[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64370-64375]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25211]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87545; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2019-019]

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

November 15, 2019.
    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 November 13, 2019, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or ``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
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 EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGA'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change to amend the 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/edga/), 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 in connection with
its standard rebates and its Remove Volume Tiers.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed change on business
date November 1, 2019 (SR-CboeEDGA-2019-018). On business date
November 13, 2019, the Exchange withdrew those filings and submitted
this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 13 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
Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow.
Based on publicly available information,\4\ no single registered
equities exchange has more than 18% 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 ``Taker-Maker'' model
whereby it pays credits to members that remove liquidity and assesses
fees to those that add liquidity. The Exchange's Fees Schedule sets
forth the standard rebates and rates applied per share for orders that
provide and remove liquidity, respectively. Particularly, for
securities at or above $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard rebate
of $0.0024 per share for orders that remove liquidity and assesses a
fee of $0.0030 per share for orders that add liquidity. The Exchange
believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from
month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order
flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products,
in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain
the Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can readily
trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other
venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary
(October 25, 2019), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/. This market share percentage is based
on a Month-to-Date volume summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Change to the Remove Volume Tiers
    In response to the competitive environment described above, the
Exchange offers tiered pricing which provides Members opportunities to
qualify for higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume
criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides incremental
incentives for Members to strive for higher or different tier levels by
offering increasingly higher discounts or enhanced benefits for
satisfying increasingly more stringent criteria or different criteria.
For example, pursuant to footnote 7 of the Fees Schedule, the Exchange
offers a Remove Volume Tier (Tier 1) that provides Members an
opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate of $0.0026 for liquidity
removing orders that yield fee codes ``N'',\5\ ``W'',\6\ ``6'',\7\ and
``BB''.\8\ To qualify for the current Remove Volume Tier, a Member must
have an ADAV \9\ of greater than or equal to 0.20% of the TCV \10\ and
have a remove ADV \11\ of greater than or equal to 0.40% of the TCV for
orders yielding the applicable fee codes. The Exchange now proposes to
amend the criteria to achieve Tier 1. Specifically, the proposed
criteria under Tier 1 would provide a Member with an opportunity to
receive an enhanced rebate of $0.0022 for qualifying, liquidity
removing orders (i.e., yielding fee code N, W, 6, or BB) where a Member
adds or removes an ADV of greater than or equal to 0.05% of the TCV.
The proposed criteria change is designed to incentivize Members to
increase their overall order flow, both adding and removing orders, in
order to receive an enhanced rebate on their liquidity removing orders.
The Exchange notes that the proposed criteria change is also designed
to make it easier to achieve an enhanced rebate on liquidity removing
orders by removing the ADAV threshold component, as well as reducing
the ADV threshold as a percentage of TCV for both add and remove
orders. The proposed change also reduces the enhanced rebate offered
under Tier 1, commensurate with proposed lower tier requirements. The
Exchange believes the proposed opportunity to receive an enhanced
rebate for both liquidity adding and removing orders incentivizes an
increase in overall order flow to the Book. The proposed modification
Tier 1 provides both liquidity providing Members and liquidity
executing Members an additional opportunity to receive an enhanced
rebate. Thus, it provides liquidity adding Members on the Exchange a
further incentive to contribute to a deeper, more liquid market, and
liquidity executing Members on the Exchange a further incentive to
increase transactions and take execution opportunities provided by such
increased liquidity. The Exchange believes that this, in turn, benefits
all Members by contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market
ecosystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Appended to orders that remove liquidity from EDGA (Tape C).
    \6\ Appended to orders that remove liquidity from EDGA (Tape A).
    \7\ Appended to orders that remove liquidity from EDGA, pre and
post market (All Tapes).
    \8\ Appended to orders that remove liquidity from EDGA (Tape B).
    \9\ ADAV means average daily volume calculated as the number of
shares added per day. ADAV is calculated on a monthly basis.
    \10\ TCV means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
    \11\ ADV means daily volume calculated as the number of shares
added to, removed from, or routed by, the Exchange, or any
combination or subset thereof, per day. ADV is calculated on a
monthly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt another Remove Volume Tier
(proposed Tier 2), to provide Members an additional opportunity to
qualify for an enhanced rebate by means of liquidity removing volume.
Specifically, proposed Remove Volume Tier 2 would provide an enhanced
rebate of $0.0028 for qualifying, liquidity removing orders (i.e.,
yielding fee code N, W, 6, or BB) where a Member removes an ADV of
greater than or equal to 0.10% of the TCV and has a Step-Up Remove TCV
from October 2019 of greater than or equal to 0.05%. The Exchange notes
that a Step-Up Remove means remove ADV as a percentage of TCV in the
relevant baseline month subtracted from current remove ADV as a
percentage of TCV, and now proposes to incorporate this

definition into its Fee Schedule as a result of its reference in
proposed Remove Volume Tier 2. The Exchange notes that this definition
is consistent with the definitions in the Fees Schedules of the
Exchange's affiliated exchanges.\12\ As a result, the Exchange hopes to
incentivize more Members to remove additional liquidity from the
Exchange, in turn, increasing the number of liquidity executing orders
that are sent to the Exchange to transact with the increased number of
liquidity adding orders, thereby improving overall liquidity and market
quality on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule,
Definitions; Cboe BYX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule,
Definitions; and Cboe EDGX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule,
Definitions. The Exchange notes that EDGX Fee Schedule specifically
defines Step-Up Add TCV, however, its definition is generally
aligned with the definition of Step-Up Remove TCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes the proposed tiers are available to all Members
and are competitively achievable for all Members that submit add and/or
remove order flow, in that, all firms that submit the requisite
displayed order flow could compete to meet the tiers.
Proposed Change to the Standard Rebate for Liquidity Removing Orders
    As stated above, the Exchange currently provides a standard rebate
of $0.0024 per share for liquidity removing orders (i.e., those
yielding fee codes N, W, 6, and BB) in securities priced at or above
$1.00. Orders in securities priced below $1.00 that remove liquidity
are not assessed a fee. The Exchange now proposes to reduce the current
standard rebate of $0.0024 per share to $0.0018 per share for orders
that remove liquidity for securities priced at or above $1.00. Orders
that remove liquidity in securities priced below $1.00 would continue
to be free. Although the proposed standard rebate is lower than the
current standard rebate for liquidity removing orders, Members will now
be able to achieve higher rebates for liquidity removing orders
pursuant to proposed Remove Volume Tiers 1 and 2 described above, which
are tied to the levels of a Member's add and/or remove order flow.
Therefore, the reduced standard rebate for liquidity removing orders is
balanced by the increased enhanced rebate opportunities for such orders
and aligns with the Exchange's objective in implementing the proposed
Remove Volume Tiers to encourage an overall increase in order flow and
facilitate improved market quality on the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\14\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \15\
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, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange 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. The proposed rule change reflects a
competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market
participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all
Members.
    In particular, the Exchange believes that proposed Tier 1 is
reasonable because it provides an opportunity for Members to receive a
discounted rate by means of liquidity adding and removing orders and
eases the difficulty in reaching the tier criteria. Likewise, the
Exchange believes that proposed Tier 2 is reasonable because it
provides an additional opportunity for Members to receive a discounted
rate by means of liquidity removing orders. In addition to this, the
Exchange believes the proposed reduction in the standard rebate for
liquidity removing orders is reasonable because it serves as a balance
to the proposed increase in enhanced rebates for liquidity removing
orders and the additional opportunities to achieve such increased
incentives, which are tied to relative increases in Members' liquidity
adding and/or removing order flow. Accordingly, balancing the reduced
standard rebate for liquidity removing orders with the increased
enhanced rebate opportunities for such orders helps support Exchange's
objective in implementing increased incentives to encourage an overall
increase in order flow and contribution to market quality on the
Exchange. The Exchange also notes that, though the standard rebate will
be lower, Members will still receive rebates for such orders.
    The Exchange notes that relative volume-based incentives and
discounts have been widely adopted by exchanges,\16\ including the
Exchange,\17\ and are reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory
because they are open to all members on an equal basis and provide
additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to (i) the
value to an exchange's market quality and (ii) associated higher levels
of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or
growth patterns. Additionally, as noted above, the Exchange operates in
highly competitive market. The Exchange is only one of several equity
venues to which market participants may direct their order flow, and it
represents a small percentage of the overall market. It is also only
one of several taker-maker exchanges. Competing equity exchanges offer
similar tiered pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including
schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving
certain volume and/or growth thresholds. These competing pricing
schedules, moreover, are presently comparable to those that the
Exchange provides, including the pricing of comparable criteria and
rebates.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See e.g., The Nasdaq BX, Inc. Rules, Equity 7 Pricing
Schedule, Sec. 118(a), which generally provides credits to members
for adding and/or removing liquidity that reaches certain thresholds
of Consolidated Volume; and Cboe BYX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee
Schedule, Footnote 1, Add/Remove Volume Tiers, which provides
similar incentives for liquidity removing orders.
    \17\ See generally, Cboe EDGA U.S. Equities Exchange Fee
Schedule, Footnote 7, Add/Remove Volume Tiers.
    \18\ See supra note 15 [sic]. BX offers credits between $0.0017
and $0.0013 per share for liquidity removing orders (substantially
similar to those rebates which the Exchange proposes) depending on
different criteria levels achieved; see also Securities and Exchange
Act Release No. 87093 (September 24, 2019), 84 FR 57530 (October 25,
2019) (SR-BX-2019-031), which, akin to the Exchange's proposal
herein, recently reduced the credits for certain liquidity removing
orders while balancing such with an increase in credits for others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed modification to ease
the criteria under Remove Volume Tier 1, by removing the ADAV threshold
component and decreasing the AVD

threshold as a percentage of TCV for both liquidity adding and removing
orders, is a reasonable means to further incentivize Members to
increase their overall order flow to the Exchange by encouraging those
Members who could not achieve the tier previously to increase their add
and remove volume to receive the tier's reduced rate. As such, adopting
criteria based on a Member's adding and removing orders will encourage
liquidity providing Members to provide for a deeper, more liquid
market, and Members executing on the Exchange to increase transactions
and take such execution opportunities provided by increased liquidity.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that proposed Remove Volume Tier 2 is
a reasonable means to encourage overall order flow to the Exchange. As
described above, Tier 2 is designed to incentivize Member's to increase
their liquidity removing order flow to the Exchange based on increasing
their daily total remove volume above a percentage of the total volume
and their Step-Up remove TCV above a percentage from October 2019.
Particularly, the Exchange believes that an increase in Members' remove
volume will incentivize more Members to send liquidity adding orders to
the Exchange in response to the increase in number of orders removing
such liquidity provided on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that an
increase in overall order flow as a result of the proposed tiers would
benefit all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool,
providing greater execution incentives and opportunities, offering
additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings,
supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market
transparency and improving investor protection.
    In line with the proposed ease in criteria difficulty under Tier 1,
the Exchange believes that providing a lesser enhanced rebate than
currently offered is reasonable as it is commensurate with the proposed
decreased criteria. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
enhanced rebate under Tier 2, which is higher than that of the Tier 1
rebate, reasonably reflects the scaled difficulty from achieving Tier 1
to achieving the additional Step-Up criteria and incremental increase
in the ADV threshold as a percentage TCV (as well as its narrower scope
of remove volume orders) in proposed Tier 2. The Exchange further notes
that the reduction in the standard rebate offered on the Exchange is
reasonable because it, too, appropriately reflects the incremental
difficulty in receiving the enhanced rebates; in that, Members
automatically receive the standard rebate ($0.0018) for liquidity
removing orders, followed by an incrementally higher rebate ($0.0022)
achieved by certain order flow (Tier 1), and by another, incrementally
higher rebate ($0.0028) (achieved by certain additional order flow plus
meeting a Step-Up component (Tier 2). The proposed enhanced rebate
amounts pursuant to the proposed Remove Volume Tiers also do not
represent a significant departure from the rebates currently offered,
or required criteria, under the Exchange's existing tiers. For example,
the discounted fees assessed under the existing Add Volume Tiers, for
which a Member must have a daily volume add (ADAV) of 0.10% or greater
than the TCV (Add Volume Tier 1) or a daily volume add (ADAV) of 0.45%
or greater than the TCV (Add Volume Tier 2), is $0.0026 per share and
$0.0022 per share, respectively. In other words, under the Add Volume
Tiers, Members can receive a $0.0004 and $0.0008 ``discount'',
respectively, from the standard $0.0030 assessed for liquidity adding
orders. This is comparable to the proposed additional $0.0004 and
$0.0008 rebates (to the proposed $0.0018 standard rebate) offered under
the proposed Remove Volume Tiers for liquidity removing orders. Also,
as stated, the proposed reduction in the standard rebate offered for
liquidity removing orders is in line with rebates for liquidity
removing orders in place on other equities exchanges.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 17 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal represents an equitable
allocation of rebates and is not unfairly discriminatory because all
Members are eligible for the proposed Remove Volume Tiers, and would
have the opportunity to meet the tier's criteria and would receive the
proposed rebate if such criteria is met. Given previous months' data,
the Exchange notes that none of its Members reached current Tier 1 in
the last month.\20\ Accordingly, the proposed ease in criteria for Tier
1 is designed as an incentive to any and all Members interested in
meeting the tier criteria who were not previously able to meet such
criteria to submit additional add and remove order flow to achieve the
proposed discount. Without having a view of activity on other markets
and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether
this proposed rule change would definitely result in any Members
qualifying for modified Remove Volume Tier 1, as well as proposed
Remove Volume Tier 2. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with
certainty how the proposed tiers will impact Member activity, the
Exchange anticipates that over 10 Members will be able to compete for
and reach proposed Tier 1 and at least four Members will be able to
compete for and reach proposed Tier 2. The Exchange anticipates that
both tiers will include various Member types, including liquidity
providers (e.g. wholesale firms that mainly are market makers for
retail orders) and broker-dealers (e.g. bulge bracket firms that
conduct trading on behalf of customers), each providing distinct types
of order flow to the Exchange to the benefit of all market
participants. For example, broker-dealer customer order flow provides
more trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. Increased
Market Maker activity facilitates tighter spreads which potentially
increases order flow from other market participants. The Exchange also
notes that the proposed tiers will not adversely impact any Member's
pricing or their ability to qualify for other rebate tiers. Rather,
should a Member not meet the proposed criteria under the respective
tiers, the Member will merely not receive an enhanced rebate.
Furthermore, the proposed enhanced rebates would uniformly apply to all
Members that meet the required criteria under the respective proposed
tiers. In addition, the Exchange also believes that the proposed
reduction in the standard rebate for a Member's liquidity removing
orders represents an equitable allocation of rebates and is not
unfairly discriminatory because, as stated, it is appropriately in line
with the incrementally increasing rebates offered by the proposed
Remove Volume Tiers, and it will continue to automatically apply to all
Members' liquidity removing orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Previous months' data is not indicative of those firms that
would have achieved proposed Tier 2 given that proposed Tier 2's
Step-Up Remove baseline is from October 2019, which has not yet
concluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would encourage the submission of additional order flow to a
public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, execution incentives
and enhanced execution opportunities, as well as price discovery and
transparency for all Members. As a

result, the Exchange believes that the proposed change furthers the
Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition
among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual
stocks for all types of orders, large and small.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 proposed
change applies to all Members equally in that all Members are eligible
for the proposed tier, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the tier's
criteria and will all receive the proposed rebates if such criteria is
met. Additionally the proposed change is designed to attract additional
order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the modified
tier criteria would incentivize market participants to direct displayed
liquidity and, as a result, executable order flow and improved price
transparency, to the Exchange. Greater overall order flow and pricing
transparency benefits all market participants on the Exchange by
providing more trading opportunities, enhancing market quality, and
continuing to encourage Members to send orders, thereby contributing
towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem, which benefits all
market participants.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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 12 other equities exchanges and
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 18% of the market share.\22\ 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.'' \23\ 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'. . . .''.\24\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 3 [sic].
    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \24\ 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 has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \25\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \26\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \27\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2019-019 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2019-019. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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 No. SR-CboeEDGA-2019-019, and should be submitted
on or before December 12, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-25211 Filed 11-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 111 (Friday, June 11, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31112-31113]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12217]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0177; Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-9]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Neosho, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace at Neosho Hugh
Robinson Airport, Neosho, MO. This action is the result of an airspace
review caused by the decommissioning of the Neosho VHF omnidirectional
range (VOR) navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operational
Network (MON) Program.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, August 12, 2021. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Neosho Hugh Robinson Airport, Neosho, MO, to support
instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (86 FR 15447; March 23, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-0177 to
amend the amend the Class E airspace at Neosho Hugh Robinson Airport,
Neosho, MO. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile
(decreased from a 7-mile) radius of Neosho Hugh Robinson Airport,
Neosho, MO; and removes the Neosho VOR/DME and associated extension
from the airspace legal description.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Neosho VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures this airport, as part of the
VOR MON Program.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Neosho, MO [Amended]

Neosho Hugh Robinson Airport, MO
    (Lat. 36[deg]48'39'' N, long. 94[deg]23'30'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Neosho Hugh Robinson Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 7, 2021.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-12217 Filed 6-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70429-70430]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24628]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4280-DR]; [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Florida; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-4280-DR), dated September 28,
2016, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 28, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 28, 2016, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Florida resulting from Hurricane Hermine during the period of
August 31 to September 11, 2016, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of Florida.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public
Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout
the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to
75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under
the Stafford

Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the
total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Terry L. Quarles, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Florida have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Citrus, Dixie, Hernando, Hillsborough, Leon, Levy, Pasco, and
Pinellas Counties for Individual Assistance.
    Citrus, Dixie, Franklin, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy,
Liberty, Madison, Pasco, Pinellas, Suwannee, Taylor, and Wakulla
Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Florida are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-24628 Filed 10-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: November 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 218)]
[Notices]
[Page 69169]
[DOCID:fr14no05-73]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: [70 FR 67765,
November 8, 2005].

Status: Closed Meeting.

Place:  100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting:  Thursday, November 10,
2005 at 10 a.m.

Change in the Meeting:  Time change/deletion of items.
    The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 10
a.m. has been changed to Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 9:30 a.m.
    The following items will not be considered during the Thursday,
November 10, 2005 Closed Meeting:
    Opinion; and
    Regulatory matter bearing enforcement implications.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 9, 2005.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22585 Filed 11-9-05; 11:13 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: June 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 35019-35020]
[DOCID:fr21jn10-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-450-000]

Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization

June 11, 2010.
    Take notice that on June 3, 2009, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas
Transmission LLC (KMIGT), filed in Docket No. CP10-450-000, a prior
notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). KMIGT seeks
authorization to abandon three 8-inch loop pipeline segments, a total
of approximately 9,100 feet, along its Scott City to Phillipsburg
Pipeline in Rooks County, Kansas. KMIGT proposes to perform these
activities under its blanket certificate issued March 16, 1983, in
Docket No. CP83-140-000, et al. [22 FERC ] 62,330 (1983)].
    Specifically, KMIGT proposes to abandon by removal those three
segments which loop the 12-inch Scott City to Phillipsburg Pipeline
where it crosses the South Fork Solomon River. KMIGT states that these
segments are operationally and functionally obsolete and that the
existing 12-inch pipeline can accommodate KMIGT's shippers' existing
and projected future requirements, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    KMIGT states that the total cost of all facilities to be abandoned
is $48,561. The current cost to replace the three segments is estimated
to be $1,800,000. Therefore, KMIGT proposes to abandon by removal and
sell for salvage those segments of pipe.
    The filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the

docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Skip
George, Manager of Regulatory, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas
Transmission LLC, P.O. Box 281304, Lakewood, Colorado 80228-8304, or
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of
the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed
therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized
effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is
filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for
filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an
application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. 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.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time August 10, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14941 Filed 6-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY        	     WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460       		                                 				OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION                              OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION                                                              MEMORANDUM                                                                  September 19, 2012     SUBJECT:	Summary of Ecotoxicity Data for Methyl Nonyl Ketone Registration Review                       Registration Review              Case #:		             PC Code:	              44102			             CAS Numbers:	       112-12-9		             Chemical Class:		Aliphatic ketone	                		        FROM:	Miachel Rexrode, Ph.D., Senior Biologist          /s/             09/19/2012                Biochemical Pesticides Branch                Biopesticide & Pollution Prevention Division (7511P)        TO:		Gina Burnett, Regulatory Action Leader   /s/                      09/19/2012                Biochemical Pesticides Branch                Biopesticide & Pollution Prevention Division (7511P)

ACTION REQUESTED

The following is the final ecotoxicity assessment for methyl nonyl ketone in support of the Registration Review Decision Document.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Executive Summary

Based on the available information for methyl nonyl ketone the Agency does not foresee the need for additional ecotoxicity data for a new risk assessment and has waived all hazard and exposure data on these chemicals. The unique characteristics of these products, there non-toxic mode of action, biodegradability (low to no persistence), and use patterns (non agricultural use, residential uses) should minimize the risks to all non-targets, including threatened and endangered species. Methyl nonyl ketone risk in the environment should be low because of a lack of potential exposure (residential and indoor use) suggesting minimal risk to terrestrial and aquatic organisms and a no effect (NE) to endangered/threatened species for registered uses.

Background

Methyl nonyl ketone, also known as 2-Undecanone and IBI-246, is an oily organic liquid manufactured synthetically, but which can also be extracted from oil of rue. It is found naturally in bananas, cloves, ginger, guava, strawberries, wild-grown tomatoes, and the perennial Houttuynia cordata. This compound is used in the perfumery and flavoring industries, but because of its strong odor it is primarily used as an insect repellent or dog and cat repellent/ training aid and iris borer deterrent. Typically, 1 - 2% concentrations of 2-undecanone are found in dog and cat repellents in the form of a liquid, aerosol spray, or gel. This pesticide is used in and around households, paths, patios, solid waste containers and ornamental plants. Methyl nonyl ketone is formulated as a pressurized liquid, granular, liquid ready-to-use (pump/sprayer), solid (crystalline), and liquid for reformulating use only. EPA assumes that the volume of use of this pesticide is relatively low. Methyl nonyl ketone was first registered in the United States in 1966 for use as a dog and cat repellant. Currently, there are 18 active products registered. The Agency does not foresee the need for additional ecotoxicity data for a new risk assessment.  Ecological effects data requirements were fulfilled.

Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals

Birds: Acute and Subacute Toxicity

In order to establish the acute and subacute toxicity of methyl nonyl ketone to birds, the following tests were required using the technical grade of the active ingredient (a.i.): one avian single-dose oral (LD50) study on one species (preferably mallard or Bobwhite quail) and subacute dietary studies (LC50) on one species of waterfowl (preferably the mallard duck) and one species of upland game bird (preferably Bobwhite quail). The results of the studies summarized in Tables 1.0 and 2.0 show that methyl nonyl ketone is practically nontoxic to avian species on an acute oral and subacute dietary basis. The guideline requirements for both the avian acute oral LD50 and the avian subacute dietary LD50 studies have been met.

Table 1.0  Avian Acute Oral Toxicity for Methyl Nonyl Ketone Species Tested % AI LD50 (mg/kg) MRID Conclusions Northern  Bobwhite Quail 100 > 2,250 41986501 Practically nontoxic Mallard 100 > 2,250 41986502 Practically nontoxic

Table 2.0 Avian Subacute Dietary Toxicity for Methyl Nonyl Ketone Species Tested % AI LD50 (mg/kg) MRID Conclusions Northern  Bobwhite Quail 100 > 5,620 41947901 Practically nontoxic Mallard 100 > 5,620 41947902 Practically nontoxic

 Mammals

Wild mammal testing is required on a case-by-case basis, depending on the results of the lower tier studies such as acute and subacute testing, intended use pattern, and pertinent environmental fate characteristics. Under the conditions of a range-finding and developmental toxicity study done for the Agency, as summarized in the Human Health Assessment, doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/day produced no apparent related maternal or developmental effects on rats. Based on these conclusions, wild animal testing was not required for methyl nonyl ketone. The rat oral LD50 > 5,000 mg/kg suggests that this compound is practically non-toxic to mammals (MRID 41904101).

Toxicity to Aquatic Animals

Freshwater Fish

In order to establish the toxicity of methyl nonyl ketone to freshwater fish, the minimum data required on the technical grade of the active ingredient are two freshwater fish toxicity studies. One study should use a coldwater species (preferably the rainbow trout), and the other should use a warm water species (preferably the bluegill sunfish). The results of the acute toxicity studies summarized in Table 3.0 indicate that methyl nonyl ketone is moderately toxic to both cold and warm water fish. The guideline requirements for the freshwater fish toxicity studies have been met.

Table 3.0 Freshwater Fish Acute Toxicity to Methyl Nonyl Ketone Species Tested % AI LC50 (ppm) MRID Conclusions Rainbow Trout 100 3.0 41909603 Moderately toxic Bluegill sunfish 100 2.1 41909602 Moderately toxic

Aquatic Invertebrates

The minimum testing required to assess the hazard of methyl nonyl ketone to freshwater invertebrates is a freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity test, preferably using first instar Daphnia magna or early instar amphipods, stoneflies, mayflies, or midges. The results of the freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity study summarized in Table 4.0 indicate that there is sufficient information to characterize methyl nonyl ketone as highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates. The guideline requirement for the freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity study has been met.

Table 4.0 Freshwater Aquatic Invertebrates Acute Toxicity to Methyl Nonyl Ketone Species Tested % AI EC50 (ppm) MRID Conclusions Daphnia magna 97.9 0.54 41909604 Highly toxic

Ecological Effects and Endangered Species Risk Assessment

Terrestrial Species

The unique characteristics of this product, methyl nonyl ketone, the non-toxic mode of action, biodegradability (0.5 days aerobic and anaerobic degradation) and low potential for exposure will result in no risk to non-target organisms, including threatened and endangered species. Due to the non-toxic mode of action and/or lack of exposure to non-targets by this product, a Risk Quotient (RQ) is not typically calculated since the point estimates of either toxicity and/or exposure will be at or near zero. The product is not applied to agricultural plants or foliage. Label instructions specify that application is to the ground around bushes and plants (emulsifiable concentrate and granular product) and exposure is limited to residential areas.

The Agency, however, has estimated potential acute toxicity end points for avian and mammalian species (LD50 > 2,250 mg/kg) and calculated potential risk using the Terrestrial Residue Exposure Model (T-REX) Version 1.4.1 for granular formulations (Appendix A). The Agency estimated that if the granular formulation were used on one acre (1 lb product/250 sq ft or 174 lbs/A) the number of granular that would be required to achieve LC50 for terrestrial organisms (0.02 kg birds) would be about 274,884, suggesting an unlikely event. In addition, the product is a repellent, which lessens the likelihood for non-target exposure. The Agency also conducted a search (09/19/2012) of the Ecological Incident Information System version 2.1.1 (EIIS) and did not find any incidents to terrestrial species from exposure to methyl nonyl ketone. This low risk to non-target terrestrial species suggests that the potential for toxic exposure to endangered/ threatened species is also very low. The Agency calculated the chance of individual terrestrial exposure and risk by using the Individual Effects Chance Model (Version 1.1) which suggest that the chance of effects to a terrestrial species from methyl nonyl ketone exposure is about 1 in 418,000,000 (Appendix B) which may be considered as a highly unlikely event.  The low toxic risk of methyl nonyl ketone to terrestrial organisms, the short environmental half life (0.5 days), the low potential for exposure to non-target avian and mammalian species (residential application), the direct application to the ground (no contact with foliage), and an understanding of the repellent mode of action of this compound show that there is a very low potential for toxic risk to terrestrial species. Based on the proceeding information, methyl nonyl ketone presents a No Effect (NE) to threatened or endangered terrestrial species, if used in accordance with approved labeling.

Aquatic Species   It is difficult to assess the risks posed to aquatic species from the use of methyl nonyl ketone since uses are contained or indoors and the compound is non persistent (0.5 days) and relatively insoluble in water (18 ug/L). The potential for methyl nonyl ketone leaching into ground water or to moving offsite to surface water is unlikely. In a Leaching-Adsorption/Desorption study (MRID 42208301) methyl nonyl ketone was observed to be relatively immobile in soil (sodium azide-sterilized sandy loam, clay loam, sand, and silt loam soils). The Kads =18 and the Koc = 2,480.

Assuming that 174 lbs. of methyl nonyl ketone product was applied to 1 acre, the Agency conducted a worst case scenario using the Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration Model (GENEEC) to assess potential exposure of the granular formulation (Appendix C). The expected peak estimated environmental concentration was calculated at 18 ppb. Using this value, a risk quotient (RQ) was calculated at (0.0) showing no toxic risk to aquatic species. The Agency conducted a search (09/19/2012) of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS, version 2.1), the `Aggregate Incident Reports' (v. 1.0) database, for ecological incidents involving methyl nonyl ketone and no aquatic incidents were reported. The Agency also calculated the chance of individual fish and aquatic invertebrate exposure and risk by using the Individual Effects Chance Model (Version 1.1). These calculations suggest that the chance of effects to aquatic invertebrates (food source) or to fish from methyl nonyl ketone exposure is about 1 in 418,000,000 (Appendix B), which may be considered as a highly unlikely event. Therefore, the Agency concludes a no effect (NE) to aquatic endangered/ threatened species because of the lack of potential toxic risk to aquatic ecological systems from exposure to methyl nonyl ketone.

Conclusion

The low toxic risk of methyl nonyl ketone to aquatic and terrestrial organisms, the short environmental half life (0.5 days), the low potential for exposure to non-target aquatic and terrestrial species (residential application), the direct application to the ground (no contact with foliage), the immobility in soil (Koc = 2,480), low water solubility (18 ug/L),  and an understanding of the repellent mode of action of this compound show that there is a very low potential for toxic risk to terrestrial and aquatic species. Based on the proceeding information, methyl nonyl ketone presents a No Effect (NE) to threatened or endangered terrestrial or aquatic species, if used in accordance with approved labeling.

References

Beavers, J.; Grimes, J.; Smith, G. (1991) Methyl Nonyl Ketone (MGK Dog and Cat Repellent): A Dietary LC50 Study with the Northern Bobwhite: Lab Project Number: 163-114. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 24 p. (MRID 41947901)

Beavers, J.; Grimes, J.; Smith, G. (1991) Methyl Nonyl Ketone (MGK Dog and Cat Repellent): A Dietary LC50 Study with the Mallard: Lab Project Number: 163-115. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 24 p. (MRID 41947902)

Campbell, S.; Lynn, S.; Smith, G. (1991) Methyl Nonyl Ketone (MGK Dog and Cat Repellent): An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Northern Bobwhite: Lab Project Number: 163-116. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 29 p. (MRID 41986501)

Campbell, S.; Lynn, S.; Smith, G. (1991) Methyl Nonyl Ketone (MGK Dog and Cat Repellent): An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Mallard: Lab Project Number: 163-117. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 28 p. (MRID 41986502).

EPA (1993) Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Methyl Nonyl Ketone. Washington, DC, US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 738-R-95-038, 63 pp.

Gabriel, D. (1991) MGK Dog and Cat Repellent (Methyl Nonyl Ketone Acute Oral Toxicity, Single Level-Rats: Lab Project Number: 91-7236A. Unpublished study prepared by Biosearch Inc. 10 p. (MRID 41904101)

Pesselman, R. (1991) Water Solubility Determination of Methyl Nonyl Ketone: Final Report: Lab Project Number: HWI 6001-709. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton Wisc. Inc. 33 p. (MRID 41986503)

Williams, M. (1992) Soil/Sediment Adsorption-Desorption of Methyl Nonyl Ketone: Lab Project Number: 39436. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 51 p. (MRID 42208301)

Appendix A.  T-REX Output for Methyl Nonyl Ketone Granular Formulation

Estimation of the number of granules needed to achieve toxicity thresholds Step 1.  Estimate mass of a.i. consumed for the assessed species weight to achieve the desired toxicity threshold Weight of assessed bird (kg)                                      0.02 INPUT (0.02 kg is typically used for general assessments) Adjusted LD50, mg/kg-bw                                     1168.26 Calculated from the body weight entered in B13 and the LD50 entered in the "Inputs" sheet. Mg a.i. needed to achieve the adjusted LD50 for bird of assessed weight                                      23.37 mg a.i./kg-bw * kg-bw = mg a.i. Mg a.i. needed to achieve acute LOC exceedance (1/2 adjusted LD50) for bird of assessed weight                                      11.68

Mg a.i. needed to achieve endangered species LOC exceedance (1/10th adjusted LD50) for bird of assessed weight                                      2.34

Step 2.  Determine the mass of a.i. per granule Percent of a.i. in formulated product                                      2.00% Must enter percent a.i. specified on the label Weight of 1 granule (mg, obtained from registrant)                                      0.43% INPUT (Note: Be sure to enter units in mg!) mg a.i./granule                                     0.0001 weight of granule (mg) x fraction of a.i. = mg a.i./granule  Step 3.  Calculate number of granules with mass of a.i. equivalent to adjusted LD50 for bird of assessed weight No. of granules needed to achieve adjusted LD50                                     274884.04 mg a.i. needed to achieve adjusted LD50 (B14) / mg a.i. per granule (B20) No. of granules needed to achieve acute LOC exceedance (1/2 adjusted LD50)                                     137442.02 mg a.i. needed to achieve 1/2 adjusted LD50 (B15) / mg a.i. per granule (B20) No. of granules needed to achieve endangered species LOC exceedance (1/10 adjusted LD50)                                     27488.40 mg a.i. needed to achieve 1/10 adjusted LD50 (B16) / mg a.i. per granule (B20)

Appendix B. Individual Effects Chance Model Version 1.1 for Methyl Nonyl Ketone Exposure to Endangered/Threatened Species

Terrestrial IEC V1.1 - Individual Effect Chance Model Version 1.1 Predictor of chance of individual effect using probit dose-response curve slope and median lethal estimate  Enter LC50 or LD50                                                                            5620 Enter desired threshold                                                                              0.1 Enter slope of dose-response                                                                             4.5 z score result                                                                            -4.5 Probability associated with z                                                                        3.40E-06 Chance of individual effect,                  ~1 in .  .  .                                                                        2.94E+05

Aquatic IEC V1.1 - Individual Effect Chance Model Version 1.1 Predictor of chance of individual effect using probit dose-response curve slope and median lethal estimate  Enter LC50 or LD50                                                                            0.54 Enter desired threshold                                                                             0.05 Enter slope of dose-response                                                                             4.5 z score result                                                                     -5.85463498 Probability associated with z                                                                        2.39E-09 Chance of individual effect,                  ~1 in .  .  .                                                                        4.18E+08

Appendix C. GENEEC Run for Methyl Nonyl Ketone (Granular)

   Methyl Nonyl Ketone Potential Aquatic Exposure: GENEEC version 2.1   ________________________________________________________________________________    RATE (#/AC)   No.APPS &   SOIL    SOLUBIL    APPL TYPE   NO-SPRAY INCORP     ONE(MULT)    INTERVAL    Koc    (PPB )         (%DRIFT)           (FT)          (IN)  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74.000(*******)       12 / 30        2480.0   18.0          GRANUL        ( .0)                .0

  FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------     METABOLIC   DAYS  UNTIL   HYDROLYSIS    PHOTOLYSIS          METABOLIC  COMBINED    (FIELD)           RAIN/RUNOFF   (POND)     (POND-EFF)    (POND)       (POND)    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------       .00                    2          N/A         .00-                 .00                    .50               .50

  GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB))     Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001   --------------------------------------------------------------------       PEAK      MAX 4 DAY      MAX 21 DAY    MAX 60 DAY   MAX 90 DAY       GEEC      AVG GEEC        AVG GEEC        AVG GEEC       AVG GEEC   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------       18.00           18.00                    18.00                18.00                        18.00