[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 248 (Thursday, December 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76232-76234]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30627]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0946; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-037-AD;
Amendment 39-17294; AD 2012-18-10 R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; GA200 (Pty) Ltd Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for
all GA200 (Pty) Ltd Models GA200 and GA200C airplanes. This AD results
from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as failure of the wing strut bolt through the main spar. We
are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 31, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of January 31,
2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
September 14, 2012 (77 FR 55686, September 11, 2012).

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact GippsAero,
P.O. Box 881, Morwell, Victoria 3840, Australia, telephone: + 61 (0) 3
5172 1200; fax + 61 (0) 3 5172 1201; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: www.gippsaero.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2012 (77
FR 62466), and proposed to revise AD 2012-18-10, Amendment 39-17187 (77
FR 55686, September 11, 2012).
    Since we issued AD 2012-18-10, Amendment 39-17187 (77 FR 55686,
September 11, 2012), the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which
is the aviation authority for the Commonwealth of Australia, has issued
AD AD/GA200/1, Amendment 1, dated September 21, 2012 (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products.
    The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states that:

    As a result of a reported case of failure of a strut on a GA200C
aircraft, GippsAero has issued a mandatory service bulletin to alert
operators and maintenance organisations and to provide inspection
and rectification actions.
    This Airworthiness Directive makes this inspection and
rectification action mandatory. Failure to complete the actions
required by this service bulletin may result in wing strut bolt
failure, resulting in wing structural failure.
    Amendment 1 is issued to revise the repeat inspection compliance
time to 500 hours (previously 100 hours). The requirement service
bulletin is also revised to provide a corrective action if the
inboard (upper) strut fitting hole is found to be larger than
specified. The initial inspection compliance time of 10 hours
remains unchanged.

    This AD retains the actions required in AD 2012-18-10, Amendment
39-17187 (77 FR 55686, September 11, 2012), changes the compliance time
for the repetitive inspections from intervals of 100 hours time-in-
service (TIS) to intervals of 500 hours TIS, and incorporates the
revised service bulletin that includes repair instructions in lieu

of contacting the manufacturer. You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 62466, October 15,
2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 62466, October 15, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 62466, October 15, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 3 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $510, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $400, for a cost of
$570 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products
that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 62466, October 15,
2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-17187 (77 FR
55686, September 11, 2012) and adding the following new AD:

2012-18-10 R1 GA200 (Pty) Ltd: Amendment 39-17294; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0946; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-037-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January 31,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD revises AD 2012-18-10, Amendment 39-17187 (77 FR 55686,
September 11, 2012).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to GA200 (Pty) Ltd Models GA200 and GA200C
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as failure of the
wing strut bolt through the main spar. We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of the wing strut bolt, which could result in wing
failure.

 (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) after September 14,
2012 (the effective date retained from AD 2012-18-10, Amendment 39-
17187 (77 FR 55686, September 11, 2012)), inspect the inboard strut
fitting following GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA200-
2012-08, Issue 1, dated August 22, 2012 (which is incorporated by
reference in AD 2012-18-10); or GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin
SB-GA200-2012-08, Issue 2, dated September 4, 2012. Repetitively
thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS
following GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA200-2012-08,
Issue 2, dated September 4, 2012. The inspection procedures remain
the same; however, the revised service bulletin provides repair
instructions in lieu of contacting the manufacturer.
    (2) If the 100-hour TIS repetitive inspection previously
required in AD 2012-18-10, Amendment 39-17187 (77 FR 55686,
September 11, 2012) has already been done before January 31, 2013
(the effective date of this AD) following GippsAero Mandatory
Service Bulletin SB-GA200-2012-08, Issue 1, dated August 22, 2012
(which is incorporated by reference in AD 2012-18-10), the next
required inspections are due at intervals not to exceed 500 hours
TIS after the last inspection following GippsAero Mandatory Service
Bulletin SB-GA200-2012-08, Issue 2, dated September 4, 2012.
    (3) If any discrepancies are found during any of the inspections
required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, before further
flight after the inspection in which the discrepancy is found, take
all necessary corrective actions following GippsAero Mandatory
Service Bulletin SB-GA200-2012-08, Issue 1, dated August 22, 2012
(which is incorporated by reference in AD 2012-18-10); or GippsAero
Mandatory

Service Bulletin SB-GA200-2012-08, Issue 2, dated September 4, 2012.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

 (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) AD AD/
GA200/1, Amendment 1, dated September 21, 2012; GippsAero Mandatory
Service Bulletin SB-GA200-2012-08, Issue 1, dated August 22, 2012;
and GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA200-2012-08, Issue 2,
dated September 4, 2012, for related information.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 31, 2013.
    (i) GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA200-2012-08, Issue
2, dated September 4, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 14, 2012 (77 FR 55686, September 11, 2012).
    (i) GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA200-2012-08, Issue
1, dated August 22, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For GippsAero service information identified in this AD,
contact GippsAero, P.O. Box 881, Morwell, Victoria 3840, Australia,
telephone: + 61 (0) 3 5172 1200; fax + 61 (0) 3 5172 1201; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.gippsaero.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/index.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 12, 2012.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-30627 Filed 12-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 214)]
[Notices]
[Page 67466]
[DOCID:fr07no05-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EG06-4-000]

Big Horn Wind Project, LLC; Notice of Application for Commission
Determination of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

November 1, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 27, 2005, Big Horn Wind Project, LLC
(Big Horn) pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's regulations, filed
an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status.
    Big Horn states that it is an Oregon limited liability company,
will be engaged directly and exclusively in the business of owning all
or part of one or more eligible facilities, and selling electric energy
at wholesale.
    Big Horn further states that it has served a copy of the filing on
the Securities and Exchange Commission, the California Public Utilities
Commission, the Oregon Public Utilities Commission, the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission, the Utah Public Service
Commission, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, and the Wyoming
Public Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on November 17, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6157 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 190 (Wednesday, September 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61793-61794]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21542]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[OMB Control No. 3235-0214, SEC File No. 270-238]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Extension:
    Rule 17a-7

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections
of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit the
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 17a-7 (17 CFR 270.17a-7) (the ``rule'') under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (the ``Act'') is entitled
``Exemption of certain purchase or sale transactions

between an investment company and certain affiliated persons thereof.''
It provides an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act for purchases
and sales of securities between registered investment companies
(``funds''), that are affiliated persons (``first-tier affiliates'') or
affiliated persons of affiliated persons (``second-tier affiliates''),
or between a fund and a first- or second-tier affiliate other than
another fund, when the affiliation arises solely because of a common
investment adviser, director, or officer. Rule 17a-7 requires funds to
keep various records in connection with purchase or sale transactions
effected in reliance on the rule. The rule requires the fund's board of
directors to establish procedures reasonably designed to ensure that
the rule's conditions have been satisfied. The board is also required
to determine, at least on a quarterly basis, that all affiliated
transactions effected during the preceding quarter in reliance on the
rule were made in compliance with these established procedures. If a
fund enters into a purchase or sale transaction with an affiliated
person, the rule requires the fund to compile and maintain written
records of the transaction.\1\ The Commission's examination staff uses
these records to evaluate for compliance with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The written records are required to set forth a description
of the security purchased or sold, the identity of the person on the
other side of the transaction, and the information or materials upon
which the board of directors' determination that the transaction was
in compliance with the procedures was made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While most funds do not commonly engage in transactions covered by
rule 17a-7, the Commission staff estimates that nearly all funds have
adopted procedures for complying with the rule.\2\ Of the approximately
2,915 currently active funds, the staff estimates that virtually all
have already adopted procedures for compliance with rule 17a-7. This is
a one-time burden, and the staff therefore does not estimate an ongoing
burden related to the policies and procedures requirement of the rule
for funds.\3\ The staff estimates that there are approximately 90 new
funds that register each year, and that each of these funds adopts the
relevant policies and procedures. The staff estimates that it takes
approximately 4 hours to develop and adopt these policies and
procedures. Therefore, the total annual burden related to developing
and adopting these policies and procedures would be approximately 360
hours.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Unless stated otherwise, these estimates are based on
conversations with the examination and inspections staff of the
Commission and fund representatives.
    \3\ Based on our reviews and conversations with fund
representatives, we understand that funds rarely, if ever, need to
make changes to these policies and procedures once adopted, and
therefore we do not estimate a paperwork burden for such updates.
    \4\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (4
hours x 90 new funds = 360 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 2,915 existing funds, the staff assumes that approximately
25%, (or 729) enter into transactions affected by rule 17a-7 each year
(either by the fund directly or through one of the fund's series), and
that the same percentage (25%, or 23 funds) of the estimated 90 funds
that newly register each year will also enter into these transactions,
for a total of 752 \5\ companies that are affected by the recordkeeping
requirements of rule 17a-7. These funds must keep records of each of
these transactions, and the board of directors must quarterly determine
that all relevant transactions were made in compliance with the
company's policies and procedures. The rule generally imposes a minimal
burden of collecting and storing records already generated for other
purposes.\6\ The staff estimates that the burden related to making
these records and for the board to review all transactions would be 3
hours annually for each respondent, (2 hours spent by compliance
attorneys and 1 hour spent by the board of directors) \7\ or 2,256
total hours each year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (729 +
23 = 752).
    \6\ Commission staff believes that rule 17a-7 does not impose
any costs associated with record preservation in addition to the
costs that funds already incur to comply with the record
preservation requirements of rule 31a-2 under the Act. Rule 31a-2
requires companies to preserve certain records for specified periods
of time.
    \7\ The staff estimates that funds that rely on rule 17a-7
annually enter into an average of 8 rule 17a-7 transactions each
year. The staff estimates that the compliance attorneys of the
companies spend approximately 15 minutes per transaction on this
recordkeeping, and the board of directors spends a total of 1 hour
annually in determining that all transactions made that year were
done in compliance with the company's policies and procedures.
    \8\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (3
hours x 752 companies = 2,256 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these estimates, the staff estimates the combined total
annual burden hours associated with rule 17a-7 is 2,616 hours.\9\ The
staff also estimates that there are approximately 752 respondents and
6,016 total responses.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (360
hours + 2,256 hours = 2,616 total hours).
    \10\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: 752
funds that engage in rule 17a-7 transactions x 8 transactions per
year = 6,016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimates of burden hours are made solely for the purposes of
the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive
or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission
rules. The collection of information required by rule 17a-7 is
necessary to obtain the benefits of the rule. Responses will not be
kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens
of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 24, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-21542 Filed 9-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38026-38033]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16188]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0474; FRL-8876-5]

Diethylene Glycol Mono Butyl Ether; Exemption From the
Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of diethylene glycol mono butyl ether (CAS
Reg. No. 112-34-5) when used as a pesticide inert ingredient as a
solvent, stabilizer and/or antifreeze within pesticide formulations/
products without limitation under 40 CFR 180.920. Huntsman, Dow
AgroSciences L.L.C., Nufarm Americas Inc., BASF, Stepan Company,
Loveland Products Inc., and Rhodia Inc. submitted a petition to EPA
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an
establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of diethylene glycol mono butyl ether.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 29, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 29, 2011,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0474. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available,

e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the harmonized test guidelines
referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0474 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
August 29, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0474, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of July 9, 2008 (73 FR 39291) (FRL-8371-2),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 8E7355) by Huntsman,
10003 Woodloch Forest Drive, The Woodlands, TX 77380; Dow AgroSciences
L.L.C., 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Nufarm
Americas Inc., 150 Harvester Drive Suite 220, Burr Ridge, Illinois
60527; BASF, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; Stepan
Company, 22 W. Frontage Road, Northfield, IL 60093; Loveland Products
Inc., PO Box 1286, Greeley, CO 80632; and Rhodia Inc., CN 1500,
Cranbury, New Jersey 08512. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920
be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of diethylene glycol mono butyl ether (CAS Reg.
No. 112-34-5) when used as an inert ingredient solvent, stabilizer and/
or antifreeze without limitation in pesticide formulations applied to
pre-harvest crops. That notice referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Huntsman, Dow AgroSciences L.L.C., Nufarm Americas Inc.,
BASF, Stepan Company, Loveland Products Inc., and Rhodia Inc., which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. The Agency
received one comment in response to the notice of filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for 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 * *
*.''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with section 408(c)(2)(A) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), 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 diethylene glycol mono butyl
ether including exposure resulting from the exemption established by
this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
diethylene glycol mono butyl ether follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
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. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by diethylene glycol mono butyl ether as
well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are
discussed in this unit.
    Diethylene glycol mono butyl ether (DEGBE) has low acute toxicity
via the oral and dermal routes. It is a slightly irritating to the skin
and moderately irritating to the eyes. It is a skin not a sensitizer.
    Oral subchronic studies with DEGBE were available in the rat. In a
study in F344 rats, toxicity was mainly manifested as an increase in
creatinine levels at >51 mg/kg/day. Confidence in this study is low
because of the high unexplained mortality. Also, in other studies in
rats, toxicity was observed at doses >210 mg/kg/day. These effects
included increased absolute relative liver weight; and hepatic
cytochrome P450's and UGT levels; decreased total protein, cholesterol,
and aspartate aminotransferase, very slight hepatocyte hypertrophy and
increased individual hepatocyte degeneration in females only, decreased
RBC count; hemoglobin (Hgb); and hematocrit (Hct) and increased
absolute and relative kidney weights with an equivocal increase in
minor histopathologic changes typical of early spontaneous nephropathy.
In a well conducted 90-day toxicity study in rats via drinking water,
rats were exposed to DEGBE at 0, 50, 250, or 1000 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL
in this study was 250 mg/kg/day based on kidney, liver and blood
effects seen at the LOAEL of 1000 mg/kg/day. In this study, no adverse
treatment-related effects were observed on functional observational
battery (FOB) parameters. Liver toxicity (including liver enzymes),
kidney toxicity and blood parameters were affected at the limit dose of
1000 mg/kg/day.
    There was one developmental toxicity study in Wistar rats conducted
via the oral route of exposure. In this study, there were no maternal
or developmental effects at doses up to 633 mg/kg/day. In a
developmental toxicity study in mice via gavage, DEGBE did not produce
any malformations at doses up to 2050 mg/kg/day. The maternal and
developmental NOAEL in mice was 500 mg/kg/day. A developmental study in
rabbits via the dermal route of exposure was available for review. In
this study, maternal and developmental toxicity was not observed at
doses up to 1000 mg/kg/day.
    There were 2 oral reproduction toxicity studies in rats available
for review. In both studies rats were exposed to DEGBE via gavage at
doses of 0, 250, 500 or 1000 mg/kg/day. In one study fetal
susceptibility was not observed. Maternal (mortality) and offspring
(reduced mean pup weight) toxicity occurred at the same dose (1000 mg/
kg/day). The maternal and developmental NOAELs in this study were 500
mg/kg/day. In a second study quantitative fetal susceptibility was
observed. Parental toxicity was not observed at doses up to 1,000 mg/
kg/day. Offspring toxicity (decreased bodyweight) was observed at 1000
mg/kg/day. The offspring NOAEL was 500 mg/kg/day. Reproductive toxicity
was not observed in either study. A reproductive toxicity study in rats
with exposure via the dermal route was also available for review.
Parental, offspring and reproduction toxicity was not observed at doses
up to 2000 mg/kg/day.
    Dermal toxicity studies with DEGBE were available in the rat and
rabbit. In a 13-week dermal toxicity study in the Sprague-Dawley (SD)
rat, systemic toxicity was not observed at doses up to 2,000 mg/kg/day.
In a separate 13-week dermal toxicity study in SD rats, the NOAEL was
580 mg/kg/day based on renal tubular epithelium degeneration seen at
the LOAEL of 1900 mg/kg/day. In a neurotoxicity study via the dermal
route of exposure, degeneration of the renal tubular epithelium was
observed at 2000 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL was 600 mg/kg/day. No effects on
FOB parameters, motor activity or neuropathology were observed at doses
up to 2000 mg/kg/day following dermal treatment. No local or systemic
effects were observed in the New Zealand white rabbit.
    Several inhalation toxicity studies with DEGBE were available for
review in rats. Perivascular and peribronchial infiltrate were observed
in Wistar male and female rats and decreased spleen weights in males at
doses > 100 mg/m3. In addition, liver toxicity, kidney toxicity and
blood effects were identified as the target organs in inhalation
studies.
    Immunotoxicity studies for DEGBE were not available for review.
However, DEGBE belongs to the glycol ethers class of chemicals.
Immunotoxicity studies were available for ethylene glycol mono butyl
ether, also a glycol ether differing in only one ethyl group from
DEGBE. These data were used to assess the immunotoxic potential of
DEGBE. Signs of potential immunotoxicity were not observed in any of
the available studies with the surrogate chemical. Nor was there
evidence of immunotoxicity potential in any of the studies submitted
for DEGBE. Therefore, DEGBE is not expected to be immunotoxic.
    Mutagenicity studies (Ames test, mammalian gene mutation, mouse
lymphoma, chromosome aberration and unscheduled DNA synthesis) with
DEGBE were available for review. All

the tests were negative with the exception of the mouse lymphoma assay
in which cells were weakly positive in the absence of S-9, while it was
negative in the presence of S-9.
    Chronic and carcinogenicity studies were not available on DEGBE.
However, DEGBE belongs to the glycol ether class of chemicals which
include structurally similar chemicals ethylene glycol and diethylene
glycol. Therefore, carcinogenicity data available on these chemicals
were used to assess DEGBE's potential to cause cancer. Based on the
lack of evidence of carcinogenicity potential for ethylene glycol and
diethylene glycol and the lack of mutagenic concerns for DEGBE, it is
not expected to be carcinogenic to humans.
    Metabolism studies demonstrated that DEGBE was absorbed rapidly,
metabolized and primarily eliminated via the urine. The major
metabolite was identified as 2-(2-butoxyethoxy) acetic acid.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by the diethylene glycol mono butyl ether, 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 042203, Diethylene
glycol mono butyl ether; Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological
Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement
of a Tolerance When Used as Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Formulations
at pp. 6-21 and pp. 19-22 in EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0474.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for diethylene glycol mono
butyl ether used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this
unit.
    No acute endpoint of concern for general population was identified
in the available data base.
    The 90 day oral toxicity study in rats via drinking water was
selected to establish the chronic reference dose (cRfD). The NOAEL in
this study was 250 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 1000 mg/kg/day based on
kidney, liver, and blood effects. Although 51 mg/kg/day was the lowest
LOAEL in the database, confidence in this study was low due to the
observed unexplained mortality. A lower NOAEL (94 mg/kg/day) was also
observed in a 30 day oral toxicity study in the rat. The LOAEL (210 mg/
kg/day) was based on decreased water consumption, growth retardation,
and abnormalities in various organs. However, there is more confidence
in the 90 day oral toxicity study in rats because it is a more recent
study, was well conducted, tested more animals, provided more detailed
information, provided data on all parameters measured in the 30-day
study, has a well established NOAEL (250 mg/kg/day) and none of the
aforementioned effects were observed. Therefore, the point of departure
of 250 mg/kg/day was selected to establish the cRfD.
    The point of departure selected for the dermal exposure scenario is
from the 13 week neurotoxicity screening battery in rats. The NOAEL in
this study was 600 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 2,000 mg/kg/day based on
mild degeneration of renal tubular epithelium in males. This endpoint
and dose for dermal exposure assessment was further supported by a 90-
day dermal toxicity study in rats with a NOAEL of 580 mg/kg/day based
renal tubular degeneration seen at the LOAEL of 1900 mg/kg/day. For the
inhalation scenarios, 94 mg/m3 (~27 mg/kg/day) from an inhalation
toxicity study in Wistar rats was selected for the point of departure.
Although, 39 mg/m3 (~11 mg/kg/day) from an inhalation toxicity study in
F344 rats represents the lowest NOAEL in the database for this scenario
it was not selected because the observed liver changes were minor and
occurred at the high dose (117 mg/m3). In addition, the selected study
was more recent and one would expect changes to occur in the liver
since animals in this study were treated for a longer duration.
However, liver toxicity was not observed in the selected study.
Therefore, 94 mg/m3 (~27 mg/kg/day) was selected for the point of
departure for all inhalation scenarios.

  Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Diethylene Glycol Mono Butyl Ether for Use in Human
                                                 Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Point of departure and      RfD, PAD, LOC for risk        Study and
         Exposure/scenario           uncertainty/safety factors          assessment        toxicological effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-50 years  An acute endpoint was not identified in the database.
 of age).
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations).  NOAEL= 250 mg/kg/day          Chronic RfD = 2.5 mg/kg/ 90 Day Oral Toxicity
                                    UFA = 10x                      day                      Study LOAEL = 1000
                                    UFH = 10x                     cPAD = 2.5 mg/kg/day      mg/kg/day based on
                                    FQPA SF = 1x                                            kidney, liver, and
                                                                                blood effects.
Incidental oral short-term (1 to    NOAEL= 250 mg/kg/day          LOC for MOE = 00         90 Day Oral Toxicity
 30 days).                          UFA = 10x                                               Study LOAEL = 1000
                                    UFH = 10x                                               mg/kg/day based on
                                    FQPA SF = 1x                                            kidney, liver, and
                                                                                blood effects.

Incidental oral intermediate-term   NOAEL= 250 mg/kg/day          LOC for MOE = 100        90 Day Oral Toxicity
 (1 to 6 months).                   UFA = 10x                                               Study LOAEL = 1000
                                    UFH = 10x                                               mg/kg/day based on
                                    FQPA SF = 1x                                            kidney, liver, and
                                                                                blood effects.
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days)..  NOAEL = 600 mg/kg/day         LOC for MOE = 100        13 week Neurotoxicity
                                    (UFA = 10x                                              Screening Battery
                                    UFH = 10x                                               LOAEL = 2000 mg/kg/
                                    FQPA SF = 1x                                            day based on [mild
                                                                                degeneration of
                                                                                renal tubular
                                                                                epithelium in males.
Dermal intermediate-term (1 to 6    NOAEL = 600 mg/kg/day         LOC for MOE = 100        13 week Neurotoxicity
 months).                           UFA = 10x                                               Screening Battery
                                    UFH = 10x                                               LOAEL = 2000 mg/kg/
                                    FQPA SF = 1x                                            day based on mild
                                                                                degeneration of
                                                                                renal tubular
                                                                                epithelium in males.
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30      NOAEL= 27 mg/kg/day           LOC for MOE = 100        5 week Subchronic
 days).                              (inhalation absorption rate                            Inhalation Toxicity
                                     = 100%)                                                Study LOAEL was not
                                    UFA = 10x                                               established.
                                    UFH = 10x
                                    FQPA SF = 1x
Inhalation (1 to 6 months)........  NOAEL= 27 mg/kg/day           LOC for MOE = 100        5 week Subchronic
                                     (inhalation absorption rate                            Inhalation Toxicity
                                     = 100%)                                                Study LOAEL was not
                                    UFA = 10x                                               established.
                                    UFH = 10x
                                    FQPA SF = 1x
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).  Not likely to be carcinogenic based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity
                                     in structurally similar chemicals, ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol
                                     and the lack of mutagenicity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
  of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. UFS = use of a short-term
  study for long-term risk assessment. UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other data deficiency. FQPA
  SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD =
  reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to diethylene glycol mono butyl ether, EPA considered exposure
under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA
assessed dietary exposures from diethylene glycol mono butyl ether in
food as follows:
    No acute endpoint of concern was identified in the database.
Therefore, acute dietary risk assessment was not conducted.
    i. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessments, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue
levels in food, no residue data were submitted for the diethylene
glycol mono butyl ether. In the absence of specific residue data, EPA
has developed an approach which uses surrogate information to derive
upper bound exposure estimates for the subject inert ingredient. Upper
bound exposure estimates are based on the highest tolerance for a given
commodity from a list of high-use insecticides, herbicides, and
fungicides. A complete description of the general approach taken to
assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is
contained in the memorandum entitled ``Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates
(Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water)
Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts.'' (D361707, S.
Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.
    In the dietary exposure assessment, the Agency assumed that the
residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the
highest tolerance for a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is
that there would be similar rates of degradation (if any) between the
active and inert ingredient and that the concentration of inert
ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances
would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient.
    The Agency believes the assumptions used to estimate dietary
exposures led to an extremely conservative assessment of dietary risk
due to a series of compounded conservatisms. First, assuming that the
level of residue for an inert ingredient is equal to the level of
residue for the active ingredient will overstate exposure. The
concentration of active ingredient in agricultural products is
generally at least 50 percent of the product and often can be much
higher. Further, pesticide products rarely have a single inert
ingredient; rather there is generally a combination of different inert
ingredients used which additionally reduces the concentration of any
single inert ingredient in the pesticide product in relation to that of
the active ingredient.
    Second, the conservatism of this methodology is compounded by EPA's
decision to assume that, for each commodity, the active ingredient
which will serve as a guide to the potential level of inert ingredient
residues is the active ingredient with the highest tolerance level.
This assumption overstates residue values because it would be highly
unlikely, given the high number of inert ingredients, that a single
inert ingredient or class of ingredients would be present at the level
of the active ingredient in the highest tolerance for every commodity.
Finally, a third compounding conservatism is EPA's assumption that all
foods contain the inert ingredient at the highest tolerance level. In
other words, EPA assumed 100 percent of all foods are treated with the
inert ingredient at the rate and manner necessary to produce the
highest residue legally possible for an active ingredient.

In summary, EPA chose a very conservative method for estimating what
level of inert residue could be on food, then used this methodology to
choose the highest possible residue that could be found on food and
assumed that all food contained this residue. No consideration was
given to potential degradation between harvest and consumption even
though monitoring data shows that tolerance level residues are
typically one to two orders of magnitude higher than actual residues in
food when distributed in commerce.
    Accordingly, although sufficient information to quantify actual
residue levels in food is not available, the compounding of these
conservative assumptions will lead to a significant exaggeration of
actual exposures. EPA does not believe that this approach
underestimates exposure in the absence of residue data.
    ii. Cancer. For the reasons discussed above, the Agency has not
identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to diethylene
glycol mono butyl ether. Accordingly, a dietary exposure assessment to
evaluate cancer risk was not performed.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the
screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for diethylene glycol
mono butyl ether, a conservative drinking water concentration value of
100 ppb based on screening level modeling was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments
for parent compound. These values were directly entered into the
dietary exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
    DEGBE may be used in inert ingredients in products that are
registered for specific uses that may result in residential exposure. A
screening level residential exposure and risk assessment was completed
for products containing DEGBE as inert ingredients. The DEGBE inerts
may be present in consumer personal (care) products and cosmetics (at
concentrations up to 30%) (http://hpd.nlm.nih.gov/index.htm). The
Agency conducted exposure assessments based on end-use product
application methods and labeled application rates. The Agency conducted
an assessment to represent worst-case residential exposure by assessing
DEGBE in pesticide formulations used in crack and crevice applications.
The Agency conducted an assessment to represent worst-case residential
exposure by assessing post application exposures and risks from DEGBE
in pesticide formulations.
    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 diethylene glycol mono butyl ether to share a
common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and diethylene
glycol mono butyl ether does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has assumed that diethylene glycol mono butyl
ether does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Fetal susceptibility was not
observed in either of the developmental toxicity studies with rats or
rabbits. There were no toxic effects observed in parents or offspring
in either study at the highest doses tested, 633 and 1000 mg/kg/day,
respectively. No developmental effects were observed in mice at doses
up to 2050 mg/kg/day. In a reproduction toxicity study in the rat,
quantitative fetal susceptibility was observed. Parental toxicity was
not observed at doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/day. However, offspring
toxicity (decreased bodyweight) occurred at 1000 mg/kg/day. There was a
well established NOAEL in this study protecting fetuses. Therefore, the
concern for increased fetal susceptibility is low and there are no
residual concerns.
    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 diethylene glycol mono butyl ether is
adequate. The following acceptable studies are available:

Developmental toxicity in rodents (3 oral)
Developmental toxicity in rabbits (1 dermal)
Reproduction toxicity study in rats (2 oral, 1 dermal)

    ii. Signs of neurotoxicity were not observed in the neurotoxicity
screening battery administered via the dermal route. Nor were signs of
neurotoxicity observed in a 90 day oral toxicity (drinking water) in
rats. In addition, signs of neurotoxicity were not observed in any of
the other submitted studies. Therefore, EPA concluded that the
developmental neurotoxicity study is not required.
    iii. Immunotoxicity studies for DEGBE were not available for
review. However, DEGBE belongs to the glycol ethers class of chemicals.
Immunotoxicity studies were available for ethylene glycol monobutyl
ether, also a glycol ether differing only in one ethyl group. This data
was used to assess the immunotoxic potential of DEGBE. Signs of
potential immunotoxicity were not observed in any of the available
studies with DEGBE and the surrogate chemical. Therefore, DEGBE is not
expected to be immunotoxic.
    iv. Evidence of increased susceptibility was observed in a
reproduction toxicity study in the rat. However, the concern for this
increased susceptibility was low because there was a well established
NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/d in this study. Also, the established cRfD (250 mg/
kg/day) is protective of the fetal effects.
    v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed using
very conservative assumptions. EPA made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess
exposure to DEGBE 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 DEGBE.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Determination of safety section. 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. No adverse effects attributable to a single exposure
of DEGBE were seen in the toxicity databases. Therefore, DEGBE 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
DEGBE from food and water will utilize 0.08% for the U.S. population
and 0.25% of the cPAD for children 1-2 yrs old, the population group
receiving the greatest exposure.
    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).
    DEGBE is currently used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
products that are 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 DEGBE.
    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 102 for both
adult males and females respectively. Adult residential exposure
combines high end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from liquids/
trigger sprayer/home garden use with a high end post application dermal
exposure from contact with treated lawns. As the level of concern is
for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOE is not of concern. EPA has
concluded that the combined short-term aggregated food, water, and
residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 163 for children.
Children's residential exposure includes total exposures associated
with contact with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures).
Because EPA's level of concern for DEGBE 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).
    DEGBE is currently used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
products that are registered for uses that could result in
intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and
water with intermediate-term residential exposures to DEGBE.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs of 550 for adult males and females. Adult residential
exposure combines high end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from
liquids/trigger sprayer/home garden use with a high end post
application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns. EPA has
concluded the combined intermediate-term aggregated food, water, and
residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 230 for children.
Children's residential exposure includes total exposures associated
with contact with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures).
Because EPA's level of concern for DEGBE is a MOE of 100 or below,
these MOEs are not of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has not
identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to DEGBE.
    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 DEGBE residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established an MRL for diethylene glycol mono
butyl ether.

C. Response to Comments

    The comment was received from a private citizen who opposed the
authorization to sell any pesticide that leaves a residue on food. The
Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some
individuals believe that no residue of pesticides should be allowed.
However, under the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) EPA is authorized to
establish pesticide tolerances or exemptions where persons seeking such
tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the
safety standard imposed by the statute.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180. 920 for diethylene glycol mono butyl
ether when used as an inert ingredient (pesticide inert ingredient as a
solvent, stabilizer and/or antifreeze within pesticide formulations/
products without limitation) in pesticide formulations applied to pre-
harvest crops.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule

has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order
13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 20, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. In Sec.  180. 920, the table is amended by adding alphabetically
the following inert ingredients to read as follows:

Sec.  180.920  Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Inert ingredients              Limits                Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Diethylene glycol mono butyl    Without            Pesticide inert
 ether (CAS Reg. No. 112-34-5).  limitation.        ingredient as a
                                                    solvent, stabilizer
                                                    and/or antifreeze

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

[FR Doc. 2011-16188 Filed 6-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 58916-58917]
[DOCID:fr17oc07-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56640; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-118]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Its Marketing Fee Program

October 11, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 1, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. CBOE has designated this proposal as one
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by CBOE
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to amend its Marketing Fee Program. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.cboe.com.

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. CBOE has substantially 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
    Recently, CBOE amended its Marketing Fee Program to, among other
things, collect an administrative fee to offset its costs in
administering the marketing fee program and also to provide funds to
the association of members for its costs and expenses in supporting
CBOE's marketing fee program and in seeking to bring order flow to
CBOE.\5\ Under the amended Marketing Fee Program, CBOE collects an
administrative fee of .45% on the total amount of funds collected each
month prior to making the remaining funds available to DPMs and
Preferred Market-Makers to attract orders to CBOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 56289 (August 20, 2007),
72 FR 49030 (August 27, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-95).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE now proposes to limit the total amount that any Market-Maker,
RMM, e-DPM, or DPM would contribute to the administrative fee.
Specifically, CBOE proposes to amend its Marketing Fee Program such
that no Market-Maker, RMM, e-DPM, or DPM would contribute more than 15%
of the total amount collected by the .45% administrative fee. As
amended, if the assessment of CBOE's marketing fee resulted in any
Market-Maker, RMM, e-DPM or DPM contributing more than 15% of the funds
collected for the administrative fee, the amount of money in excess of
the 15% would not be allocated to the administrative fee and instead
would be allocated to the DPMs or Preferred Market-Makers to attract
orders to CBOE.
    The following is an example of how this 15% limit would be applied,
where there is one DPM and three Market-Makers on CBOE, and
collectively they generated $100,000 in marketing fee funds in August.
The administration fee of .45% would be collected from the total amount
of funds collected, i.e., $100,000, resulting in $450. Assume that
based on their trading in August, the DPM accounted for 70%, or
$70,000, of the marketing fee funds collected in August, and each of
the Market-Makers accounted for 10%, or $10,000 each. CBOE would then
determine whether the DPM or any of the Market-Makers contributed more
than 15% of the total funds collected and allocated to the .45% admin
fee (15% of $450 is $67.50). In this case, because the DPM accounted
for 70% of the marketing fee funds available in August, the DPM also
would have accounted for 70% of the $450 administration fee (or $315),
since the administration fee is a percentage taken from the total
amount of marketing fee funds collected in August.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A Market-Maker's, RMM's, e-DPM's or DPM's percentage
contribution to the total amount of marketing fee funds collected in
a month is directly proportional to its percentage contribution to
the funds collected as part of the administration fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the DPM would have contributed more than 15% of the total
amount of funds raised by the .45% administrative fee, would be capped
at $67.50, and the balance of $247.50 ($315-$67.50) would be provided
to DPMs and Preferred Market-Makers to pay for order flow. Accordingly,
in August the administration fee amount would be $202.50 instead of
$450. CBOE intends to calculate the 15% limit on a firm-wide basis. If
a member organization and its nominees operate on the Exchange in
various approved statuses, such as a Market-Maker, RMM, DPM or e-DPM,
CBOE intends to aggregate it and its nominees' activity to determine if
the member firm exceeded the 15% limit. CBOE believes that limiting the
total amount that any Market-Maker, RMM, DPM, or e-DPM would contribute
to the administrative fee is fair and reasonable and an equitable
allocation of fees.
    CBOE proposes to implement these changes to the marketing fee
program beginning on October 1, 2007. CBOE is not amending its
marketing fee program in any other respects.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act \8\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues,

fees, and other charges among CBOE members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) \10\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee,
or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will
take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days
of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily
abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-118 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-118. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2007-118 and should be submitted on or before November 7, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-20458 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P