[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5600-5605]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01993]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0263; FRL-9940-46]

Cyazofamid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
cyazofamid in or on the herb subgroup 19A and the bulb vegetable group
3-07. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested the herb
subgroup 19A tolerances, and ISK Biosciences requested the bulb
vegetable group 3-07 tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 3, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 4, 2016, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0263, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0263 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 4, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0263, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

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

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of May 20, 2015 (80 FR 28925) (FRL-9927-
39), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of two pesticide petitions:
One by ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord,
Ohio 44077 (PP 5F8352) that requested to establish tolerances in 40 CFR
180.601 for residues of the fungicide cyazofamid and its metabolite (4-
chloro-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-2-carbonitrile) in or on bulb
vegetables (crop group 3-07) at 2.0 parts per million (ppm); and one by
IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540 (PP
5E8350) that requested to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.601 for
residues of the fungicide cyazofamid in or on the herb subgroup 19A at
90 ppm and also to remove the existing tolerances for residues of
cyazofamid and its metabolite in or on basil, dried leaves at 90 ppm
and basil, fresh leaves at 30 ppm upon approval of the herb subgroup
19A tolerances. That document referenced summaries of the two petitions
prepared by ISK Biosciences, the registrant, which is available in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notices of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for cyazofamid including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with cyazofamid follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The target organ for cyazofamid in rats is the kidney, with an
increased incidence of basophilic tubules, increased urinary volume,
pH, and protein noted in male rats after subchronic exposure. Female
rats were less sensitive, with only a marginal increase in urinary
volume, and pH. These findings were noted in a 90-day oral toxicity
study, and similar findings were noted in the 28-day oral toxicity
range-finding study in rats. In the two-generation reproductive study
in rats, there was an increased incidence of inflammation and
nephropathy in the high-dose male rats as compared to the controls.
Basophilic tubules are indicative of a regenerative process, but they
can be more difficult to identify in older animals (i.e., tubular
basophilia can be obscured by nephropathy or included as part of the
nephropathy constellation). No kidney effects were observed in the
chronic oral toxicity study in rats; however, this study did not test
up to doses as high as those eliciting kidney effects in the subchronic
and two-generation reproduction toxicity studies. The only relevant
finding in the dog was an incidence of parathyroid cysts in males at
the limit dose in the chronic study.
    The pre- and post-natal toxicology database for cyazofamid includes
rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies and a two-generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats. The prenatal developmental study
in rats showed evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility
following in utero exposure as a marginally increased incidence of bent
ribs was noted in fetuses at the limit dose, whereas no maternal
toxicity was noted.
    No adverse effects were seen in a route-specific dermal toxicity
study. Skin lesions were observed in males following oral exposure in
the mouse carcinogenicity study, and are thought to be caused by an
allergic reaction to systemic exposure because they did not occur
following exposure via the dermal route. Cyazofamid is classified as
``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans'' based on the lack of
evidence for carcinogenicity in mice and rats and a lack of mutagenic
potential.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by cyazofamid as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled, ``Cyazofamid. Human Health
Risk Assessment for Proposed New Uses on Use on Crop Subgroup 19A,
Peppers and Tomatoes Grown in Greenhouses, and on Bulb Vegetables Crop
Group 03-07'' on pp. 32 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0263.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified.
Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to
calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a population-
adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe margin of
exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the
adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyazofamid used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

  Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Cyazofamid for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/Scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All Populations)..      No appropriate toxicological effect attributable to a single dose was
                                     observed. Therefore, a dose and endpoint were not identified for this risk
                                                                     assessment.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 94.8 mg/kg/    Chronic RfD = 0.948  18-Month Mouse Oral
                                    day.                  mg/kg/day.           Carcinogenicity.
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.948 mg/kg/  LOAEL = 985 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 increased skin lesions.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........
Incidental oral short-term (1 to   NOAEL= 171 mg/kg/day  LOC for MOE = 100..  Co-critical 90-Day and chronic
 30 days).                         UFA = 10x...........                        oral toxicity studies in rats.
                                   UFH = 10x...........                       LOAEL= 295 mg/kg based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        increased incidence of basophilic
                                                                               tubules in the kidneys, increased
                                                                               urinary volume, pH, & protein.
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30     Oral study NOAEL=     LOC for MOE = 100..  Co-critical 90-Day and chronic
 days).                             171 mg/kg/day.                             oral toxicity studies in rats.
                                   UFA = 10x...........                       LOAEL= 295 mg/kg based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        increased incidence of basophilic
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        tubules in the kidneys, increased
                                                                               urinary volume, pH, & protein.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)     Classification: ``Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' based on the
                                     absence of treatment-related tumors in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
                                                                      studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to cyazofamid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing cyazofamid tolerances in 40 CFR
180.601. EPA assessed dietary exposures from cyazofamid in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for cyazofamid; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in
food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100 percent crop treated
(PCT) for all commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that cyazofamid does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for
cyazofamid. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all
food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Available environmental
fate studies suggest cyazofamid is not very

mobile and quickly degrades into a number of degradation products under
different environmental conditions. The highest estimated chronic
drinking water concentrations resulted from modeling which assumed
application of 100% molar conversion of the parent into the terminal
degradate CTCA. EPA used these estimates of CTCA (4-chloro-5-p-
tolylimidazole-2-carboxylic acid) in its dietary exposure assessments,
a conservative approach that likely overestimates the exposure
contribution from drinking water.
    The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the
dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for cyazofamid and its
degradates in drinking water. These simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of
cyazofamid and its degradates. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of the
degradate CTCA for chronic exposures are estimated to be 133.5 parts
per billion (ppb) for surface water and 211 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 211 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticide, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Cyazofamid is currently registered for use on turf at golf courses,
sod farms, seed farms, college and professional sports fields,
residential and commercial lawns, and on ornamental plants in
landscapes and those grown in commercial greenhouses and nurseries. EPA
assessed residential exposure using the following scenarios:
     Adult handlers. The worst-case scenario was determined to
be short-term inhalation exposures from mixing, loading, and applying
cyazofamid to turf; and
     Children. The worst-case scenario was determined to be
short-term post-application incidental oral exposure from hand-to-mouth
activities on turf.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found cyazofamid to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and cyazofamid does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
cyazofamid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The developmental rabbit and
two-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats did not show any
evidence of increased susceptibility developmental or offspring,
respectively. However, there was increased quantitative susceptibility
in the rat developmental study; concentrations up to the limit dose did
not cause maternal systemic toxicity, but there was an increased
incidence of bent ribs. Concern is low based on the following: (1) The
increase was marginal, (2) bent ribs are considered a variation rather
than a malformation, (3) the effect was only seen at the limit dose,
(4) there is a clear NOAEL for the effect, and (5) the selected
endpoints address any concerns for this effect.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for cyazofamid is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that cyazofamid is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. As noted in Section D.2., there was increased quantitative
susceptibility in the rat developmental study, however, concern is low
due to the reasons cited.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to cyazofamid and its degradates in drinking water.
EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application
exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by cyazofamid.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was

selected. Therefore, cyazofamid is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
cyazofamid from food and water will utilize 2% of the cPAD for children
1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use
patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of cyazofamid is not
expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Cyazofamid is
currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to cyazofamid.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 14,000 for adults
and 6,100 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern
for cyazofamid is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
cyazofamid is not registered for any use patterns that would result in
intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
cyazofamid.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, cyazofamid is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to cyazofamid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An enforcement method for non-fatty commodities is available, FDA's
Multi-residue Protocol D (without cleanup). The method completely
recovers (>80% recovery) cyazofamid and its metabolite (4-chloro-5-(4-
methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-2-carbonitrile). In addition, the high-
performance liquid chromatography method with ultraviolent light
detection (HPLC/UV) method is acceptable for use as a single analyte
enforcement method provided a confirmatory method such as the liquid
chromatography method with tandem mass-spectrometric detection (LC/MS/
MS) method is used.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Aliment-arius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Aliment-arius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    There are no Codex MRLs established for cyazofamid in/on the
commodities included in this action.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of cyazofamid
(4-chloro-2-cyano-N,N-dimethyl-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-1-
sulfonamide) and is metabolite (4-chloro-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-
imidazole-2-carbonitrile) in or on the herb subgroup 19A at 90 ppm; and
bulb vegetables, group 3-07 at 2.0 ppm. In addition, the existing
tolerances for residues of cyazofamid and its metabolite (4-chloro-5-
(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-2-carbonitrile) in or on basil, dried
leaves and basil, fresh leaves are removed as unnecessary.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: January 21, 2016.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.601, in the table in paragraph (a):
0
a. Remove the entries for ``Basil, dried leaves'' and ``Basil, fresh
leaves''.
0
b. Add alphabetically entries for ``Bulb vegetables, group 3-07'' and
``Herb subgroup 19A''.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.601  Cyazofamid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. * * *

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

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulb vegetables, group 3-07................................          2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herb subgroup 19A..........................................           90
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-01993 Filed 2-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 25, 2006

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2006-24426

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

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

Application of   ATLANTIC SOUTHEAST AIRLINES, INC. (ASA),   filed 4/5/06
for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between (1) Atlanta, Georgia, and Leon/Guanajuato, Mexico; (2) Atlanta,
Georgia, and Merida, Mexico; and (3) Atlanta, Georgia, and Cozumel,
Mexico, and to combine this authority with all of ASA’s existing
certificate and exemption authority.  ASA states that it requests this
authority so that it can provide nonstop service on the routes using
70-seat CRJ-700 aircraft, as a “Delta Connection” carrier,
displaying the “DL” code of Delta Air Lines on the subject flights.

ASA states that, (1) effective August 1, 2006, ASA will replace
Delta’s mainline service on the Atlanta-Merida route with seasonal
operations, during the off-peak months (August-December);

(2) effective September 1, 2006, ASA will replace Delta’s mainline
service on the Atlanta-Cozumel route with seasonal operations, during
off-peak months, and will supplement Delta’s mainline offerings with
midweek service during peak periods; and (3) effective December 1, 2006,
ASA will introduce new daily year-round service on the
Atlanta-Leon/Guanajuato route.

Applicant rep: Robert E. Cohn<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst: Linda Lundell
(202)366-2336

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX	Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: May 25, 2006,  through  May
25, 2008 .

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

	XX  The holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.  Consistent with our standard policy, the dormancy
notice period will begin August 1, 2006, for the Atlanta-Merida route;
September 1, 2006, for the Atlanta-Cozumel route; and December 1, 2006,
for the Atlanta-Leon/Guanajuato route, ASA’s proposed startup dates
for the subject services.

The code-share operations conducted under this authorization are subject
to the following conditions:

The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must comply
with 14 C.F.R. 257 and with any amendments to the Department’s
regulations concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.
Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our
approval here is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the
subject foreign air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier
holding out such service in computer reservation systems and elsewhere;
that the carrier selling such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on
the ticket) accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share
journey for all obligations established in its contract of carriage with
the passenger; and that the passenger liability of the operating carrier
be unaffected; and

The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that neither
ASA nor Delta shall give any force or effect to any contractual
provisions between themselves that are contrary to these conditions.

The route integration authority granted to ASA is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award
of the route integration authority granted should be construed as
conferring upon ASA rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or
beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited
unless ASA notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a market
and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier
selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized
to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by any such
carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in
ASA’s authority by virtue of the route integration authority granted
here, but that are not then being used by ASA, the holding of such
authority by route integration will not be considered as providing any
preference for ASA in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to
determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at
issue.

________________________________________________________________________
____

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

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

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

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

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

				APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70222-70225]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27560]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2013-0907]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Upper Mississippi River Between Mile
0.0 and 109.9; Cairo, IL to Chester, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated
navigation area (RNA) for all waters of the Upper Mississippi River
(UMR) between miles 0.0 and 109.9. This RNA is needed to protect
persons, property, and infrastructure from potential damage and safety
hazards associated with subsurface rock removal in the Upper
Mississippi River. Any deviation from the conditions and requirements
put into place are prohibited unless specifically authorized by the
cognizant Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley or his designated
representatives.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from November 25,
2013 until April 12, 2014. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, November 4,
2013, until November 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2013-0907]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Dan McQuate, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

AIS Automated Information System
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MM Mile Marker
MSU Marine Safety Unit
M/V Motor Vessel
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
RIAC River Industry Action Committee
UMR Upper Mississippi River
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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 not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. On July 18, 2013 the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) St. Louis District contacted Coast Guard Marine
Safety Unit (MSU) Paducah, KY with notification that a contract had
been issued for subsurface rock removal in the Thebes, IL area. The
rock removal project is required to assist navigation through the
channel during certain low water and river conditions and can only be
completed during certain environmental conditions. The environmental
window for the rock removal project is November 1, 2013 to April 12,
2014, and the project was not expected to require additional vessel
restrictions and requirements possibly leading to river closures as the
work areas were on the far outer edge, or totally outside of the
navigation channel. On August 27, 2013, MSU Paducah participated in a
conference call with USACE St. Louis and River Industry Action
Committee (RIAC) leadership concerning the rock removal project. RIAC
is an association of companies and organizations who are stakeholders
in the commercial industry on the inland rivers. During this call,
based on low water, river conditions, industry use and concerns, the
Coast Guard determined that implementing vessel restrictions and
requirements and possible river closures may be necessary when the rock
removal contractor is working in specific locations for safety
purposes. The RIAC leadership participating on this call agreed that
these safety measures are necessary. Similar safety measures were
implemented by the Coast Guard for this area from December 1, 2012
through March 31, 2013 based on low water conditions (77 FR 15850).
    On October 17, 2013, MSU Paducah personnel attended a meeting at
the USACE Jackson, MO field office with USACE personnel, the contractor
for this project, and numerous RIAC member companies. During this
meeting the contractor for the project expressed their safety concerns
and referred to a clause in their contract that they interpreted as
allowing for river closures necessary for safety reasons. The Coast
Guard determined that the best course of action is for the contractor
to initiate work with normal vessel traffic transiting to determine if/
when and what additional safety measures are required during the rock
removal project. These safety measures may include closures and/or
vessel restrictions and requirements, including one-way traffic, tow
size, designated vessel reporting locations, etc. as necessary when the
contractor is working in certain locations for safety purposes. In
addition, use of the

Automated Information System (AIS) will be vital for the Coast Guard to
maintain situational awareness while the restrictions and requirements
are in place and to help facilitate the clearing of vessel queues
following river closures. These vessel restrictions and requirements
are vital to maintaining safe navigation on the Upper Mississippi River
(UMR) during the rock removal project and to resuming safe navigation
as quickly as possible following river closures. As a result, the Coast
Guard is implementing the RNA to protect mariners and vessels. The
timing of the actual notice of definitive need for vessel restrictions
does not allow for the time required to complete the NPRM process.
Immediate action establishing this RNA is needed to protect persons and
property from the safety hazards associated with the subsurface rock
removal on the Upper Mississippi River. Delaying the effective date for
this RNA to complete the NPRM process would be contrary to the public
interest and would unnecessarily delay the rock removal project.
Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNM) and information sharing with RIAC
will update mariners of the restrictions, requirements, and enforcement
periods throughout the entire RNA, or at specific areas within the RNA.
    For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Providing 30 days
notice and delaying its effective date would be contrary to public
interest because immediate action is needed to protect persons,
property and infrastructure from the potential damage and safety
hazards associated with subsurface rock removal operations on the UMR.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat.
2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define RNAs.
    The purpose of this RNA is to protect persons and vessels while
subsurface rock removal operations are ongoing on the UMR from mile
38.0 to mile 46.0. The removal operations pose significant safety
hazards to vessels and mariners operating on the UMR. Establishing the
RNA to extend from mile 0.0 to mile 109.9 is necessary for the Coast
Guard to maintain situational awareness of vessels operating in the
UMR, and, at the request of RIAC, assist in facilitating the clearing
of vessel queues following closures or restrictions of the river from
mile 38.0 to mile 46.0. For these reasons, the Coast Guard is
establishing the RNA to implement various waterway operational
controls, including specific restrictions and requirements, for vessels
transiting between mile 0.0 and 109.9 on the UMR.

C. Discussion of the Temporary Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary RNA for all vessel
traffic on the UMR between mile 0.0 and mile 109.9, extending the
entire width of the river. Within this RNA various restrictions and
requirements may be put into effect based on the actual or planned
subsurface rock removal operations between mile 38.0 and mile 46.0.
These restrictions and requirements will be the minimum necessary to
protect persons, property, and infrastructure from the potential
hazards associated with low water and subsurface rock removal and may
include, but are not limited to, river closures, tow size, tow
configuration, vessel/barge draft, assist vessels, speed, vessel
traffic reporting, hours of transit, one way traffic, and the use of
AIS if fitted onboard a vessel. Enforcement times and specific
restrictions and requirements will be announced via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners (BNM), through outreach with the RIAC, the Local Notice to
Mariners (LNM) and through other public notice. Any deviation from the
requirements put into place are prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the COTP Ohio Valley, or a designated representative.
Deviations for the specific restrictions and regulations will be
considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP Ohio Valley
may be contacted by telephone at 1-800-253-7465 or can be reached by
VHF-FM channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule establishes a
temporary RNA for vessels on all waters of the UMR from mile 0.0 to
mile 109.9. Notifications of enforcement times of control measures and
requirements put into effect for the entire RNA, or specific areas
within the RNA, will be communicated to the marine community via BNM,
through outreach with RIAC, and through Local Notice to Mariners (LNM).
The impacts on navigation will be limited to ensuring the safety of
mariners and vessels associated with hazards presented by USACE
contractor operations involving subsurface rock removal, and the safe
and timely resumption of vessel traffic following any river closures or
restrictions associated with subsurface rock removal operations.
Operational controls under this RNA will be the minimum necessary to
protect mariners, vessels, the public, and the environment from known
or perceived risks.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
the UMR, from November 4, 2013 to April 12, 2014. This RNA will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities because this rule allows for the intermittent passing of
vessels. Traffic in this area is limited to almost entirely
recreational vessels and commercial towing vessels subject to noticed
restrictions and requirements. Notifications to the marine community
will be made through BNM, LNM, and communications with RIAC. Notices of
changes to the RNA and effective times will also be made. Deviation
from the restrictions may be requested from the COTP or designated
representative and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    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,
above.
    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.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. 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 (NEPA)(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 is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination will be made available as indicated under the ADDRESSES
section.

 List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. A new temporary Sec.  165.T08-0907 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0907  Regulated Navigation Area; Upper Mississippi River
between mile 0.0 and 109.9, Cairo, IL to Chester, IL.

    (a) Location. The following area is a regulated navigation area
(RNA): all waters of the Upper Mississippi River between mile 0.0 and
mile 109.9, Cairo, IL to Chester, IL, extending the entire width of the
river.
    (b) Effective dates. This RNA is effective and enforceable with
actual notice from November 4, 2013 through April 12, 2014.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley may
prescribe, for all or specific portions of the RNA, periods of
enforcement and minimum operational requirements necessary to preserve
safe navigation on the Upper Mississippi River during subsurface rock
removal operations, including, but not limited to, the required use of
assist vessels, vessel traffic reporting, and Automatic Information
Systems when fitted onboard a vessel; and restrictions on the
following:
    (i) Tow size;
    (ii) Tow configuration;
    (iii) Vessel/barge draft;
    (iv) Speed;
    (v) Under keel clearance;
    (vi) Hours of transit; and
    (vii) One way traffic.
    (2) All persons and vessels must comply with any requirement

prescribed under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (3) Persons or vessels may request an exception from any
requirement prescribed under paragraph (c)(1) of this section from the
COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative who may be a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard. The COTP
Ohio Valley may be contacted by telephone at 1-800-253-7465 or on VHF-
FM channel 16.
    (d) Enforcement. The COTP Ohio Valley will notify the public of the
specific requirements prescribed under paragraph (c)(1) of this section
and of the times when those requirements will be enforced or when
enforcement will be suspended, using means designed to ensure maximum
effectual notice including, but not limited to, broadcast notices to
mariners (BNM) and communications through the River Industry Action
Committee.

    Dated: November 4, 2013.
K.S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Eighth District Commander.
[FR Doc. 2013-27560 Filed 11-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 14 (Monday, January 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4067-4070]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96678; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-002]

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

January 17, 2023.
    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 January 3, 2023, 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 modifying the existing
NBBO Setter Program and deleting a definition that is no longer
applicable, effective January 3, 2023.
    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
15% 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 (December 15, 2022), available at https://www.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 $0.0016 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.
    Under footnote 20 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange offers the NBBO
Setter Program, which is designed to improve market quality on the
Exchange in certain securities. Specifically, qualifying orders in
specific securities that yield fee codes B,\4\ V,\5\ and Y \6\ are
eligible for an additive rebate under Tier 1 of the NBBO Setter Program
(the ``NBBO Setter Tier''). Currently, the Exchange provides an
additional rebate of $0.0003 per share to Market Participant
Identifiers (``MPIDs'') that have a Step-Up Setter ADAV \7\ from May
2022 that is equal to or greater than 350,000 for orders in NBBO Setter
Securities \8\ that establish a new Setter NBBO.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 Code ``Y'' are displayed orders adding
liquidity to BZX (Tape C).
    \7\ ``Step-Up Setter ADAV'' means Baseline Setter ADAV in the
relevant baseline month subtracted from Current Setter ADAV.
    \8\ ``NBBO Setter Securities'' means a list of securities
included in the NBBO Setter Program, the universe of which will be
determined by the Exchange and published in a Notice distributed to
Members and on the Exchange's website. The Exchange will not remove
a security from the list of NBBO Setter Securities without 30 days
prior notice (unless the security is no longer eligible for trading
on the Exchange).
    \9\ ``Setter NBBO'' means a quotation of at least 100 shares
that is better than the NBBO or a quotation of a notional size of at
least $10,000 that is better than the NBBO.

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

    Now, the Exchange proposes to increase the applicable additional
rebate of the NBBO Setter Tier to $0.0007 per share and to modify the
criteria as follows:
    (1) MPID has a Step-Up ADAV \10\ from November 2022 greater than or
equal to 5,000,000; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Step-Up ADAV'' means ADAV in the relevant baseline month
subtracted from current ADAV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) MPID has a Current Setter ADAV \11\ greater than or equal to
3,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Current Setter ADAV'' means ADAV calculated as the number
of displayed shares added per day that establish a new Setter NBBO
in NBBO Setter Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above proposed change, the Exchange also proposes to
delete the definition of Step-Up Setter ADAV from the Fee Schedule as
it is no longer applicable.
    The Exchange notes that the NBBO Setter Program will continue to be
available to all Members and MPIDs and will provide Members and MPIDs
an opportunity to receive an additional enhanced rebate (i.e., in
addition to the applicable standard rebate and any other applicable
tier). Moreover, the proposed change is designed to encourage Members
that provide displayed liquidity on the Exchange to increase their
overall add volume order flow, not just volume in NBBO Setter
Securities that establish the NBBO, which would benefit all Members by
providing greater execution opportunities on the Exchange and
contribute to a deeper, more liquid market, to the benefit of all
investors.
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.\12\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the section 6(b)(5) \13\ 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) \14\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed modified
NBBO Setter Tier is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory. The proposed NBBO Setter Tier reflects a competitive
pricing structure designed to incentivize participants to direct their
order flow to the Exchange and enhance market quality in NBBO Setter
Securities. Particularly, the Exchange believes the NBBO Setter Program
tier, which provides an additional rebate to qualifying orders,
continues to provide a reasonable means to encourage overall growth in
Members' MPID order flow that establishes a Setter NBBO in NBBO Setter
Securities. The Exchange believes the proposed first prong of the
criteria under the NBBO Setter Program Tier 1 is also reasonably
designed to incentivize overall growth in Members' MPID liquidity
adding order flow in all securities. An overall increase in activity
would deepen the Exchange's liquidity pool, offer more narrow spreads,
support the quality of price discovery, promote market transparency,
and improve market quality for all investors.
    The Exchange believes that allowing MPIDs to qualify for the
additive rebate under the NBBO Setter Tier by meeting the proposed
criteria will promote price discovery and market quality in NBBO Setter
Securities and, further, that the tightened spreads and increased
liquidity from the proposal will benefit all investors by deepening the
Exchange's liquidity pool, offering the potential for execution at more
aggressive prices, supporting the quality of price discovery, enhancing
quoting competition across exchanges, promoting market transparency,
and improving investor protection.
    The Exchange notes that the NBBO Setter Tier, even as amended, is
not dissimilar from other volume-based rebates and fees (``Volume
Tiers'') that have been widely adopted by exchanges, including the
Exchange, and are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it
is open to all Members on an equal basis and provides a rebate that is
reasonably related to the value of an Exchange's market quality. Much
like Volume Tiers are generally designed to incentivize higher levels
of liquidity on the Exchange, the NBBO Setter Tier is designed to
incentivize enhanced market quality on the Exchange through tighter
spreads, greater size at the inside, and greater quoting depth in NBBO
Setter Securities by offering an additive rebate in NBBO Setter
Securities. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed additive rebate
in qualifying orders for NBBO Setter Securities will act to enhance
liquidity and competition across exchanges in NBBO Setter Securities by
providing a rebate reasonably related to such enhanced market quality
to the benefit of all investors, thereby promoting the principles
discussed in section 6(b)(5) of the Act. Additionally, the Exchange
notes that the tier, even as amended, is comparable to other pricing
tiers adopted by the Exchange and other exchanges that provide an
enhanced rebate or supplemental incentive for firms that achieve a
specified volume threshold in a specified group of securities.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Exchange Fee Schedule, Footnote 13, Tape B Volume and
Quoting Tiers. See also MEMX Fee Schedule, Displayed Liquidity
Incentive Tiers and Nasdaq Fee Schedule, NBBO Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposal represents an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
because the criteria necessary to achieve the tier encourages Members
to add liquidity on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes the
proposed criteria, while more stringent than the current criteria, is
commensurate with the proposed rebate, which is higher than the current
rebate.\16\ Moreover, the Exchange notes that it plans to add 223
symbols to the NBBO Setter Securities list (which would increase the
number of NBBO Setter Securities to a total of 776 symbols) in tandem
with this proposal, thereby providing additional opportunities for
MPIDs to meet the proposed NBBO Setter Tier's criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that it plans to add 223 symbols to the
NBBO Setter Securities list in tandem with this proposal, thereby
providing additional opportunities for MPIDs to meet the proposed
NBBO Setter Tier's criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is also not unfairly
discriminatory because all Members and MPIDs will continue to be
eligible for the NBBO Setter Tier rebates and have the opportunity to
meet the Tier's criteria and receive the corresponding additional
rebate if such criteria is met. Without having a view of activity on
other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of
knowing whether these proposed changes would definitely result in any
Members qualifying for the NBBO Setter Tier. While the Exchange has no
way of predicting with certainty how the proposed changes will impact
Member activity, based on the prior months volume the Exchange
anticipates

approximately two Members (one MPID each) will be able to compete for
and reach the criteria under the NBBO Setter Tier, as amended. The
Exchange also notes that proposed changes will not adversely impact any
Member's ability to qualify for reduced fees or enhanced rebates
offered under other tiers. Should a Member not meet the proposed new
criteria, the Member will simply not receive that additional rebate.
    The Exchange also believes that the clarifying change to delete a
non-applicable definition (i.e., the ``Step-Up Setter ADAV''
definition) from the Definitions section of the Fee Schedule is
reasonable, fair and equitable and non-discriminatory because it is
nonsubstantive and is designed to make sure that the Fee Schedule is as
clear and understandable as possible. The Exchange notes the Step-Up
Setter ADAV definition was only applicable to the existing NBBO Setter
Tier, and as proposed is no longer applicable to the NBBO Setter Tier.
Further, it is not otherwise applicable to any fees, rebates, or other
incentive programs.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the NBBO
Setter Tier, as proposed, will continue to be eligible to all Members
and MPIDs equally in that all Members and MPIDs have the opportunity to
submit orders that could set the Setter NBBO and therefore qualify for
the proposed increased additive rebate in NBBO Setter Securities.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed NBBO Setter Tier
would incentivize Members to submit additional aggressively priced
displayed 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 proposed non-substantive change to the Definitions
section of the Fee Schedule is similarly non-burdensome as it will be
available to all Members and provide a clear description of the terms
applicable to the Fee Schedule.
    The Exchange notes that as proposed the NBBO Setter Program does
not impose a burden on intermarket competition as the proposal is
intended to increase competition in U.S. equity securities that the
Exchange believes will contribute to a deeper and more liquid market in
these securities, which would in turn promote 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. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes
represent a significant departure from pricing current 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 15% of the
market share.\17\ 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.'' \18\ 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' . . .''.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Supra note 3.
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \19\ 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 \20\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \21\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 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-2023-002 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-2023-002. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2023-002 and should be submitted
on or before February 13, 2023.

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

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

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01118 Filed 1-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 216 (Friday, November 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 71066]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-254-000]

Harmony Florida Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Harmony
Florida Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 23, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 2, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-24702 Filed 11-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P