFPs) and Exchange for Swaps (EFSs) would be
updated to apply to EFPs and EFSs made in accordance with ICE Futures
Europe Rules and Procedures (to address the ICE Deliverable Carbon
Credit Contracts) in addition to ICE Futures US Rules and procedures
(as applicable).
    The amendments would add a new paragraph 2.6 to the Delivery
Specifications section which specifies that, for the avoidance of
doubt, (i) the Registry would be a Delivery Facility; and (ii)
Allowances and Carbon Credits shall be Deliverables (both changes tie
the delivery specifications to relevant defined terms used in the
Rules).
    The amendments would update the discussion of limitations of
liability for the Clearing House and ICE Futures US to also apply to
ICE Futures Europe (as the exchange for the ICE Deliverable Carbon
Credit Contracts).
    Finally, the section describing and providing a Delivery Timetable
detailing processes and timing related to the delivery of Allowances
under ICE Deliverable US Emissions Contracts would be updated to apply
to delivery of Carbon Credits under the ICE Deliverable Carbon Credit
Contracts as well (as applicable).
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments to the
Delivery Procedures are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A
of the Act \5\ and the regulations thereunder applicable to it. In
particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\ requires, among other
things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody
or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and
the protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed
changes to the Delivery Procedures are designed to establish delivery
procedures relating to new ICE Delivery Carbon Credit Contracts to be
traded on ICE Futures Europe and cleared at ICE Clear Europe, under
which physical delivery will be made through the Registry approved by
the Clearing House. The amendments would also set out the role,
responsibilities and liabilities of the Clearing House, Clearing
Members and designated transferors and transferees in the physical
delivery process, in line with Delivery Procedures for other types of
ICE Futures US Emissions Contracts, particularly the ICE Deliverable US
Emissions Contracts. ICE Deliverable Carbon Credit Contracts will be
supported by ICE Clear Europe's existing F&O financial resources, risk
management, systems and operational arrangements. Accordingly, ICE
Clear Europe believes that its financial resources, risk management,
systems and operational arrangements are sufficient to support clearing
of such contracts and to manage the risks associated with such
contracts. As a result, in ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments
would be consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of the contracts, and the protection of investors and the
public interest consistent with the requirements of Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\7\ (In ICE Clear Europe's view,

the amendments would not affect the safeguarding of funds or securities
in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).\8\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(10) \9\ provides that ``[e]ach covered
clearing agency shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonable designed to, as applicable
[. . .] establish and maintain transparent written standards that state
its obligations with respect to the delivery of physical instruments,
and establish and maintain operational practices that identify, monitor
and manage the risks associated with such physical deliveries.'' As
discussed above, the amendments would include in Part N procedures
applicable to the settlement of ICE Deliverable Carbon Credit Contracts
that are to be settled by delivery through a Registry approved by the
Clearing House. The procedures would address, among other matters and
in line with the procedures applicable to ICE Deliverable US Emissions
Contracts, bilateral delivery specifications for ICE Deliverable Carbon
Credit Contracts, limitation of liability for the Clearing House and
ICE Futures Europe in respect of the delivery of such contracts, and
certain other documentation and timing matters, consistent with the
requirements of the Clearing House. Clearance of the ICE Deliverable
Carbon Credit Contracts would be supported by ICE Clear Europe's
existing financial resources, risk management, systems and operational
arrangements. The amendments thus appropriately clarify the role and
responsibilities of the Clearing House and Clearing Members with
respect to physical delivery. As a result, ICE Clear Europe believes
the amendments are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(10).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(10).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
amendments to the Delivery Procedures are intended to establish
delivery procedures for a new contract to be traded on ICE Futures
Europe and cleared at ICE Clear Europe, the ICE Deliverable Carbon
Credit Contracts. Delivery of ICE Deliverable Carbon Credit Contracts
will be made through a Registry approved by the Clearing House. ICE
Clear Europe does not believe the amendments would adversely affect
competition among Clearing Members, materially affect the cost of
clearing, adversely affect access to clearing in the new contracts for
Clearing Members or their customers, or otherwise adversely affect
competition in clearing services. Accordingly, ICE Clear Europe does
not believe that the amendments would impose any impact or burden on
competition that is not appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of
the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any comments received with respect to 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 \11\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \12\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2022-009 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-ICEEU-2022-009. 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 such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE
Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation.
    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-ICEEU-2022-009 and should be
submitted on or before May 17, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08799 Filed 4-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 51163-51164]
[DOCID:fr18au10-185]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2010-36]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 25. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory
activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or
omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal
status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before September 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0597 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can
find and read the

comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Menkin, ANM-113,
Standardization Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Ave., SW., Renton, WA 98057; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>425-227-2793; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Katherine
Haley, ARM-203, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20591; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 493-5708; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2010-0597.
    Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 25.853(d) Amdt. 25-83.
    Description of Relief Sought: To provide relief from heat release
and smoke density testing for one inch energy absorbing padding
installed on the edges of business class passenger seat partition walls
on Boeing Model 777-300ER series airplanes. The padding is used to
reduce the potential for head injury from an emergency landing or
turbulence.

[FR Doc. 2010-20464 Filed 8-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P