[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40677-40678]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0085]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Implantable
Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from three individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against operation of a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) by persons with a current clinical diagnosis of
myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, coronary insufficiency,
thrombosis, or any other cardiovascular disease of a variety known to
be accompanied by syncope (transient loss of consciousness), dyspnea
(shortness of breath), collapse, or congestive heart failure. If
granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ICDs to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2021-0085 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/,
insert the docket number, FMCSA-2021-0085, in the keyword box, and
click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),''
choose the first notice listed, and click on the ``Comment'' button.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions regarding
viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0085), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov/, insert
the docket number FMCSA-2021-0085 in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose
the first notice listed,

click the ``Comment'' button, and type your comment into the text box
on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment
as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-2021-0085, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access
to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The three individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(4). Accordingly, the Agency will
evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether
granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety
mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard found in Sec.  391.41(b)(4)
states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that
person has no current clinical diagnosis of myocardial infarction,
angina pectoris, coronary insufficiency, thrombosis, or any other
cardiovascular disease of a variety known to be accompanied by syncope,
dyspnea, collapse, or congestive cardiac failure.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. The advisory criteria states that ICDs are
disqualifying due to risk of syncope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in 49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A
TO PART 391--MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section D. Cardiovascular:
Sec.  391.41(b)(4), paragraph 4, which is available on the internet
at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Willard Drysdale

    Mr. Drysdale is a CMV driver in Minnesota. An October 7, 2020,
letter from his cardiologist reports that in 2018, his pacemaker was
upgraded to an ICD for preventive measures, that he was asymptomatic
concerning his cardiac history at his last evaluation in 2019, and that
he has not required any device therapies for tachycardia.

William Edwards

    Mr. Edwards is a CMV driver in New York State. A March 31, 2021,
letter from his cardiac specialists reports that he is being treated
with a biventricular ICD that was implanted in March 2020, and the
device has never needed to deliver therapy.

Francisco Garcia

    Mr. Garcia is a CMV driver in New Jersey. A March 4, 2021, letter
from his cardiologist reports that his ICD was implanted for preventive
measures, he has never had a sustained arrhythmia, and he has never
passed out. His physician and the electrophysiologist who implanted his
defibrillator both agree that it would be safe for Mr. Garcia to drive
a CMV.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated under the DATES
section of the notice.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-16092 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3617-3621]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1254]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0968; FRL-9334-9]

Etoxazole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
etoxazole in or on field corn and popcorn. Valent U.S.A. Corporation
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective January 25, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 26, 2012, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0968. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0968 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
March 26, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0968, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 25, 2011 (76 FR 10584) (FRL-
8863-3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
0F7783) by Valent USA Corporation, 1600 Riviera Avenue, Suite 200,
Walnut Creek, CA 94596. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.593 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the miticide/ovicide
etoxazole, 2-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4-[4- (1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-
ethoxyphenyl]-4,5-dihydrooxazole, in or on corn, field, grain at 0.01
parts per million (ppm); corn, field, forage at 0.6 ppm; corn, field,
stover at 2.5 ppm; corn, field, refined oil at 0.03 ppm; corn, pop,
grain at 0.01 ppm; corn, pop, stover at 2.5 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.01
ppm; and poultry, liver at 0.02 ppm. That notice referenced a summary
of the petition prepared by Valent, the registrant, which is available
in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments
received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the levels at which some of the tolerances are being set and
determined tolerances are not needed for poultry.

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 section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for etoxazole including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with etoxazole
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.
    Etoxazole possesses low acute toxicity via all routes of exposure.
It is not an eye or dermal irritant or a dermal sensitizer. No toxicity
was seen at the limit dose in a 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats.
    The liver is the main target organ in mice, rats and dogs. In a 90-
day toxicity study in dogs, increased liver weights and centrilobular
hepatocellular swelling in the liver were observed. Similar effects
were observed in a chronic toxicity study in dogs at similar doses,
indicating that systemic effects (mainly liver effects) occur at
similar dose levels following short- through long-term exposure without
increasing in severity. In a 90-day toxicity study in mice,
hepatotoxicity (increased relative liver weight, liver enlargement, and
centrilobular hepatocellular swelling) was observed at high doses.
Similar effects were observed at the high dose in a mouse
carcinogenicity study. Subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in rats
produced similar effects (increased liver weights, centrilobular
hepatocellular swelling, etc.) to those seen in mice and dogs. In
addition, slight increases in thyroid weights and incisors were
observed in subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in rats at high
doses and at terminal stages of the study. Toxicity was not observed at
the highest dose tested (HDT) in another carcinogenicity study in mice.
There is no evidence of immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity in any of the
submitted studies.
    Two studies in mice showed no evidence of carcinogenicity up to the
HDT. In a rat carcinogenicity study, which was deemed unacceptable due
to inadequate dosing, benign interstitial cell tumors (testis) and
pancreas benign islet cell adenomas were observed (in females) at the
high dose. These effects were not observed in an acceptable
carcinogenicity study in rats at higher doses. In special mechanistic
male rat studies there were no observable changes in serum hormone
levels (estradiol, luteinizing hormone (LH), prolactin and
testosterone) or reproductive effects (interstitial cell proliferation
or spermatogenesis) noted. EPA classified etoxazole as ``not likely to
be carcinogenic to humans.'' Etoxazole is not mutagenic.
    The toxicology data for etoxazole provides no indication of
increased susceptibility, as compared to adults, of rat and rabbit
fetuses to in utero exposure in developmental studies. The rabbit
developmental toxicity study included maternal toxic effects (liver
enlargement, decreased weight gain, and decreased food consumption) at
the same dose as developmental effects (increased incidences of 27
presacral vertebrae and 27 presacral vertebrae with 13th ribs). In the
2-generation reproduction study conducted with rats, offspring toxicity
was more severe (pup mortality) than parental toxicity (increased liver
and adrenal weights) at the same dose, indicating increased qualitative
susceptibility.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by etoxazole 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 document titled ``Etoxazole. Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Uses in/on Field Corn and Pop Corn,'' pp. 24-27
in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0968.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for etoxazole used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B., in the Table of the
final rule published in the Federal Register of April 13, 2011 (76 FR
20537) (FRL-8867-5) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-13/pdf/2011-8550.pdf.)

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to etoxazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing etoxazole tolerances in 40 CFR
180.593. EPA assessed dietary exposures from etoxazole 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
etoxazole; 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 United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Surveys
for Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food,
an unrefined, chronic dietary exposure assessment was performed for the
general U.S. population and various population subgroups using
tolerance-level residues for all agricultural commodities and 100
percent crop treated (PCT) information.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that etoxazole 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. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for etoxazole. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for
all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for etoxazole in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of etoxazole. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST), and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of etoxazole for
chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 4.761
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.746 ppb for ground
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 4.761 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). Etoxazole is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    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 etoxazole to share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and etoxazole does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that etoxazole does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The toxicology data for
etoxazole provides no indication of increased susceptibility, as
compared to adults, of rat and rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure in
developmental studies. In a rat reproduction study, offspring toxicity
was more severe (pup mortality) than parental toxicity (increased liver
and adrenal weights) at the same dose; thereby indicating increased
qualitative susceptibility. Based on the concerns in this unit, a
Degree of Concern Analysis was performed by EPA, which concluded that
concern is low since:
    i. The effects in pups are well-characterized with a clear NOAEL;
    ii. The pup effects occur at the same dose as parental toxicity;
and
    iii. The doses selected for various risk assessment scenarios are
lower (~3000-fold lower) than the doses that caused offspring toxicity
in the rat 2-generation reproduction study. Therefore, the endpoints
selected for risk assessment are protective of the effects seen in the
rat reproduction study.
    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 etoxazole is complete except for acute
and subchronic neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity studies. Changes to 40
CFR 180.158 make acute and subchronic neurotoxicity testing (OPPTS
Guideline 870.6200), and immunotoxicity testing (OPPTS Guideline
870.7800) required for pesticide registration. Although these studies
are not yet available for etoxazole, the available data do not show any
evidence of treatment-related effects on the immune system. Further,
there is no evidence of neurotoxicity in any study in the toxicity
database for etoxazole. Therefore, the EPA does not believe that
conducting neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity studies will result in a
NOAEL lower than the NOAEL of 4.62 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day)
already established for etoxazole. Consequently, an additional database
uncertainty factor does not need to be applied.
    ii. There is no indication that etoxazole is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. Although there is qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility of offspring (pup mortality) compared to less severe
parental effects (increased liver and adrenal weights) at the same dose
in the rat multi-generation reproduction study, the Agency did not
identify any residual uncertainties after establishing toxicity
endpoints and traditional UFs (10X for interspecies variation and 10X
for intraspecies variation) to be used in the risk assessment.
Therefore, there are no residual concerns regarding developmental
effects in the young.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to etoxazole in drinking water. These assessments
will

not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by etoxazole.

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,
etoxazole 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
etoxazole from food and water will utilize 11% of the cPAD for children
1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
There are no residential uses for etoxazole.
    3. Short and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level).
    A short- and/or intermediate-term adverse effect was identified;
however, etoxazole is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in short- and/or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short-
and/or intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and/or
intermediate term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure.
Because there is no short- and/or intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess short- and/or intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of short- and/or intermediate-term risk is
necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating short- and/or intermediate-term risk for etoxazole.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, etoxazole is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to etoxazole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/nitrogen-
phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) and gas chromatography/mass selective
detection (GC/MSD) methods) are 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 U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for etoxazole for the
commodities discussed in this document.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based upon analysis of the data supporting the petition using the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tolerance
calculation procedures, the EPA revised the tolerance levels for corn,
field, forage from 0.6 ppm to 0.80 ppm; corn, field, stover from 2.5
ppm, to 4.0 ppm and corn, pop, stover from 2.5 ppm to 4.0 ppm.
    There is no reasonable expectation of finding quantifiable residues
of etoxazole in poultry commodities based on the calculated maximum
reasonable dietary burden (MRDB) for poultry (0.0077 ppm) and the
results from the poultry metabolism study. Therefore, tolerances for
residues of etoxazole in poultry, fat and poultry, liver were not
required for this petition.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of etoxazole in
or on corn, field, grain at 0.01 ppm; corn, field, forage at 0.80 ppm;
corn, field, stover at 4.0 ppm; corn, field, refined oil at 0.03 ppm;
corn, pop, grain at 0.01 ppm; corn, pop, stover at 4.0 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments,

on the relationship between the national government and the States or
tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule
does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: January 13, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.593 is amended in paragraph (a) by alphabetically adding
the following commodities to the table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.593  Etoxazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Corn, field, forage.......................................          0.80
Corn, field, grain........................................          0.01
Corn, field, refined oil..................................          0.03
Corn, field, stover.......................................          4.0
Corn, pop, grain..........................................          0.01
Corn, pop, stover.........................................          4.0

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-1254 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. I would like to be able to provide some answers and comments to about a hundred possible, different question you requests responses to.  I unfortunately, do not have the time to the research and provide thoughtful comments to these important questions, I wish I could.  I already have spent a great deal of time in research before purchasing these products that are under these Proposed Rules. I understand the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as responsible consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. They have saved my life. Not believe, they have.  I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that my voice may be heard and my comments taken into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past.  I would ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and I am more than happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register: April 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 23319-23320]
[DOCID:fr26ap11-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC11-49-000
    Applicants: Ameren Energy Generating Company
    Description: Amendment to Application of Ameren Energy Generating
Company, Filing supplements 203 application to include horizontal and
vertical power analysis and requests shortened notice period of 10
days.
    Filed Date: 04/12/2011
    Accession Number: 20110412-5042
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday April 29, 2011

    Docket Numbers: EC11-69-000
    Applicants: White Oak Energy Holdings LLC
    Description: White Oak Energy Holdings LLC's Application for
Approval under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for
Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 04/18/2011
    Accession Number: 20110418-5233
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 09, 2011

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2256-001
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35: 2011-04-18 CAISO's CPM Compliance Filing
to be effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/18/2011
    Accession Number: 20110418-5229
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 09, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3384-000
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35: Compliance filing per Order issued in Docket No. EL08-47-006 to be
effective 4/16/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/18/2011
    Accession Number: 20110418-5230
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 09, 2011

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA07-37-004
    Applicants: E. ON U.S. LLC
    Description: Penalty Distribution Compliance Filing of Louisville
Gas & Electric Company, et. al.
    Filed Date: 04/18/2011
    Accession Number: 20110418-5200
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 09, 2011

    Docket Numbers: OA07-39-007; OA08-71-007
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc., Public Service Company of
Colorado
    Description: Public Service Company of Colorado's Annual Report of
Penalty Assessments and Distributions in Accordance with Order Nos. 890
and 890-A.
    Filed Date: 04/18/2011
    Accession Number: 20110418-5204
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 09, 2011

    Docket Numbers: OA11-7-000
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Annual Compliance Report of New York Independent
System Operator, Inc. Regarding Unreserved Use and Late Study
Penalties.
    Filed Date: 04/18/2011
    Accession Number: 20110418-5236
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 09, 2011

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in

Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that
enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is
added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online
service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (866) 208-
3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 19, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9977 Filed 4-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 50853]
[DOCID:fr28au08-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

First Meeting, RTCA/PMC New Special Committee 219: Attitude and
Heading Reference Systems (AHRS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 219 meeting: Attitude and
Heading Reference.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 219 meeting: Attitude and Heading
Reference Systems (AHRS).

DATES: The meeting will be held on September 16-17, 2007, from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805,
MacIntosh NBAA and Hilton-ATA Rooms, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036-5 133; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 219 meeting. The agenda will
include:
     September 16-17:
     Opening Session (Welcome, Introductions and Administrative
Remarks).
     Agenda Overview.
     RCTA Functional Overview.
     Review Current Guidance/Technical Standard Orders--
Discussion.
     Committee Scope--Terms of Reference.
     Organization of Work, Assign Tasks and Workgroups.
Presentation, Discussion, Recommendations, Assignment of
Responsibilities.
     Establish Dates, Location and Agenda for Next Meeting.
     Closing Session (Any Other Business, Assignment/Review of
Future Work, Establish Agenda, Date and Place of Next Meeting, Closing
Remarks, Adjourn). Attendance is open to the interested public but
limited by space availability. With the approval of the chairmen,
members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting.
Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 22, 2008.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E8-19896 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35269-35270]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12400]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95035; File No. SR-CboeBYX-2021-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Introduce a New Data Product To Be
Known as the Short Volume Report

June 3, 2022.
    On November 22, 2021, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' or
``Exchange'') 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 amend Exchange Rule 11.22(f) to introduce a new
data product to be known as the Short Volume Report. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 7,
2021.\3\ On January 20, 2022, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ On March 7, 2022, the Commission instituted
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\ On March
30, 2022, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change, which superseded the proposed rule change as originally filed.
The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published
for comment in the Federal Register on April 28, 2022.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93689 (December 1,
2021), 86 FR 69335 (``Notice''). The comment letters received on the
proposed rule change are available on the Commission's website at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebyx-2021-028/srcboebyx2021028.htm.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94009, 87 FR 4098
(January 26, 2022). The Commission designated March 7, 2022, as the
date by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94373, 87 FR 14060
(March 11, 2022).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94787 (April 22,
2022), 87 FR 25309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \9\ provides that, after initiating
proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the
date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on December 7, 2021.\10\ The 180th day after publication of the
proposed rule change is June 5, 2022. The Commission is extending the
time period for approving or

disapproving the proposal for an additional 60 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, and the comments
that have been submitted in connection therewith. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\11\ designates
August 4, 2022, as the date by which the Commission should either
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-CboeBYX-
2021-028), as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12400 Filed 6-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 11621]
[DOCID:fr18mr09-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, April
8, 2009 at 10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
    The Commission will consider whether to propose short sale price
test rules.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 13, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5932 Filed 3-16-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P