[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 212 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67808-67810]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27908]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76293; File No. SR-BATS-2015-96]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend
the Pilot Period of the BATS Exchange, Inc.'s Supplemental Competitive
Liquidity Provider Program

October 28, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 27, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') 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 Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it 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)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to extend the pilot period for the
Exchange's Supplemental Competitive Liquidity Provider Program (the
``Program''), which is currently set to

expire on October 28, 2015, for three months, to expire on January 28,
2016.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
Background
    On August 30, 2011, the Exchange received approval of rules
applicable to the qualification, listing and delisting of securities of
issuers on the Exchange.\5\ More recently, the Exchange received
approval to operate a pilot program that is designed to incentivize
certain Market Makers \6\ registered with the Exchange as ETP CLPs, as
defined in Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 11.8, to enhance
liquidity on the Exchange in certain ETPs \7\ listed on the Exchange
and thereby qualify to receive part of a daily rebate as part of the
Program under Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 11.8.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65225 (August 30,
2011), 76 FR 55148 (September 6, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-018).
    \6\ As defined in BATS Rules, the term ``Market Maker'' means a
Member that acts a as a market maker pursuant to Chapter XI of BATS
Rules.
    \7\ ETP is defined in Interpretation and Policy .03(b)(4) to
Rule 11.8.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72692 (July 28,
2014), 79 FR 44908 (August 1, 2014) (SR-BATS-2014-022) (``CLP
Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Program was approved by the Commission on a pilot basis running
one-year from the date of implementation.\9\ The Commission approved
the Program on July 28, 2014.\10\ The Exchange implemented the Program
on July 28, 2014 and the pilot period for the Program was originally
scheduled to end on July 28, 2015 until it was extended to end on
October 28, 2015.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id at 44909.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75518 (July 24,
2015), 80 FR 45566 (July 30, 2015 (SR-BATS-2015-55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Extend the Operation of the Program
    The Exchange established the Program in order to enhance liquidity
on the Exchange in certain ETPs listed on the Exchange (and thereby
enhance the Exchange's ability to compete as a listing venue) by
providing a mechanism by which ETP CLPs compete for part of a daily
quoting incentive on the basis of providing the most aggressive quotes
with the greatest amount of size. Such competition has the ability to
reduce spreads, facilitate the price discovery process, and reduce
costs for investors trading in such securities, thereby promoting
capital formation and helping the Exchange to compete as a listing
venue. The Exchange believes that extending the pilot is appropriate
because it will allow the Exchange and the Commission additional time
to analyze data regarding the Program that the Exchange has committed
to provide.\12\ As such, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate
to extend the current operation of the Program. Further information
related to the Program including data can be found on the Exchange's
Web site.\13\ Through this filing, the Exchange seeks to extend the
current pilot period of the Program until January 28, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See CLP Approval Order, supra note 8 at 44913.
    \13\ See http://www.bats.com/us/equities/etfmarketplace/trade_on_bats/clp/reports/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\14\ In particular,
the Exchange believes the proposed change furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that
extending the pilot period for the Program is consistent with these
principles because the Program is reasonably designed to enhance quote
competition, improve liquidity in securities listed on the Exchange,
support the quality of price discovery, promote market transparency,
and increase competition for listings and trade executions, while
reducing spreads and transaction costs in such securities. Maintaining
and increasing liquidity in Exchange-listed securities will help raise
investors' confidence in the fairness of the market and their
transactions. The extension of the pilot period will allow the
Commission and the Exchange to continue to monitor the Program for its
potential effects on public price discovery, and on the broader market
structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
extends an established pilot program for 3 months, thus allowing the
Program to enhance competition in both the listings market and in
competition for market makers. The Program will continue to promote
competition in the listings market by providing issuers with a vehicle
for paying the Exchange additional fees in exchange for incentivizing
tighter spreads and deeper liquidity in listed securities and allow the
Exchange to continue to compete with similar programs at Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC \16\ and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69195 (March 20,
2013), 78 FR 18393 (March 26, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-137).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69335 (April 5,
2013), 78 FR 35340 (June 12, 2013) (SR-NYSEARCA-2013-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that extending the pilot program for an
additional 3 months will allow the Program to continue to enhance
competition among market participants by creating incentives for market
makers to compete to make better quality markets. By continuing to
require that market makers both meet the quoting requirements and also
compete for the daily financial incentives, the quality of quotes on
the Exchange will continue to improve. This, in turn, will attract more
liquidity to the Exchange and further improve the quality of trading in
exchange-listed securities participating in the Program, which will
also act to bolster the Exchange's listing business.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from Members or other interested parties.

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

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

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

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative before 30 days from the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\20\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Waiver of the operative delay will allow the Exchange to extend the
Program prior to its expiration on October 28, 2015, which will ensure
that the Program continues to operate uninterrupted while the Exchange
and the Commission continue to analyze data regarding the Program.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with
the Commission.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 No. SR-BATS-2015-96 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 No. SR-BATS-2015-96. 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 such filing will also 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 No. SR-BATS-2015-96 and should be
submitted on or before November 23, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-27908 Filed 11-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0607; FRL-       ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland; State Implementation Plan Revision for American Cyanamid
Company,

Havre de Grace, Maryland

AGENCY:	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:	Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland. The intended effect of this action
is to remove an August 2, 1984 Secretarial Order (Order) from the
Maryland SIP.  The Order constituted a Plan for Compliance (PFC) and an
alternative method of assessing compliance at an American Cyanamid
Company (Company) facility located in Havre de Grace, Harford County,
Maryland (the Facility).  The Order allowed for certain volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions sources at the Facility to achieve compliance
with emissions limits through averaging (or “bubbling”) of emissions
over a 24-hour period.  Removal of the Order from the SIP will remove
the “bubbling” compliance option for these sources at the Facility.
In lieu of “bubbling,” the sources must comply with the approved and
more stringent Maryland SIP provisions for the control of VOC emissions,
which do not allow averaging or “bubbling.” This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This final rule is effective on [insert date 30 days
from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID Number EPA R03-OAR-2006-0607.  All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov website.   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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Bigioni,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.	Background

On August 23, 2006 (71 FR 49393), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland.  The NPR proposed approval
of a SIP revision to remove the Order from the Maryland SIP.  The formal
SIP revision was submitted by Maryland on May 17, 2006.

The Order was approved into the Maryland SIP in a final rule published
on May 16, 1990 (55 FR 20269).  The Order provided the Company with a
PFC and an alternative method of assessing compliance for certain
installations located at the Facility by allowing the averaging or
“bubbling” of the emissions of VOC over a 24-hour period.  By
allowing “bubbling” of VOC emissions the Company could over-control
emissions at some units and under control at other units such that the
overall emissions from the sources collectively would be the same as
those that would be achieved utilizing traditional control strategies at
each source.  The VOC sources where “bubbling” was allowed at the
Facility were components of the Facility’s paper and fabric adhesive
coating operation, and included Towers 2, 3, and 5 and the FM-1000
coater/dryer.

Summary of SIP Revision

Removal of the Order from the SIP will subject the VOC emissions sources
at the Facility that were formerly subject to the “bubbling”
provisions of the Order to the Maryland VOC regulations and limits
codified at Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR)  <IP_ADDRESS>.  Those
COMAR regulations are part of the Maryland SIP. (65 FR 2334, January 14,
2000).  The materials submitted by Maryland in support of the SIP
revision indicate that the Facility currently intends to comply with the
SIP-approved VOC limits by reducing VOC emissions through use of a
regenerative thermal oxidizer, as allowed by COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>B(2)(b)(ii) and the Maryland SIP (68 FR 9012, February 27,
2003).  This SIP revision will remove the current ability for the
current owner of the Facility, Cytec Engineered Materials, Inc., to
comply with VOC emissions limits for the sources subject to the Order
through averaging or “bubbling” of VOC emissions.  The SIP-approved
limits codified at COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>C do not allow for compliance
through averaging/”bubbling.”  The applicable COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>C
limits of 2.9 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating as applied (minus
water), are also more stringent than  the emissions limit of 3.2 pounds
of VOC per gallon of coating as applied (minus water) imposed by the
Order.  No public comments were received on the NPR.

III.	Final Action

EPA is approving the removal of the August 2, 1984 Secretarial Order as
a revision to the Maryland SIP.

IV.   Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For this reason, this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).  This action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.  Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).  Because this rule approves pre-existing
requirements under state law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4).   This rule also does not have tribal implications
because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).  This action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).  This
action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.  This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks( (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA(s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to
use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.  This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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.  Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of
rules: (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.  5 U.S.C. 804(3).   EPA is not
required to submit a rule report regarding today(s action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing
source-specific requirements for a named source.

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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 approving the removal of the August 2, 1984
Secretarial Order as a revision to the Maryland SIP may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.  (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds

____________________				__________________________________

Dated:  October 16, 2006      				William Wisniewski, Acting
                    							Regional Administrator,

                                  					Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart V( Maryland

2.  In ( 52.1070, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing the
entry for American Cyanamid Co.

 PAGE

 PAGE  7

 PAGE   8


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 65 (Thursday, April 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13345-13346]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06510]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85475; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2019-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To List and Trade Shares of SolidX Bitcoin Shares Issued by the
VanEck SolidX Bitcoin Trust, Under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-
Based Trust Shares

March 29, 2019.
    On January 30, 2019, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the SolidX Bitcoin
Shares under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on February 20, 2019.\3\
The Commission has received comment letters on the proposed rule
change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85119 (Feb. 13,
2019), 84 FR 5140 (Feb. 20, 2019).
    \4\ Comments on the proposed rule change can be found at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebzx-2019-004/srcboebzx2019004.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is April 6, 2019. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ designates May
21, 2019 as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to

disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-CboeBZX-2019-004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-06510 Filed 4-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 22, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14623-14631]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05707]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0357; FRL-9958-53]

Cyantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
cyantraniliprole in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company and
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective March 22, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2017, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0357 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0357 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
May 22, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-

2014-0357, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of January 28, 2015 (80 FR 4525) (FRL-9921-
55), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP
4F8258 and 4F8320) by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, 1007 Market
St., Wilmington, DE 19898 and Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, P.O. Box
18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, respectively. The petitions requested that
40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of
the insecticide cyantraniliprole, in or on artichokes, globe (import
tolerance) at 0.1 parts per million (ppm); berries, low growing, except
strawberries (crop subgroup 13-07H) (import tolerance) at 0.08 ppm;
coffee, bean, green (import tolerance) at 0.05 ppm; grapes (import
tolerance) at 1.5 ppm; olives (import tolerance) at 1.5 ppm; peanuts at
0.01 ppm; peanut hay at 3 ppm; pomegranates (import tolerance) at 0.01
ppm; rice, grain (import tolerance) at 0.03 ppm; soybeans, seed at 0.4
ppm; strawberries at 1.0 ppm; vegetables, foliage of legume (crop group
7) at 50 ppm; vegetables, leaves of root and tuber (crop group 2) at 40
ppm; vegetables, legume, dried shelled, except soybean (crop subgroup
6C) at 0.9 ppm; vegetables, legume, edible podded (crop subgroup 6A) at
2 ppm; vegetables, legume, succulent shelled (crop subgroup 6B) at 0.2
ppm; vegetables, root, except sugar beet (crop subgroup 1B) at 0.4 ppm;
and tea, dried (import tolerance) at 30 ppm (PP 4F8258) and corn, field
and pop, forage at 0.04 ppm; corn, field and pop, grain at 0.01 ppm;
corn, field and pop, stover at 0.015 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 0.02
ppm; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.01 ppm; and
corn, sweet, stover at 0.08 ppm (PP 4F8320). That document referenced a
summary of the petitions prepared by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
and Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, the registrants, which is available
in the dockets EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0357 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0890,
respectively, at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on
the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in
Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the levels at which and the commodities upon which tolerances
are being established. The reasons for these changes are explained in
Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for cyantraniliprole including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
cyantraniliprole 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.
    In general, cyantraniliprole administration in mammals produces
both adverse and adaptive changes in the liver, thyroid gland, and
adrenal cortex. With repeated dosing, consistent findings of mild to
moderate increases in liver weights across multiple species (rats,
mice, and dogs) are observed. Dogs appear to be more sensitive than
rats and mice; cyantraniliprole produces adverse liver effects
(increases in alkaline phosphatase, decreases in cholesterol, and
decreases in albumin) in dogs at lower dose levels than in rats. In
addition, the liver effects in the dog show progressive severity with
increased duration of exposure. The available data also show thyroid
hormone homeostasis is altered in rats following exposure to
cyantraniliprole after 90 days due to enhanced metabolism of the
thyroid hormones by the liver. However, cyantraniliprole does not act
directly on the thyroid; the thyroid effects observed are secondary to
the effects on the liver.
    Cyantraniliprole is classified as ``Not Likely to be Carcinogenic
to Humans'' based on the absence of increased tumor incidence in
carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. In addition, there are no
genotoxicity, mutagenicity, neurotoxicity, or immunotoxicity concerns.
There are also no developmental or reproductive toxicity concerns and
there is no evidence of an adverse effect attributable to a single
dose.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by cyantraniliprole as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Cyantraniliprole. Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Uses on Root Vegetables (except
Sugar Beet) (Crop Subgroup 1B), Leaves of Root and Tuber Vegetables
(Crop Group 2), Legume Vegetables (Crop Group 6 except soybean), Leaves
of Legume Vegetables (Crop Group 7 except soybean), Peanuts,
Strawberries, Tobacco and Seed Treatment Uses on Corn (Field, Pop,
Seed, Sweet). Tolerance Requests without U.S. Registration for
Artichokes, Coffee Green Bean, Wine Grapes, Low Growing Berries (except
Strawberries) (Crop Subgroup 13-07H), Olives, Pomegranate, and Tea
Dried. Amended Tolerance Requests for Cucurbit

Vegetables (Crop Group 9) due to New Use Pattern and Amended Uses for
Tomatoes and Peppers'' on page 40 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-
0357.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyantraniliprole used
for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of February 5, 2014 (79 FR 6826)
(FRL-9388-7).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to cyantraniliprole, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing cyantraniliprole
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.672. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
cyantraniliprole 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
cyantraniliprole; 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 2003-2008 United
States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA).
As to residue levels in food, a refined chronic (food and drinking
water) dietary assessment was conducted assuming average field trial
residues for all proposed crops (except sugar beet root), percent crop
treated (PCT) where available, and percent crop treated for new uses
(PCTn) for some crops. In addition, the estimated percentage of
imported grapes was incorporated into the assessment. For processed
commodities, input values included combined average residues of parent
and the metabolite (IN-J9Z38) with relevant processing factors. The
chronic assessment incorporated empirical processing factors, if
available, or Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) Version 7.81
default processing factors as appropriate. Empirical processing factors
were used for potato flakes and chips, tomatoes (paste, puree, dried,
and juice), orange juice, apple juice, cottonseed oil, citrus oil, and
dried plums. The processing factors for these commodities were set at 1
because the residue input values included combined residues of the
parent and the metabolite with relevant processing factors. Crop field
trial data depicting residues in/on citrus fruit peels (lemon and
orange) were available and included into the assessment.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that cyantraniliprole 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 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, 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 Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows:
    Citrus: Oranges 62%, grapefruit 87%, and lemons 46%; pome fruit:
Apples 61% and pears 76%; stone fruits: Apricots 53%, cherries 48%,
peaches 41%, and plums/prunes 59%; tree nuts: Almonds 72%, hazelnuts
65%, pecans 22%, pistachios 49%, and walnuts 53%; bushberries (subgroup
13-07B): Blueberries 45%; fruiting vegetables: Peppers 45% and tomatoes
54%; cucurbits: Cantaloupes 50%, cucumbers 23%, pumpkins 18%, squash
24%, and watermelons 29%; leafy vegetables: Celery 70%, lettuce 78%,
and spinach 53%; Brassica (cole) leafy vegetables: Broccoli 81%,
cabbage 50%, and cauliflower 83%; onion 58%; potato 50%; oilseeds:
Canola 15% and sunflower 35%; and corn 56%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7
years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic 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 one. In those
cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the

maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis.
The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey
data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
    The Agency estimated the PCT for new uses as follows:
    Cotton 41%; peanuts 41%; carrots 23%; soybeans 21%; strawberries
59%; vegetable crop group 7: Dry beans/peas 6%, soybeans 21%, beans
(snap, bush, etc.) 49%, and peas fresh/green/sweet) 38%; vegetable crop
group 2: Sugar beets 40%; vegetable crop group 6A: Soybeans 21%, beans
(snap, bush, etc., string) 49%; peas fresh/green/sweet) 38%; vegetable
crop group 6C: Dried bean and peas 6%. For the imported grapes (wine
grapes) a 50% import estimate was used in the chronic dietary risk
assessment.
    EPA estimates of the PCTn of cyantraniliprole represent the upper
bound of use expected during the pesticide's initial five years of
registration; that is, PCTn for cyantraniliprole is a threshold of use
that EPA is reasonably certain will not be exceeded for each registered
use site. The PCTn recommended for use in the chronic dietary
assessment is calculated as the average PCT of the market leader or
leaders (i.e., the currently registered pesticide(s) with the greatest
PCT) on that site over the three most recent years of available data.
Comparisons are only made among pesticides of the same pesticide type
(e.g., the market leader for insecticides on the use site is selected
for comparison with a new insecticide). The market leader included in
the estimation may not be the same for each year since different
pesticides may dominate at different times.
    Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS as the source of data because it is
publicly available and directly reports values for PCT. When a specific
use site is not reported by USDA/NASS, EPA uses market survey data and
calculates the PCT given reported data on acres treated and acres
grown. If no data are available, EPA may extrapolate PCTn from other
crops, if the production area and pest spectrum are substantially
similar.
    A retrospective analysis to validate this approach shows few cases
where the PCT for the overall market leaders were exceeded. Further
review of these cases identified factors contributing to the
exceptionally high use of a new pesticide. To evaluate whether the PCTn
for cyantraniliprole could be exceeded, EPA considered whether there
may be unusually high pest pressure, as indicated in emergency
exemption requests for cyantraniliprole; how the pest spectrum of the
new pesticide compares with the market leaders; and whether pest
resistance issues with past market leaders provide cyantraniliprole
with significant market potential. EPA also considered the potential
for resistance to cyantraniliprole to develop as a limiting factor in
its use. Given currently available information, EPA concludes that it
is unlikely that actual PCT for cyantraniliprole will exceed the
estimated PCT for new uses during the next five years.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. 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 cyantraniliprole may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for cyantraniliprole in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of cyantraniliprole. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC), the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of cyantraniliprole for chronic exposures are
estimated to be 24 ppb for surface water and 64 ppb for ground water,
respectively.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. An acute dietary risk
assessment was not conducted since no acute toxicological effects were
found. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration
value of 64 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Cyantraniliprole is
currently registered for the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Turfgrass (including residential, recreational,
and golf course turf), ornamentals, and structural buildings (including
indoor crack/crevice and outdoor broadcast). EPA assessed residential
exposure using the following assumptions: Residential exposure may
occur by the dermal, oral, and inhalation routes and is expected to be
short-term in duration of exposures. However, since a dermal hazard has
not been identified for cyantraniliprole, the only exposures of concern
are handler inhalation (for adults), and post-application incidental
oral (for children). For adults, the oral and inhalation routes of
exposure were not aggregated since the endpoints of concern are not
common. The turf and ornamental labels indicate that a maximum of two
applications are allowed per season. Thus, intermediate-term exposures
are not likely because of the intermittent nature of applications by
homeowners. Post-application incidental oral exposures for children may
occur for short- and intermediate-term durations due to the persistence
of cyantraniliprole. Although intermediate-term incidental oral post-
application exposures are possible (i.e., from soil ingestion, due to
the persistence of cyantraniliprole), the short-term incidental oral
exposures are protective of the possible intermediate-term incidental
oral exposures because the POD for both durations is the same. Further
information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for
residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    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 cyantraniliprole to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and cyantraniliprole does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
cyantraniliprole 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

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 Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision,
EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support
the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
susceptibility in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits.
The developmental toxicity study in rats tested up to the limit dose
(1,000 mg/kg/day). In the rabbit developmental toxicity study decreases
in fetal body weight are seen at a dose higher than that resulting in
maternal effects. In the reproductive toxicity study, increased
incidence of thyroid follicular epithelium hypertrophy/hyperplasia
occurs in F1 parental animals at a dose lower than that for
the parental (P) generation. A clear NOAEL (1.4 mg/kg/day) is
established for F1 parental animals, and the PODs selected
for risk assessment from the dog studies (1 or 3 mg/kg/day) are
protective of the effect (thyroid effect at 14 mg/kg/day) seen in the
F1 parental animals. In addition, the submitted data support
the conclusion that the effects on the thyroid are secondary to effects
on the liver.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for cyantraniliprole is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that cyantraniliprole 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 of susceptibility in developmental
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. In the reproductive toxicity
study, increased incidence of thyroid follicular epithelium
hypertrophy/hyperplasia occurs in F1 parental animals at a
dose lower than that for the parental (P) generation. However, for the
reasons summarized in Unit III.D.2. these effects are not of concern.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment was a refined
assessment which assumed average field trial residues for all crops
(except sugar beet root), PCT where available, and PCTn data. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to cyantraniliprole in drinking water.
EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application
exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by cyantraniliprole.

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,
cyantraniliprole 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
cyantraniliprole from food and water will utilize 98% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
cyantraniliprole is not expected.
    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).
    Cyantraniliprole is currently registered for uses that could result
in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that
it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to cyantraniliprole.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 149 for
children 1-2 years old. For adults, the oral and inhalation routes of
exposure were not aggregated since the endpoints of concern are not
common. Because EPA's level of concern for cyantraniliprole is a MOE of
100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.
    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).
    Cyantraniliprole is currently registered for uses that could result
in intermediate-term residential exposure, however, the short-term
aggregate risk estimate described above is protective of potential
intermediate-term exposures and risks in children.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, cyantraniliprole 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 cyantraniliprole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography with tandem
mass spectroscopy (LC/MS/MS)) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    For the commodities discussed in this action, there are only Codex
MRLs established for residues of cyantraniliprole on coffee beans (0.03
ppm), cucurbit fruiting vegetables (0.3 ppm), legume animal feeds (in
the U.S. identified as Foliage of legume vegetables) (0.8 ppm), and
root and tuber vegetables (0.05 ppm). There are also Codex MRLs for
residues of cyantraniliprole in/on ruminants at (0.01-0.05 ppm), milk
(0.02 ppm), and poultry commodities at (0.01 ppm).
    The EPA has not harmonized the tolerances for these commodities
with the existing Codex MRLs. The petitioner requested a tolerance on
coffee without a U.S. registration be established at 0.05 ppm to be
line with the existing MRL for coffee in Canada. The Codex MRLs
established for residues of cyantraniliprole on cucurbit fruiting
vegetables at 0.3 ppm, root and tuber vegetables at 0.05 ppm, and
legume animal feeds at 0.8 ppm are lower than the U.S. tolerances of
0.7 ppm, 0.15 ppm and 40 ppm, respectively. The U.S. tolerances cannot
be harmonized because following the label use directions could result
in residues above the established Codex MRLs. The Codex MRLs for
residues of cyantraniliprole in/on ruminants at (0.01-0.05 ppm), milk
(0.02 ppm), and poultry commodities at (0.01 ppm) are lower than the
U.S. tolerances. The U.S. and Codex livestock MRLs are not harmonized
due to different animal diets and tolerances (MRLs) established for
different animal feed commodities. The U.S. tolerances cannot be
harmonized (lowered) because following the label use directions could
result in residues above the Codex MRLs.

C. Response to Comments

    A comment was submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological
Diversity and the Center for Food Safety and was primarily concerned
about EPA's consideration of the impacts of cyantraniliprole on the
environment, pollinators, and endangered species. This comment is not
relevant to the Agency's evaluation of safety of the cyantraniliprole
tolerances under section 408 of the FFDCA, which requires the Agency to
evaluate the potential harms to human health, not effects on the
environment.
    EPA received two other comments to the Notices of Filing noting
general concerns about the toxicity of this chemical and stating, in
part, that ``this product represents a clear and present danger'' and
``should not be approved to be sold.'' The Agency understands the
commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that
pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops. However, the
existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the 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. EPA has assessed the effects of this
chemical on human health and determined that aggregate exposure to it
will be safe.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The Agency is not establishing the proposed tolerances for corn,
field and pop, forage; corn, field and pop stover; corn, sweet, forage;
and corn, sweet stover because the proposed uses are seed treatment
only, not a foliar use, so no residues will be present on these feed
commodities. Therefore, these tolerances are not necessary.
    The proposed tolerance for residues of cyantraniliprole in/on rice,
grain of 0.03 ppm is being modified to 0.02 ppm based on the OECD
statistical calculation applied to the field trial residue data.
    The proposed wine grape tolerance is being modified from 1.5 ppm to
2.0 ppm and a tolerance is being established on olive oil at 2.0 ppm
due to concentration demonstrated in the processing studies.
    The proposed tolerance for residues in/on legume vegetables,
subgroup 6C of 0.9 ppm is being modified to 1.0 ppm based on the OECD
statistical calculation applied to the field trial residue data.
    The proposed tolerance for residues in/on soybean seed including
the foliage (forage and hay) is not being established since processing
studies were not submitted for soybean processed commodities (hulls,
meal, oil). Therefore, the proposed tolerance for residues of
cyantraniliprole in/on vegetables, foliage of legume (crop group 7) is
being revised to ``Vegetable, foliage of legume, except soybean, group
7A.''
    Numerous ruminant commodity tolerances are already established.
These ruminant (cattle, goats, horses, and sheep) commodity tolerances
are being increased to reflect the new dietary burdens from the
tolerances established by this document.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-
6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on Artichoke, globe at 0.10 ppm;
Berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H at 0.08 ppm;
Coffee, green bean at 0.05 ppm; Corn, field, grain at 0.01 ppm; Corn,
pop, grain at 0.01 ppm; Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed
at 0.01 ppm; Grape, wine at 2.0 ppm; Olive at 1.5 ppm; Olive, oil at
2.0 ppm; Peanut at 0.01 ppm; Pomegranate at 0.01 ppm; Rice, grain at
0.02 ppm; Strawberry at 1.0 ppm; Tea at 30 ppm; Vegetable, foliage of
legume, except soybean, group 7A at 40 ppm; Vegetable, leaves of root
and tuber, group 2 at 40 ppm; Vegetable, legume, dried shelled, except
soybean, subgroup 6C at 1.0 ppm; Vegetable, legume, edible podded,
subgroup 6A at 2.0 ppm; Vegetable, legume, succulent shelled, subgroup
6B at 0.20 ppm; and Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at
0.40 ppm.
    In addition, the following tolerances are modified as follows:
Peanut, hay from 0.01 ppm to 3.0 ppm and Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9
from 0.40 ppm to 0.70 ppm.

    Also, due to the tolerances being established the following
tolerances are modified as follows: Cattle, fat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10
ppm; Cattle, meat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Cattle, meat byproducts
from 0.01 ppm to 0.40 ppm; Goat, fat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Goat,
meat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Goat, meat byproducts from 0.01 ppm to
0.40 ppm; Horse, fat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Horse, meat from 0.01
to 0.10 ppm; Horse, meat byproducts from 0.01 ppm to 0.40 ppm; Milk
from 0.01 ppm to 0.20 ppm; Sheep, fat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Sheep,
meat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; and Sheep, meat byproducts from 0.01 to
0.40 ppm.
    Lastly, due to the tolerances being established above, the indirect
or inadvertent tolerances under 40 CFR 180.672 (d) for Peanut, hay;
Vegetable, foliage of legume (group 7); Vegetable, leaves of root and
tuber vegetables (group 2); and Vegetable, root (subgroup 1A) are
removed as unnecessary, and new tolerances are established under
180.672 (d) for Beet, sugar, roots at 0.02 ppm; Soybean, forage at 0.70
ppm; and Soybean, hay at 0.70 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: February 17, 2017.
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. In Sec.  180.672, revise paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.672   Cyantraniliprole; tolerances for residues.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls...........................................             8.0
Artichoke, globe \1\....................................            0.10
Berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H              0.08
 \1\....................................................
Brassica head and stem, subgroup 5A.....................             3.0
Brassica leafy vegetables, subgroup 5B..................              30
Bushberry, subgroup 13-07B..............................             4.0
Cattle, fat.............................................            0.10
Cattle, meat............................................            0.10
Cattle, meat byproducts.................................            0.40
Cherry, subgroup 12-12A.................................             6.0
Citrus, oil.............................................             2.4
Coffee, green bean \1\..................................            0.05
Corn, field, grain......................................            0.01

Corn, pop, grain........................................            0.01
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed.........            0.01
Cotton, gin byproducts..................................              10
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10..............................            0.70
Fruit, pome, group 11-10................................             1.5
Goat, fat...............................................            0.10
Goat, meat..............................................            0.10
Goat, meat byproducts...................................            0.40
Grape, wine \1\.........................................             2.0
Horse, fat..............................................            0.10
Horse, meat.............................................            0.10
Horse, meat byproducts..................................            0.40
Milk....................................................            0.20
Nut, tree, group 14-12..................................            0.04
Oilseed group 20........................................             1.5
Olive \1\...............................................             1.5
Olive, oil \1\..........................................             2.0
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A.............................            0.04
Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B............................             8.0
Peach, subgroup 12-12B..................................             1.5
Peanut..................................................            0.01
Peanut hay..............................................             3.0
Plum, subgroup 12-12C...................................            0.50
Pomegranate \1\.........................................            0.01
Rice, grain \1\.........................................            0.02
Sheep, fat..............................................            0.10
Sheep, meat.............................................            0.10
Sheep, meat byproducts..................................            0.40
Strawberry..............................................             1.0
Tea \1\.................................................              30
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9............................            0.70
Vegetable, foliage of legume, except soybean, group 7A..              40
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10.........................             2.0
Vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4..............              20
Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2............              40
Vegetable, legume, dried shelled, except soybean,                    1.0
 subgroup 6C............................................
Vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A...........             2.0
Vegetable, legume, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B.......            0.20
Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B.........            0.40
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C...............            0.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations for these commodities.

* * * * *
    (d) Indirect or inadvertant residues. Tolerances are established
for indirect or inadvertant tolerances for residues of
cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-
6-[((methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on commodities in the following
table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following
table is to be determined by measuring only cyantraniliprole in or on
the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18.........................            0.20
Beet, sugar, roots......................................            0.02
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16.......            0.50
Grass forage, fodder and hay, group 17..................            0.50
Soybean, forage.........................................            0.70
Soybean, hay............................................            0.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-05707 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4624]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01600]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-1036]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hillsborough River, Tampa, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Hillsborough Avenue Bridge across
the Hillsborough River, mile 4.8, at Tampa, Florida, to facilitate
repairs. The deviation is necessary to provide repair personnel the
time needed to safely remove equipment on the bridge prior to opening.
This deviation allows the bridge a limited opening providing 20 feet of
vertical clearance if four hours advanced notice is given. Special
arrangements with the bridge owner can be made for full openings.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from January 29,
2014 until 7 p.m. on May 30, 2014. For the purposes of enforcement,
actual notice will be used from 7 a.m. on January 6, 2014, until
January 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-1036] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Lieberum, Chief
Operations Section, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) requested that the Hillsborough Avenue Bridge across the
Hillsborough River, Tampa, Florida regulation be temporarily changed
during the repairs to this bridge. The vertical clearance of the bridge
in the closed position is 10 feet. per 33 CFR 117.291(a), ``[t]he
drawspans for the drawbridges at Platt Street, mile 0.0, Brorein
Street, mile 0.16, Kennedy Boulevard, mile 0.4, Cass Street, mile 0.7,
Laurel Street, mile 1.0, West Columbus Drive, mile 2.3, and West
Hillsborough Avenue, mile 4.8, must open on signal if at least two
hours notice is given; except that, the drawspan must open on signal as
soon as possible for public vessels of the United States.''
    An FDOT contractor originally requested to place the bridge on a
four hour notice for a 20 foot vertical clearance opening from November
2013 through August 2014. This request was contested by the local
marine community; therefore, the Coast Guard sought measures to ensure
the bridge work could be conducted safely without unreasonably
obstructing navigation through this area. Based on documentation
received and subsequent coordination with FDOT and local marine
interests, the Coast Guard determined that the following restrictions
to the Hillsborough Avenue Bridge do not unreasonably restrict
navigation and provide for the safety of workers and the movable bridge
structure.
    The Hillsborough Avenue Bridge will open to a height of 20 feet of
vertical clearance with a four hour notice to the bridge tender. The
normal vertical clearance of the bridge in the closed position of 10
feet will be reduced by 4 feet to accommodate the painting tarps.
Vessels requiring less than six feet of vertical clearance may pass at
any time. Vessels requiring more than 20 feet of vertical clearance
need to contact Mr. Jim Fitzer, the project manager, at<PHONE_NUMBER> to
coordinate a scheduled opening. Additionally, approximately 10
nighttime closures from 8:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. may be required to
complete repairs to Hillsborough Avenue Bridge. Notice will be
published when these nighttime closures are required.
    The Coast Guard will inform waterway users of the change in
operating schedule for this bridge through the Local Notice to
Mariners. Mariners are advised to use this information in order to
arrange safe transit through this bridge and minimize any delay caused
by this temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: January 3, 2014.
B. Dragon,
Director, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-01600 Filed 1-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on October 3, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2003-16181

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  CONSORCIO AVIACSA, S.A. de C.V.
                   Date Filed:  September 15, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to conduct scheduled, combination service between Monterrey,
Mexico, and Miami, Florida.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority.

Applicant representative:  Jim J. Marquez,<PHONE_NUMBER>        DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.			       			                       Action date:
October 3, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  October 3, 2003, through October
3, 2004.

Basis for approval:  United States-Mexico Air Transport Services
Agreement

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_avia楴湯愮灳

*