 i

EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

 EPA Registration Division contact: [Kerry Leifer;<PHONE_NUMBER>]
 INSTRUCTIONS: Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition. In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.
 TEMPLATE:

 [Solvay USA Inc.] [IN-11344]
 EPA has received a pesticide petition ([IN-11344]) from [Solvay USA Inc.], [c/o SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192] requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for [Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-sulfo-ω-hydroxy-, C10- 16-alkyl ethers, sodium salts (where average number of moles of oxyethylene = 30) (CAS Reg. No. 68585-34-2), under 40 CFR 180.960 when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations]. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

 Residue Chemistry

        Plant metabolism.
          Analytical method. [NA-Remove.]
          Magnitude of residues. [NA-Remove.]

  Toxicological Profile [Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-sulfo-ω-hydroxy-, C10-16-alkyl ethers, sodium salts meets the definition of a polymer as defined by 40 CFR 723.250. That is, it contains a sequence of at least three monomer units which are covalently bound to at least one other monomer unit or other reactant. Further, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α- sulfo-ω-hydroxy-, C10-16-alkyl ethers, sodium salts meets the criteria specified below for defining a low-risk polymer under 40 CFR 723.250.

 The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

 The polymer only contains the elements, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, and oxygen and the mono-cation, sodium (Na); therefore, it meets the criteria for elemental composition.

 The polymer is not designed or reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize under normal use conditions.

 The polymer is prepared from molecules that are listed on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA Section 5 exemption.

 The polymer is not a water-absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

 The polymer does not contain, as an integral part of its composition, perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length.

 The polymer meets the exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e). The polymer's number average molecular weight is less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.]
          Acute toxicity. [NA-Remove.]
          Genotoxicty. [NA-Remove.]
          Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [NA-Remove.]
          Subchronic toxicity. [NA-Remove.]
          Chronic toxicity. [NA-Remove.]

          Animal metabolism. [NA-Remove.]
          Metabolite toxicology. [NA-Remove.]

          Endocrine disruption. [NA-Remove.]

  Aggregate Exposure
        Dietary exposure. [NA-Remove.]

 Food. [Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-sulfo-ω-hydroxy-, C10-16-alkyl ethers, sodium salts meets the definition and criteria for a low-risk polymer under 40 CFR 723.250; therefore, there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from dietary exposure when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations.]

 Drinking water. [Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-sulfo-ω-hydroxy-, C10-16-alkyl ethers, sodium salts meets the definition and criteria for a low-risk polymer under 40 CFR 723.250; therefore, there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from drinking water exposure when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations.]

 Non-dietary exposure. [Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-sulfo-ω-hydroxy-, C10-16- alkyl ethers, sodium salts meets the definition and criteria for a low-risk polymer under 40 CFR 723.250; therefore, there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from non-dietary exposure when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations.]

  Cumulative Effects

 [Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-sulfo-ω-hydroxy-, C10-16-alkyl ethers, sodium salts is a low-risk polymer. There is no information to suggest that any toxic effects produced by this inert ingredient would be cumulative with any other chemical.]

 Safety Determination

 U.S. population. [Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-sulfo-ω-hydroxy-, C10-16-alkyl ethers, sodium salts meets the definition and criteria for a low-risk polymer under 40 CFR 723.250; therefore, adverse effects on the U.S. population are not expected from the use of this inert ingredient in pesticide formulations.]

 Infants and children. [Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-sulfo-ω-hydroxy-, C10-16- alkyl ethers, sodium salts meets the definition and criteria for a low-risk polymer under 40 CFR 723.250; therefore, adverse effects are not expected from the use of this inert ingredient in pesticide formulations. In addition, there is no reason to believe that infants and children will be disproportionally at risk.]

 International Tolerances
 [There is an existing tolerance exemption under 40 CFR 180.910 for the low molecular weight, non-polymeric form of this substance [α-alkyl(C6- C15)-ω- hydroxypoly(oxyethylene)sulfate, and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and zinc salts, poly(oxyethylene) content averages 2-4 moles.] This petition is requesting a new tolerance exemption under 40 CFR 180.960 to cover the polymeric form of this substance, where the average moles of oxyethylene equals 30. As this petition is for the substance in the form of a polymer of low concern, the risk in its use is expected to be less than use of the current substance in its non-polymeric form.]


	 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

B OFFICE OF PREVENTION,

 PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

				June 18, 2008

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.  The Health Effects Division’s
Response to Comments on the Agency’s April 12, 2007 document,
Chloropicrin: Revised HED Human Health Risk Assessment for Phase 5
(Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350).

PC Code:  081501	DP Barcode: 348676

MRID No.:  NA	Registration No.: NA

Petition No.: NA	Regulatory Action: Reregistration

Eligibility Decisions (Phase VI)

Assessment Type: Single Chemical/ Non-food	Reregistration Case No.: 0040

TXR No.:  NA	CAS No.:  76-06-2

FROM:	Elissa Reaves, Ph.D., Toxicologist/Risk Assessor

		Charles Smith, Environmental Scientist/Risk Assessor

Reregistration Branch II

Health Effects Division (7509P)

THRU:	Felecia Fort, Branch Chief

Reregistration Branch II

Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		Andrea Carone, Chemical Review Manager

		Special Review Branch

		Special Review & Reregistration Division (7508P)

The attached document was generated in Phase 6 of the Public
Participation Process to address comments submitted by a variety of
stakeholders including: the Chloropicrin Manufacturers’ Task Force
(CMTF) and the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA).  The
comments were submitted following the publication of the Agency’s
Phase 5 Revised Human Health Risk Assessment document for chloropicrin
in the Federal Register May 2, 2007.  The attached document is the
Agency’s response to those comments.TABLE OF CONTENTS

 TOC \f

I.  Introduction	Page 4 of  10

II.  Toxicology	Page 4 of  10

III.  Occupational and Residential Exposures	Page 8 of  10

EPA’S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR CHLOROPICRIN

I.  Introduction tc \l1 "I.  Introduction

The following is EPA’s response to comments on the Phase 5 Revised
Human Health Risk Assessment document for chloropicrin.  This document
was generated in response to the comments submitted to the public docket
by the registrant and environmental advocacy groups.  Issues related to
the availability/efficacy of substitute pesticides, the environmental
fate and persistence of chloropicrin, and possible mitigation of
chloropicrin raised in the comments will be addressed in separate
documents by the appropriate divisions; the Biological and Economics
Assessment Division (BEAD), the Ecological Fate and Effects Division
(EFED), and the Special Review and Reregistration Division (SRRD),
respectively.

II.  Toxicology tc \l1 "II.  Toxicology

Toxicology Comments from PANNA

The HED appreciates the comments submitted by PANNA and they have been
considered.  The response to each question is addressed below.

PANNA Comment 1: PANNA believes that EPA inappropriately removed the
intraspecies uncertainty factor in the revised chloropicrin risk
assessment because variability among healthy human test subjects in the
chloropicrin human eye irritation study is high.

EPA Response:

The Agency has relied on three key guidance/framework documents for
consideration of mode of action and refinement of the intraspecies
factor for chloropicrin.  These guidance and framework documents which
focus on mode of action and kinetic and mechanistic data to refine
inter-species and intra-species extrapolation factors have been outlined
in a chloropicrin memo (D293356, 06/18/08).  This memorandum considered
toxicokinetics, dynamics and mode of action as well as the level at
which individuals in the population detect and become irritated to
chloropicrin.  All of this information was considered in the refinement
of the intraspecies factor.  The BMCL10 or NOAEL of 73 ppb is protective
of all individuals without an inclusion of intraspecies factor since it
is 2-fold below a level that the most sensitive subpopulation was
beginning to detect chloropicrin without direct irritation (150 ppb).
The point of departure (0.073 ppm) is 145-fold lower than the acute
rodent inhalation study (10.6 ppm), 14-fold lower than irritation
produced in repeat inhalation rodent studies (1.0 ppm) and 14-fold lower
than acute eye and respiratory effects observed in incident reports (1.0
ppm).

PANNA Comment 2: PANNA believes that EPA inappropriately removed the
intraspecies uncertainty factor in the revised chloropicrin risk
assessment based on a number of scientific weaknesses that the EPA Human
Subjects Review Board (HSRB) identified with the chloropicrin human
study during their review.  The most problematic weaknesses included the
following:

In Phase III, no lower doses were tested—in spite of the low-dose
responses in Phase II—and no NOAEL could be determined.  Additionally,
there was no correspondence between the doses used in Phase II and Phase
III.

The concentrations and durations explored in each of the three Phases of
this study failed to identify a level at which none of the subjects
responded to either irritation or odor of chloropicrin.

Lack of confidence intervals for the data.

The study did not include the most-sensitive individuals who are part of
the potential bystander population. Only subjects who reported, inter
alia, no smoking within a year, no use of recreational drugs within a
year, no recent illness, and no history of chronic illness qualified to
go on to screening in the laboratory.

EPA Response:

Again the refinement of the intraspecies factor is outlined in a mode of
action chloropicrin memorandum (D293356, 06/18/08).  This memo outlines
the three key guidance/framework documents for consideration of
uncertainty factors.  The Health Effects Division also considered the
dose-response, time-course, and comments from the HSRB when considering
the intraspecies factor.  Although similar concentrations were not
assessed in Phase II and III, a NOAEL or BMCL10 was established.  The
study examined a concentration as low as 50 ppb which some individuals
assigned a confidence score.  Furthermore, the BMCL10 is based on scores
from the most sensitive subpopulation for detecting sensory irritants.
The BMCL10 of 73 ppb is 2-fold below a level at which the most sensitive
individuals began to detect chloropicrin in the eyes and without
irritation.  This information took into consideration the differences in
responses among all of the participating subjects.

PANNA Comment 3: PANNA has stated that one of EPA’s justifications for
removing the intraspecies uncertainty factor is that “incident reports
suggest that children are as responsive to chloropicrin as adults.”
PANNA does not believe this statement is true.

EPA Response:

HED considered the mode of action and IPCS guidance documents for
refinement of the intraspecies factor which is outlined in the
chloropicrin memo (D293356, 06/18/08).  These guidance documents
consider mode of action in the refinement of the intraspecies factor.
Toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics are components of the intraspecies
factors.  Both the toxicokinetics and dynamics may be reduced to 1X
based on the mode of action, temporal concordance, key events, targets,
and incident reports for chloropicrin.  The symptoms reported in the
2003 Kern County chloropicrin incident are concordant with the sequence
and onset of symptoms observed in the human study and animal database
for chloropicrin. Nearly all individuals in the Kern County incident,
both young and old, reported eye irritation.  Furthermore, the animal
database demonstrates that as concentrations increase the potential for
upper respiratory irritation increases.  Individuals of the 2003 Kern
County incident were exposed to concentrations greater than 20-fold
higher (1 ppm or 1,000 ppb) than the Cain 2005 human study (50-150 ppb
or 0.05 – 0.15 ppm).  As would be expected at these higher
chloropicrin concentrations, upper respiratory irritation was reported
in approximately 50% of individuals.  Asthma exacerbation was only
reported for approximately 6 of 165 persons (4%).  This exacerbation was
likely due to the high chloropicrin concentrations causing upper
respiratory irritation.  According to the American Lung Association (May
2006), Kern County reported approximately 2.6% pediatric asthma (19,004
children /724,846 total population), 5.3% adult asthma (39,061 adults/
724,846 total population), and 2.8% chronic bronchitis (20,617
individuals/ 724,846 total population).  Therefore, the 4% of
individuals reporting asthma exacerbation in Kern County is not above
the County average, suggesting that chloropicrin did not induce asthma
at a higher rate.  Overall, the 2003 Kern County reports symptoms
consistent with those for chloropicrin, namely eye irritation being the
most sensitive followed by upper respiratory irritation at higher
concentrations.  The similar number and type of symptoms among children
and the older population suggest that individuals are capable of
detecting chloropicrin and respond similarly to chloropicrin.  Based on
the known mode of action for chloropicrin and the consistency and
specificity of the symptoms in both young and old individuals in the
Kern County incident with those of the chloropicrin database, the
toxicodynamics compartment may be reduced to 1x.

PANNA Comment 4: PANNA states that a one-hour test exposure period does
not accurately model effects for exposures over a 24-hour period.  PANNA
believes the Agency has no scientific basis to justify using a 1-hour
acute HC to determine buffer zones that are stated to be protective for
a 24-hour period.

EPA Response:

The toxicity profile of both rodent and human data and mode of action
for chloropicrin support the importance of concentration and duration on
the onset of effects from exposure to chloropicrin.  The lower the
concentration the longer it takes for subjects to first identify the
feeling (eye) of chloropicrin.  As the concentration of chloropicrin
increases the time required for an individual to detect chloropicrin
decreases.  This was demonstrated in the human study.  Concentrations of
chloropicrin of 50-75 ppb took longer for the sensitive subpopulation to
correctly identify compared to 20-30 minutes for recognition to 100-150
ppb in phase 3.  Detection of chloropicrin occurred without irritation
to the eyes and upper respiratory tract. Furthermore, the toxicity
profile and database for chloropicrin demonstrate that exposure to a low
concentration that does not elicit a detection response would not be
expected to produce an adverse respiratory outcome. The longer-term
studies in which exposure is for 6 hours/day, 5 days/week does not
produce a respiratory or port-of-entry effect until 1200 ppb in the
rabbit developmental and 1,000 ppb in the subchronic mouse study (NOAEL
400 ppb rabbit developmental, NOAEL 300 ppb 13-week mouse study).
Therefore, the profile of chloropicrin does not suggest that 24 hours at
a significantly lower concentration would be a concentration of concern.
 The acute inhalation risk assessment is based on a NOAEL of 73 ppb
which is protective of longer-term exposures.

PANNA Comment 5: PANNA stated that an aggregate exposure and risk
assessment is still missing from the fumigant documents and should be
part of a finalized risk assessment.

EPA Response:

HED’s policy concerning the aggregation of exposure scenarios is
defined in the chloropicrin risk assessment.  HED includes food, water
(dietary), and residential uses if applicable.  For chloropicrin there
are no food uses, no water concerns, and no residential uses.
Therefore, there are no scenarios with which to aggregate in the
chloropicrin risk assessment.

PANNA Comment 6: PANNA urged EPA to broaden their definition of
“cumulative risk” to include exposures to all chemicals, not just
chemicals with common mechanisms of action.  The fact that these
pesticides are marketed to be used as mixtures means that people will be
exposed to mixtures of chemicals.  The effects of mixtures will not be
the same as the effects of a single chemical, and the Agency needs to be
taking these exposures into account when conducting risk assessments.

EPA Response:

HED has performed risk assessments of all the fumigants in order to be
consistent across fumigants and for consideration of mitigation of
possible mixtures if necessary.  The fumigants likely have different
modes of action such that each toxicity profile would need to be
considered for each fumigant.  Therefore, the hazard of those fumigants
used in a mixture would be driven by the most sensitive effect such that
other effects at higher concentration would also be protected in the
risk assessment.

B.  Toxicology Comments from the CMTF

CMTF Comment 1: Short-term and intermediate-term exposure limits for
chloropicrin should be based on the human response data and not the
animal study data.  The HSRB did not preclude use of the UCSD for short
term and intermediate term exposures.

EPA Response:  The Agency notes the rationale provided by the CMTF for
the short- and intermediate- inhalation durations for chloropicrin.
However, the Human Studies Review Board concluded the human study was
appropriate for use in the acute inhalation assessment.  Furthermore,
the human study does not provide physiological parameters of the nasal
and upper respiratory tract beyond an acute exposure.  The animal
database, therefore, provides the most appropriate inhalation
information for the short- and intermediate-term durations.  As
indicated by the HED policy for fumigants, the short- and
intermediate-term inhalation assessments for chloropicrin will rely on
the RfC methodology as with the other fumigants being assessed.

CMTF Comment 2: If EPA continues to use animal toxicity data for
assessing short- and intermediate-term exposures, the uncertainty
factors should be lower than those currently used in the Phase 5
chloropicrin risk assessment.

EPA Response:

HED has relied on animal data to inform the HECs calculated for short-
and intermediate-term exposures.  The uncertainty factors used are
appropriate factors based on HED policy for use of animal data in
calculating HECs.  Therefore, the uncertainty factors will not be
revised at this time.

CMTF Comment 3: EPA has incorrectly characterized the 2-generation
reproductive toxicity study on chloropicrin as unreliable.  In the Phase
5 chloropicrin risk assessment, EPA compared results from studies of
extremely different design and purpose to support a conclusion that the
reproductive toxicity study was unreliable.  The studies cited by EPA
actually produced consistent results when examined in the context of the
study designs.  Moreover, in November, 1996 EPA concluded in its Data
Evaluation Report (DER) for the Two Generation Reproduction Toxicity
Study with chloropicrin that the study was acceptable.

EPA Response:

HED has reviewed Table 7 provided by the CMTF in which the 3 different
studies are outlined and compared.  In consideration of port-of-entry
type effects, there were no nasal (rhinitis), ET (goblet cell
hyperplasia, epithelial hyperplasia), or PU (peribronchiolar fibrosis)
type effects observed in the 2-generation reproductive study (0.5, 1.0,
1.5 ppm) that were observed in the mid- (1.0 ppm) and high- dose (3.0
ppm) of the 90-day inhalation study.  Again, the lack of port-of-entry
effects in a study with a similar duration and concentration as another
inhalation study suggests the port-of-entry data from the 2-generation
study is inconsistent.

III. Occupational and Residential Exposures

A.  Occupational Comments from PANNA

PANNA Comment 1: PANNA stated that the accurate flux rates are essential
inputs if accurate results are to be obtained from modeling.  Yet the
model does not account for changes in soil temperature, a major factor
influencing the rate of off-gassing of fumigants from soils.  The flux
rates used in the model are based on studies that may not be
representative of worst-case conditions, and in many cases are certainly
not representative.

EPA Response: In the chloropicrin risk assessment, the Agency has
characterized the field volatility studies by discussing the factors
(such as soil temperature) that occurred during the study.  The Agency
believes that many of the field volatility studies used in the
chloropicrin risk assessment are representative of high-end conditions.
It should also be acknowledged that the Agency has produced an extensive
separate analysis which evaluated the possible impacts of changing
conditions upon emissions based on a variety of factors (D306857
Authors: Dawson and Smith).

PANNA Comment 2: The Pesticide Action Network commented that calm
conditions and other factors leading to high atmospheric stability
classes are critical for EPA to model in order to be assured of
realistic fumigant exposure estimates.

EPA Response: The Agency agrees that calm conditions and other factors
leading to high atmospheric stability classes are critical in modeling
fumigant emissions.

The treatment of calm periods (wind speeds below 1 m/s) in PERFUM/ISCST3
is an uncertainty in the Agency’s fumigant assessments.  PERFUM runs
the ISCST3 model in the “regulatory default option” (the default
setting for ISCST3), which includes the use of the calms processing
routine as is described in Agency guidance.  The calms processing
routine for wind speeds below 1 m/s essentially ignores any hourly
sequence in the calculations that meets this criteria.  The Agency
agrees that this approach can possibly skew results, particularly for
shorter averaging times (like metam sodium) because an analysis period
that contained several calm hours would be dominated by any period where
there was a windspeed above 1m/s.  This is a common approach in Gaussian
plume modeling.  See the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
Guideline on Air Quality Models, which is published as Appendix W to 40
CFR Part 51 1-4
(http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/appw_05.pdf).

AERMOD is also a Gaussian plume model and it too has issues in dealing
with wind speeds below 1 m/s.  The new and improved algorithms included
in AERMOD have little to no effect on the Agency’s approach to
modeling fumigant applications as area sources.  In fact, preliminary
work has shown that AERMOD produces neligible differences when compared
to ISCST3 for modeling fumigant applications as area sources.

The Agency is still examining PUFF-based models such as CALPUFF that
have meander algorithms that can account for calm conditions by
accounting for static or near static plume conditions and representing
such events in the results.  Whether or not buffer estimates are
enhanced or under-reported as a result of this phenomenon depends upon
the nature of the weather data used for the calculations.  Preliminary
analysis in a general sense related to this issue does not indicate
significant differences when hourly calculation steps are used.  If less
than hourly steps (e.g., minute by minute calculations such as in
CALPUFF v6) are used, the effect is attenuated because the relative
percentage of calm periods in the available weather data seems to be
diminished.

	B.  Occupational Comments from the CMTF

 tc \l1 "IV.  Occupational and Residential Exposures

CMTF Comment 1: The CMTF has presented application data, soil conditions
and ambient conditions from agricultural fields where chloropicrin
emissions have been studied.  Using the relationship between
pre-application moisture and mass loss, the CMTF has proposed
“realistic” alternative emission factors incorporating this
mitigation measure.  To determine the emission profiles for fields under
moist soil conditions, the CMTF proposes that EPA attenuate the emission
profiles from the field studies listed in the “Low Soil Moisture”
column to correct for moist pre-application soil conditions.  These data
demonstrate a 50% reduction in emissions when these mitigation measures
are incorporated into chloropicrin field shank applications.

EPA Response: The Agency acknowledges that soil moisture is important in
controlling chloropicrin emissions.  However, there are other
environmental factors (e.g., soil temperature, soil type, compaction,
etc.) that could have an effect on chloropicrin emissions coming off of
treated fields.  The Agency believes that the chloropicrin assessment
represents a range of possible real world application conditions and
does not believe that the mass loss values for all flux studies in the
Agency’s risk assessment should be adjusted to reflect fields that
have good soil moisture.

CMTF Comment 2: The CMTF stated that although there is currently no
field volatility data to represent buried (> 5”) non-tarped drip
irrigation applications, field moisture conditions are >100% field
capacity.  Chloropicrin mass loss is therefore expected to be less than
or equal to the surface tarped method.  A mass loss factor of 15% of
applied chloropicrin is a conservative mass loss value, using the
Salinas poly drip flux emission profile.

EPA Response: The Agency agrees that field moisture conditions would be
near 100% field capacity for non-tarped drip irrigation applications.
However, the Agency believes that this would be the case for most drip
irrigation applications.  In fact, the Agency has three drip irrigation
field volatility studies and the mass losses range from 10.8% to 15% of
the chloropicrin applied.  The field moisture conditions in all three of
these studies are very close to 100% of field capacity and thus the
Agency does not believe that the CMTF’s comment is necessarily
accurate.  As a result, the Agency does not feel that it would be
appropriate to use a mass loss factor of 15% of applied chloropicrin
from the Salinas poly drip flux emission profile.  The Agency believes
that field volatility data is required to support the chloropicrin
buried drip irrigation application method.

CMTF Comment 3: The CMTF stated that mass loss for the replant wand
application method is expected to be significantly less than for the
shank methods, as injections are made one per tree site and the
injection point is compacted following withdrawal of the application
wand.  It is also important to note that tree site applications involve
small treated areas (10’ x 10’) of existing orchards.  The CMTF
believes that no emission modeling is necessary as the application rate
per gross acre is low.

EPA Response: The Agency acknowledges and agrees with the CMTF’s
comments regarding the chloropicrin orchard replant wand application
method.

CMTF Comment 4: The CMTF stated that for the greenhouse drip irrigation
method, the appropriate “released amount” should be 15% of the
applied chloropicrin.

EPA Response: The Agency has used a range of mass loss values in its
assessment of greenhouse drip irrigation applications.  This assessment
shows that generally, if less than 25% mass loss occurs then risks are
below the Agency’s level of concern at minimal distances from the
greenhouse.

CMTF Comment 5: The CMTF stated that shank, deep broadcast applications
(> 18” deep) are expected to have lower emissions than shallow
applications. A field flux study is planned for spring of 2008 to
measure chloropicrin emissions from deep shank applications.  Until
those data are available, the CMTF believes that a 20% mass loss is
appropriate for deep shank applications, using the Phoenix Site #1 as a
surrogate flux profile.

EPA Response: The Agency agrees that it is likely that shank, deep
broadcast untarped applications (> 18” deep) would have lower
emissions than shallower broadcast untarped applications.  However,
until field volatility data are submitted to support deep broadcast
untarped applications, the Agency plans on using the flux profile from
the Phoenix Site #1 (62% mass loss using a 12” injection depth) as a
conservative estimate to represent this type of application.

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  10


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 31865]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14203]

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

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: EC19-106-000.
    Applicants: Chief Conemaugh Power II, LLC, Chief Keystone Power II,
LLC, PSEG Fossil LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act, et al. of Chief Conemaugh Power II, LLC, et
al.
    Filed Date: 6/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190626-5351.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: EC19-107-000.
    Applicants: Stanton Equity Trading Delaware LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Stanton Equity Trading Delaware LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190626-5353.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/19.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2756-007.
    Applicants: Griffith Energy LLC.
    Description: Triennial Compliance Filing under Order Nos. 697 and
816, et al. of Griffith Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190626-5347.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2757-008; ER11-3051-004.
    Applicants: Arlington Valley, LLC, Macho Springs Power I, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update of Arlington Valley,
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20190627-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2794-030; ER14-2672-015; ER12-1825-028.
    Applicants: EDF Trading North America, LLC, EDF Energy Services,
LLC, EDF Industrial Power Services (CA), LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Southwest Region
of the EDF Sellers, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20190627-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3028-005; ER10-2538-010; ER4-1317-009.
    Applicants: Panoche Energy Center, LLC, Sunshine Gas Producers,
LLC, Elk Hills Power, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Compliance Filing under Order Nos. 697 and
816, et al. of Elk Hills Power, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20190627-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1562-007; ER10-2488-017; ER12-1931-008; ER10-
2504-009; ER12-610-009; ER13-338-007.
    Applicants: Catalina Solar Lessee, LLC, Oasis Power Partners, LLC,
Pacific Wind Lessee, LLC, Shiloh Wind Project 2, LLC, Shiloh III
Lessee, LLC, Shiloh IV Lessee, LLC.
    Description: 2019 Triennial Market Power Update Filing for the
Southwest Region of EDFR Southwest Sellers, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190626-5362.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2268-000.
    Applicants: Arlington Valley, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Triennial Market Power
Update and Amendment to Market-Based Rate to be effective 6/28/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20190627-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2269-000.
    Applicants: Dougherty County Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Dougherty County Solar, LLC
Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 8/27/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20190627-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2270-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Appendix XII Protocols to be
effective 6/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20190627-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2271-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ALLETE,
Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-06-27_SA 3326 MP-BPU T-
T (Brainerd) to be effective 7/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20190627-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2272-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Comanche Regulatory Asset in
Rate Base--9/1/18 to be effective 9/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 6/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20190627-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2273-000.
    Applicants: Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Sunflower Formula Rate
Revisions and Merger of Mid-Kansas into Sunflower to be effective 12/
31/9998.
    Filed Date: 6/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20190627-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2274-000.
    Applicants: PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PPL Electric submits
revisions to the OATT, Attachment H-8A re: Income Tax Rate to be
effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20190627-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 27, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-14203 Filed 7-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7539-7540]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02713]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 154

[USCG-1999-5150]
RIN 1625-AB37

Marine Vapor Control Systems; Correction

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final regulations
(RIN 1625-AB37) that were published in the Federal Register of Tuesday,
July 16, 2013 (78 FR 42595). The regulations related to safety
regulations for facility and vessel vapor control systems (VCSs).

DATES: Effective February 11, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call or email Dr. Cynthia A. Znati, Office of Design and
Engineering Standards, Hazardous Materials Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections
affect persons who wish to serve as persons in charge of VCS
certification, and the applicability of VCS recertification
requirements. In 33 CFR 154.2010 (g), the current wording inadvertently
limits the class of persons who may serve as a person in charge of VCS
certification to persons who were licensed as professional engineers on
or before August 15, 2014. With the passage of time, the current
wording thus would prevent the entry of younger persons into VCS
certification. This was not our intention. As discussed in the preamble
to the final rule, in ``Table 1--Discussion of Comments and Changes,''
78 FR at 42599, our intention was to amend Sec.  154.2010(g) to provide
a one-year phase-in period for persons wishing to certify VCSs but not
licensed as professional engineers as of the final rule's effective
date, August 15, 2013. Accordingly, we now correct Sec.  154.2010(g) to
clarify that a professional engineering license of any date is
acceptable for purposes of paragraph (g), but that for persons

wishing to be in charge of VCS certification, but not licensed as
professional engineers on August 15, 2013, they had one year from that
date to obtain their licenses.
    In 33 CFR 154.2020 (b), the current wording inadvertently restricts
the applicability of paragraph (b)'s recertification requirements to
VCSs that were in operation prior to July 23, 1990. However, it is
clear from the preamble to the final rule, in ``Table 1--Discussion of
Comments and Changes,'' 78 FR at 42600, that we fully intended that
newer VCSs also be recertified if they meet any of the conditions
described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5). Nowhere in the NPRM or
in the final rule did we suggest that recertification should be
restricted to older VCSs. Accordingly, we now correct Sec.  154.2020(b)
to remove any reference to the July 23, 1990, break point.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations contain errors which may prove
to be misleading and need to be clarified.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 154

    Alaska, Fire prevention, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 33 CFR part 154 is corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:

PART 154--FACILITIES TRANSFERRING OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN
BULK

0
1. The authority citation for part 154 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1225, 1231, 1321(j)(1)(C), (j)(5), (j)(6),
and (m)(2); sec. 2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subpart F is also issued under 33
U.S.C. 2735. Vapor control recovery provisions of Subpart P are also
issued under 42 U.S.C. 7511b(f)(2).

0
2. Revise paragraph (g) of Sec.  154.2010 to read as follows:

Sec.  154.2010  Qualifications for acceptance as a certifying entity.

* * * * *
    (g) The person in charge of VCS certification must be a licensed
professional engineer in a U.S. State or territory. A person in charge
of VCS certification who is not a licensed professional engineer on
August 15, 2013 must obtain that license from a U.S. State or territory
by August 15, 2014.
0
3. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (b) of Sec.  154.2020 to
read as follows:

Sec.  154.2020  Certification and recertification--owner/operator
responsibilities.

* * * * *
    (b) A certified VCS or a Coast Guard-approved VCS must be
recertified by a certifying entity under 33 CFR 154.2023 before it
can--
* * * * *

    Dated: February 5, 2015.
K. Cervoni,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2015-02713 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 212 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67635-67638]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27998]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0949]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Mavericks Surf Competition, Half Moon
Bay, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation in the navigable waters of Half Moon Bay, CA, near Pillar
Point in support of the Mavericks Surf Competition, an annual
invitational surf competition held at the Mavericks Break. This special
local regulation will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the
vicinity of Pillar Point and prohibit vessels and persons not
participating in the surfing event from entering the surf competition
area. This regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on
the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately
after the surfing competition, which is held only one day during the
period of November 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016.

DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective November 3, 2015 through
March 31, 2016.
    Enforcement date: This rule will be enforced on the competition
day, which, if defined wave and wind conditions are met, will occur one
day during the period from November 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016.
This rule will be enforced from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. on the actual
competition day.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-0949 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Christina Ramirez,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
OCMI Officer in Charge of Marine Inspections
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Mavericks Surf Competition is a one day ``Big Wave'' surfing
competition between the top 24 big wave surfers. The competition only
occurs when 15-20 foot waves are sustained for over 24 hours and are
combined with mild easterly winds of no more than 5-10 knots. The rock
and reef ridges that make up the sea floor of the Pillar Point area,
combined with optimal weather conditions, create the large waves that
Mavericks is known for. Due to the hazardous waters surrounding Pillar
Point at the time of the surfing competition, the Coast Guard is
establishing a special local regulation in the vicinity of Pillar Point
that restricts navigation in the area of the surf competition and in
neighboring hazardous areas.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to

authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
(5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule
without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for
good cause finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. It is impracticable to publish an
NPRM because we must establish this special local regulation by
November 1, 2015, and the competition would occur before the notice-
and-comment rulemaking process would be completed. The rule needs to be
effective by that date to respond to the potential safety hazards
associated with the dangers posed by the surf conditions during the
Mavericks Surf Competition. The regulated area is necessary to provide
for the safety of event participants, spectator craft, and other
vessels transiting the event area.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    Under 33 CFR 100.35, the Coast Guard District Commander has
authority to promulgate certain special local regulations deemed
necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters
immediately before, during, and immediately after an approved regatta
or marine parade. The Commander of Coast Guard District 11 has
delegated to the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco the
responsibility of issuing such regulations.
    The Cartel Management Inc. will sponsor the Mavericks Surf
Competition. The Mavericks Surf Competition will take place on a day
that presents favorable surf conditions on one day during the period
from November 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016, from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m.
in the navigable waters of Half Moon Bay, CA near Pillar Point in
approximate position 37[deg]29'34'' N., 122[deg]30'02'' W. (NAD 83) as
depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Chart 18682. The regulation is issued to establish a regulated area on
the waters surrounding the competition. This regulated area is bounded
by an arc extending 1000 yards from Sail Rock (37[deg]29'34'' N.,
122[deg]30'02'' W.) excluding the waters within Pillar Point Harbor.
The regulated area is necessary to ensure the safety of mariners
transiting the area.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard will enforce a regulated area in navigable waters
defined by an arc extending 1000 yards from Sail Rock between 6 a.m.
and 6 p.m. on the day of the actual competition. Mavericks Surf
Competition can only occur when 15-20 foot waves are sustained for over
24 hours and are combined with mild easterly winds of no more than 5-10
knots. Unpredictable weather patterns and the event's narrow operating
window limit the Coast Guard's ability to notify the public of the
event. The Coast Guard will issue notice of the event as soon as
practicable, but no later than 24 hours before competition day via the
Broadcast Notice to Mariners and will issue a written Boating Public
Safety Notice at least 24 hours in advance of Competition day. Also,
the zones that would be established by this rule will be prominently
marked by at least 8 buoys throughout the course of the event.
    The Mavericks Surf Competition will occur in the navigable waters
of Half Moon Bay, CA, in the vicinity of Pillar Point as depicted in
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18682. The
Coast Guard will enforce a regulated area defined by an arc extending
1000 yards from Sail Rock (37[deg]29'34'' N., 122[deg]30'02'' W.)
excluding the waters within Pillar Point Harbor. All restrictions would
apply only between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on the day of the actual
competition.
    The effect of this regulation will be to restrict navigation in the
vicinity of Pillar Point during the Mavericks Surf Competition. During
the enforcement period, the Coast Guard will direct the movement and
access of all vessels within the regulated area. The regulated area
will be divided into two zones. Zone 1 will be designated as the
competition area, and the movement of vessels within Zone 2 will be
controlled by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).
    This regulation is needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe
distance away from the event participants and the hazardous waters
surrounding Pillar Point. Past competitions have demonstrated the
importance of restricting access to the competition area to only
vessels in direct support of the competitors. Failure to comply with
the lawful directions of the Coast Guard could result in additional
vessel movement restrictions, citation, or both.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.'s, and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule does not rise to the
level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The regulated area
and associated regulations are limited in duration, and are limited to
a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule
restricts access to the waters encompassed by the regulated area, the
effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway
users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to
ensure the regulations will result in minimum impact. The entities most
likely to be affected are small commercial vessels, and pleasure craft
engaged in recreational activities.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule may affect small commercial vessels, and pleasure craft
engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This regulated area
would not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities for the following reasons. This regulated area would be
activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. The
maritime public will be advised in advanced of this regulated area via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions

concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule would not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does 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. If you believe this rule has
implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a regulated area of an arc extending 1000 yards and
lasting less than 12 hours. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(h) and 35(b) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Effective November 4, 2015 through March 31, 2016, suspend Sec.
100.1106.

0
3. Effective November 4, 2015 through March 31, 2016, add Sec.
100.T11-739 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T11-739  Special Local Regulation; Mavericks Surf
Competition.

    (a) Location. This special local regulation establishes a regulated
area on the waters of Half Moon Bay, located in the vicinity of Pillar
Point, excluding the waters within Pillar Point Harbor. This regulated
area is defined in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced between 6
a.m. and 6 p.m. on Competition day, which if defined wave and wind
conditions are met, will occur for one day one day during the period
from November 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. Notice of the specific
enforcement date of this section will be announced via Broadcast Notice
to Mariners and issued in writing by the Coast Guard in a Boating
Public Safety Notice at least 24 hours in advance of Competition day.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Competition day means the one day between November 1 of each year
and March 31 of the following year, that Mavericks Surf Competition
will be held. The Mavericks Surf Competition will only be held if 15 to
20 foot waves are sustained for over 24 hours and are combined with
mild easterly winds of no more than 5 to 10 knots.
    Competitor means a surfer enrolled in the Mavericks Surf
Competition.
    Patrol Commander or PATCOM means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer, or a
Federal, State, or local officer designated by the Captain of the Port
San Francisco (COTP), to assist in the enforcement of the special local
regulation.
    Regulated area means the area in which the Maverick's Surf
Competition will take place. This area is bounded by an arc extending
1000 yards from Sail Rock (37[deg]29'34'' N., 122[deg]30'02'' W.)
excluding the waters within Pillar Point Harbor. All coordinates are
North American Datum 1983. Within the regulated area, at least two
zones will be established and marked by buoys on the day of the
competition. Due to the dynamic and changing nature of the surf, the
exact size and location of the zones will not be made public until the
competition day. The zones will be prominently marked by at least 8
buoys, placed and maintained throughout the course of the event by the
event sponsor in a pattern approved by the PATCOM. In addition, the
USCG will notify the public of the zone locations via Broadcast Notice
to Mariners on the day of the event.
    Spectator vessel means any vessel or person, including human
powered craft,

which is not designated by the sponsor as a support vessel.
    Support vessel means a vessel, including jet skis, which is
designated and conspicuously marked by the sponsor to provide direct
support to the competitors. Support vessels must be pre-designated and
approved to serve as such for this event by the Officer in Charge of
Marine Inspection (OCMI) prior to the competition.
    Zone 1 means the competition area within the regulated area. Zone 1
will generally be located to the northwest of a line drawn between Sail
Rock (37[deg]29'34'' N., 122[deg]30'02'' W.) and Pillar Point Entrance
Lighted Gong Buoy 1 (37[deg]29'10.410'' N., 122[deg]30'21.904'' W.).
    Zone 2 means the area within the regulated area where the Coast
Guard may direct the movement of all vessels, including restricting
vessels from this area. Zone 2 will generally be located to the
southeast of a line drawn between Sail Rock (37[deg]29'34'' N.,
122[deg]30'02'' W.) and Pillar Point Entrance Lighted Gong Buoy 1
(37[deg]29'10.410'' N., 122[deg]30'21.904'' W.).
    (d) Special local regulations. The following regulations apply
between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on the competition day.
    (1) Only support vessels may be authorized by the Patrol Commander
(PATCOM) to enter Zone 1 during the competition.
    (2) Entering the water in Zone 1 by any person other than the
competitors is prohibited. Competitors may enter the water in Zone 1
from authorized support vessels only.
    (3) Spectator vessels and support vessels within Zone 2 must
maneuver as directed by PATCOM. Given the changing nature of the surf
in the vicinity of the competition, PATCOM may close Zone 2 to all
vessels due to hazardous conditions. Due to weather and sea conditions,
the Captain of the Port may deny access to Zone 2 and the remainder of
the regulated area to all vessels other than competitors and support
vessels on the day of the event
    (4) Entering the water in Zone 2 by any person is prohibited.
    (5) Rafting and anchoring of vessels are prohibited within the
regulated area.
    (6) Only vessels authorized by the PATCOM will be permitted to tow
other watercraft within the regulated area.
    (7) Spectator and support vessels in Zones 1 and 2 must operate at
speeds which will create minimum wake, in general, 7 miles per hour or
less.
    (8) When hailed or signaled by the PATCOM by a succession of sharp,
short signals by whistle or horn, the hailed vessel must come to an
immediate stop and comply with the lawful directions issued. Failure to
comply with a lawful direction may result in additional operating
restrictions, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    (9) During the events, vessel operators may contact the PATCOM on
VHF-FM channel 13.

    Dated: October 15, 2015.
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2015-27998 Filed 11-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38396-38397]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13770]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0118; FRL-9977-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Mercury Cell Chlor-
Alkali Plants (EPA ICR Number 2046.12, OMB Control Number 2060-0542),
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30,
2022. Public comments were previously requested, via the Federal
Register, on April 13, 2021 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0118, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method)
or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 2821T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket without change including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
https://www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Owners and operators of mercury cell chlor-alkali plants
are required to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements
for the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as well as for
the applicable specific standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIIII.
This includes submitting initial notifications, performance tests and
periodic reports and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence
and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation
of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring
system is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine
compliance with these standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart IIIII).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1 (total).
    Frequency of response: Semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 1,880 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $231,000 (per year), which includes $8,200 in
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease in burden from the
most-recently approved ICR as currently identified in the OMB Inventory
of Approved Burdens. This is due to a decrease in the number of sources
subject to the rule. Data gathered by EPA in the development of the
proposed Residual Risk and Technology Review for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart IIIII (86 FR 1362, January 8, 2021) indicates that there is
only one source subject to this rule. The regulations have been revised
in the past three years to add electronic reporting requirements, but
it is assumed that there is no additional burden associated with the
requirements, which consist of an upload of a currently required
notification in portable document format (PDF). There is no change in
capital/startup costs, as there is no change in the number of new
facilities, which remains at zero. Due to the decrease in the number of
facilities subject to the rule, total O&M costs have decreased from the
previous ICR.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-13770 Filed 6-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 164 (Monday, August 24, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 52081]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17195]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FDA-2019-C-1782]

CooperVision, Inc.; Withdrawal of Color Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification; withdrawal of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a color additive
petition (CAP 9C0315) proposing that the color additive regulations be
amended to provide for the safe use of disperse orange 3 methacrylamide
as a color additive in contact lenses.

DATES: The color additive petition was withdrawn on June 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts, and/or go to the Dockets
Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Molly A. Harry, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr.,
College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of May 8, 2019 (84
FR 20060), we announced that we had filed a color additive petition
(CAP 9C0315), submitted by CooperVision, 5870 Stoneridge Dr., Suite 1,
Pleasanton, CA 94588. The petition proposed to amend the color additive
regulations in 21 CFR part 73, Listing of Color Additives Exempt from
Certification, to provide for the safe use of disperse orange 3
methacrylamide (CAS Reg. 58142-15-7; CAS name 2-propenamide, 2-methyl-
N-[4-[2-(4-nitrophenyl)diazenyl]phenyl]-) as a color additive in
silicone-based hydrogel contact lenses. The color additive was intended
to copolymerize with various monomers in the contact lens formulation
to produce colored contact lenses. Through this notice, we are
announcing that CooperVision has withdrawn the petition without
prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 71.6(c)(2)).

    Dated: July 31, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-17195 Filed 8-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10551-10552]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-0021; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-1]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Ogden-Hinckley, UT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Class E airspace extending
upward from the surface designated as an extension to the Class D
surface area at Ogden-Hinckley Airport, Ogden, UT. The FAA's
Aeronautical Information Services identified that the width of the
Class E extension to the Class D surface area did not meet the current
criteria. This action would enhance the safety and management of
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-
0021; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-1, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-
647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Turan Wright, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the

scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Ogden-
Hinckley Airport, Ogden, UT.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-0021/
Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-1.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace
extending upward from the surface designated as an extension to the
Class D surface area. The Class E surface airspace designated as an
extension to the Class D would be expanded to 4 miles either side of
the 225[deg] radial extending 16 miles southwest of the Ogden Hinckley
airport. The FAA found this action necessary for the safety and
management of aircraft departing and arriving under IFR operations at
the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6004 of
FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM UT E4 Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT [Modified]

Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT
    (Lat. 41[deg]11'44'' N., long. 112[deg]00'47'' W.)
Hill AFB, UT
    (Lat. 41[deg]07'26'' N., long. 111[deg]58'23'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface 4 miles north
and parallel to the 225[deg] radial of Ogden-Hinckley Airport,
extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 16 miles southwest of the
airport, thence southeast to lat. 40[deg]57'3'' N., long.
112[deg]12'44'' W., thence northeast to the point where the Ogden-
Hinckley 99[deg] radial intersects the Hill AFB 4.6-mile radius to
the northeast of Hill AFB.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February 4, 2016.
Michael Hannigan,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-04201 Filed 2-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 156 (Monday, August 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50133-50135]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17432]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95457; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2022-041]

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

August 9, 2022.
    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 August 1, 2022, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'') proposes to
amend its fee schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``BZX Equities'') by eliminating the
Supplemental Incentive Program under Footnote 1 (Add/Remove Volume
Tiers). The Exchange proposes to implement these changes effective
August 1, 2022.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), to which market
participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available
information,\3\ no single registered equities exchange has more than
16% of the market share. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly
competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of order flow. The Exchange in
particular operates a ``Maker-Taker'' model whereby it pays rebates to
members that add liquidity and assesses fees to those that remove
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (June 27, 2022), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's Fee Schedule sets forth the standard rebates and
rates applied per share for orders that provide and remove liquidity,
respectively. Currently, for orders in securities priced at or above
$1.00, the Exchange provides a standard rebate of $0.00160 per share
for orders that add liquidity and assesses a fee of $0.0030 per share
for orders that remove liquidity. For orders in securities priced below
$1.00, the Exchange does not provide a rebate or assess a fee for
orders that add liquidity and assesses a fee of 0.30% of total dollar
value for orders that remove liquidity. Additionally, in response to
the competitive environment, the Exchange also offers tiered pricing,
which provides Members with opportunities to qualify for higher rebates
or lower fees where certain volume criteria and thresholds are met.
Tiered pricing provides an incremental incentive for Members to strive
for higher tier levels, which provides increasingly higher benefits or
discounts for satisfying more stringent criteria.
Supplemental Incentive Program
    Pursuant to footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently
offers three Supplemental Incentive Program tiers--one tier each for
Fee Codes B \4\, V,\5\ and Y.\6\ Each tier provides an additional
enhanced rebate for Members that add a certain Tape ADAV \7\ as a
percentage of that Tape's TCV.\8\ The Exchange no longer desires to
maintain such tiers and therefore proposes to eliminate the
Supplemental Program Incentive tiers for Tapes A, B, and C from the fee
schedule. The Exchange would rather redirect future resources and
funding into other programs and tiers intended to incentivize increased
order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``B'' are displayed orders adding
liquidity to BZX (Tape B).
    \5\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``V'' are displayed orders adding
liquidity to BZX (Tape A).
    \6\ Orders yielding Fee Cody ``Y'' are displayed orders adding
liquidity to BZX (Tape C).
    \7\ ``ADAV'' means average daily added volume calculated as the
number of shares added per day and is calculated on a monthly basis.
    \8\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\9\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with

the Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not
be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that eliminating the Supplemental Incentive
Program under Footnote 1 is reasonable because the Exchange is not
required to maintain this program or provide additional rebates. Orders
yielding fee codes B, V, or Y have other opportunities to obtain
enhanced rebates, such as via the Add Volume Tiers or the Single MPID
Investor Tier.\12\ The Exchange believes that eliminating the
Supplemental Incentive Program is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members. The
Exchange also notes that the proposed changes will not adversely impact
any Member's ability to qualify for reduced fees or enhanced rebates
offered under other tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market. The Exchange is only one of 16 equity venues to which market
participants may direct their order flow, and it represents a small
percentage of the overall market. It is also only one of several maker-
taker exchanges. Competing equity exchanges offer similar rates and
tiered pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules
of rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving certain
volume thresholds. Specifically, the Exchange notes that relative
volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely adopted by
exchanges,\13\ including the Exchange,\14\ and are reasonable,
equitable and non-discriminatory because they are open to all members
on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are
reasonably related to (i) the value to an exchange's market quality and
(ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels
or liquidity provision and/or growth patterns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Cboe EDGX Equities Fee Schedule, Footnote 1, Add/Remove
Volume Tiers.
    \14\ See Cboe BZX Equities Fee Schedule, Footnote 1, Add/Remove
Volume Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    Particularly, the proposed elimination of the Supplemental
Incentive Program does not impose a burden on intramarket competition
that is not in furtherance of the Act in that the elimination of the
tier applies to all Members equally and all Members will continue to
have an opportunity to receive enhanced rebates or reduced fees offered
under other tiers. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the
remaining tiers will continue to incentivize Members to submit
additional liquidity to the Exchange and to increase their order flow
on the Exchange generally, thereby contributing to a deeper and more
liquid market and promoting price discovery and market quality on the
Exchange to the benefit of all market participants and enhancing the
attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which the Exchange
believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market participants to
direct additional order flow to the Exchange. Greater liquidity
benefits all Members by providing more trading opportunities and
encourages Members to send additional orders to the Exchange, thereby
contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all market
participants.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to eliminate the Supplemental
Incentive Program does not impose a burden on intermarket competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change
represents a significant departure from pricing currently offered by
the Exchange or pricing offered by other equities exchanges. Members
may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of
Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in
the financial markets. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates
in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative
venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow,
including other equities exchanges, off-exchange venues, and
alternative trading systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents a
small percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available
information, no single equities exchange has more than 16% of the
market share.\15\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing
power in the execution of order flow. Indeed, participants can readily
choose to send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues
if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \16\ The fact
that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C.
Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for
order flow is 'fierce.'. . . As the SEC explained, '[i]n the U.S.
national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the
broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide
range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no
exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted'
because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in
the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . .''.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Supra note 3.
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \17\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \19\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule

change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-041 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-041. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-041, and should
be submitted on or before September 6, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-17432 Filed 8-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P