[Federal Register: December 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 245)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 72637-72641]
[DOCID:fr21de07-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29305; Notice No. 07-15]
RIN 2120-AI92

Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) Out
Performance Requirements To Support Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of a revised Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis associated with the notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled, ``Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-
B) Out performance requirements to support Air Traffic Control (ATC)
service.''

DATES: The comment period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
published on October 5, 2007 (72 FR 56947), as extended on November 19,
2007 (72 FR 64966), closes March 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-
29305 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to Docket Operations in Room
W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you

provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov
.

    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Docket Operations in Room

W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas C. Smith, Regulatory Analysis
Division, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, APO-310, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov
);

    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
; or

    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
.

    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.

Discussion

    On October 1, 2007, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, ``Automatic
Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) Out performance requirements
to support Air Traffic Control (ATC) service'' (72 FR 56947; October 5,
2007). The comment period for the NPRM, as extended on November 19,
2007 (72 FR 64966), closes on March 3, 2007.
    The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy has
asked us to revise the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
associated with the NPRM and to publish the

revised IRFA in the Federal Register.\1\ Specifically, the SBA was
concerned that two tables that we included in the IRFA might be
misleading. The tables listed specific data on a sample of 34 U.S. part
91, 121, and 135 operators. We used data from the sample along with
Census Bureau data to extrapolate the number of small entities in the
U.S. that might be significantly affected by the proposed rule. We then
concluded that the proposal would have a significant effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The original IRFA can be found in the FAA's Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis, Document ID FAA-2007-29305-0004.1 at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov).

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

    The SBA was concerned that inclusion of these tables would cause
companies to mistakenly conclude that the proposed rule would only have
a significant impact on those companies listed. We do not want to
create such an impression as those companies listed were used as a
sample. Therefore, we changed the IRFA by removing the tables and
provided a fuller discussion.
    The analysis examines whether the proposed rulemaking would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination ADS-B

Introduction and Purpose of This Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 RFA provides that the
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis
is not required. The certification must include a statement providing
the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    The FAA believes that this proposal would result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose
of this analysis is to provide the reasoning underlying the FAA
determination.
    Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, the analysis must address:
     Description of reasons the agency is considering the
action,
     Statement of the legal basis and objectives for the
proposed rule,
     Description of the recordkeeping and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule,
     All federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the proposed rule,
     Description and an estimated number of small entities to
which the proposed rule will apply,
     Analysis of small firms' ability to afford the proposed
rule,
     Estimation of the potential for business closures,
     Conduct a competitive analysis,
     Conduct a disproportionality analysis, and
     Describe the alternatives considered.

Reasons Why the Rule Is Being Proposed

    Public Law 108-176, referred to as ``The Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act,'' was enacted December 12, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-176).
This law set forth requirements and objectives for transforming the air
transportation system to progress further into the 21st Century.
Section 709 of this statute requires the Secretary of Transportation to
establish in the FAA a joint planning and development office (JPDO) to
manage work related to the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen). Among its statutorily defined responsibilities, the JPDO
coordinates the development and utilization of new technologies to
ensure that when available, they may be used to the fullest potential
in aircraft and in the air traffic control system.
    The FAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
and the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security have
launched an effort to align their resources to develop and further the
NextGen. The goals of NextGen, as stated in section 709, are addressed
by this proposal and include:
    (1) improve the level of safety, security, efficiency, quality, and
affordability of the NAS and aviation services;
    (2) take advantage of data from emerging ground-based and space-
based communications, navigation, and surveillance technologies;
    (3) be scalable to accommodate and encourage substantial growth in
domestic and international transportation and anticipating and
accommodating continuing technology upgrades and advances; and
    (4) accommodate a wide range of aircraft operations, including
airlines, air taxis, helicopters, general aviation, and unmanned aerial
vehicles.
    The JPDO was also charged to create and carry out an integrated
plan for NextGen. The NextGen Integrated Plan,\2\ transmitted to
Congress on December 12, 2004, ensures that the NextGen system meets
the air transportation safety, security, mobility, efficiency and
capacity needs beyond those currently included in the FAA's Operational
Evolution Plan (OEP). As described in the NextGen Integrated Plan, the
current approach to air transportation, i.e., ground based radars
tracking congested flyways and passing information among the control
centers for the duration of the flights, is becoming operationally
obsolete. The current system is increasingly inefficient and large
increases in air traffic will only result in mounting delays or
limitations in service for many areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A copy of the Plan has been placed in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This growth will result in more air traffic than the present system
can handle. The current method of handling traffic flow will not be
able to adapt to the highest volume and density of it in the future. It
is not only the number of flights but also the nature of the new growth
that is problematic, as the future of aviation will be much more
diverse than it is today. For example, a shift of two percent of
today's commercial passengers to micro-jets that seat 4-6 passengers
would result in triple the number of flights in order to carry the same
number of passengers. Furthermore, the challenges grow as other non-
conventional aircraft, such as unmanned aircraft, are developed for
special operations, e.g. forest fire fighting.
    The FAA believes that ADS-B technology is a key component in
achieving many of the goals set forth in the plan. This proposed rule
embraces a new approach to surveillance that can lead to greater and
more efficient utilization of airspace. The NextGen Integrated Plan
articulates several large transformation strategies in its roadmap

to successfully creating the Next Generation System. This proposal is a
major step toward strategically ``establishing an agile air traffic
system that accommodates future requirements and readily responds to
shifts in demand from all users.'' ADS-B technology would assist in the
transition to a system with less dependence on ground infrastructure
and facilities, and provide for more efficient use of airspace.

Statement of the Legal Basis and Objectives

    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, Sovereignty and use of
airspace, and Subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under
section 40103, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations on the
flight of aircraft, including regulations on safe altitudes,
navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft, and the safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace. Under section 44701, the FAA
is charged 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 proposal is within the scope of sections 40103 and 44701 since
it proposes aircraft performance requirements that would meet advanced
surveillance needs to accommodate the projected increase in operations
within the National Airspace System (NAS). As more aircraft operate
within the U.S. airspace, improved surveillance performance is
necessary to continue to balance the growth in air transportation with
the agency's mandate for a safe and efficient air transportation
system.

Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Requirements

    We expect no more than minimal new reporting and recordkeeping
compliance requirements to result from this proposed rule. Costs for
the initial installation of new equipment and associated labor
constitute a burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Paperwork
Reduction Act analysis was included in the full Regulatory Analysis
that is included in the docket for this rulemaking.

Overlapping, Duplicative, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    We are unaware that the proposed rule will overlap, duplicate or
conflict with existing Federal Rules.

Estimated Number of Small Firms Potentially Impacted

    Under the RFA, the FAA must determine whether a proposed rule
significantly affects a substantial number of small entities. This
determination is typically based on small entity size and cost
thresholds that vary depending on the affected industry.
    Using the size standards from the Small Business Administration for
Air Transportation and Aircraft Manufacturing, we defined companies as
small entities if they have fewer than 1,500 employees.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 13 CFR Part 121.201, Size Standards Used to Define Small
Business Concerns, Sector 48-49 Transportation, Subsector 481 Air
Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule would become final in 2009 and fully effective
in 2020. Although the FAA forecasts traffic and air carrier fleets to
2030, our forecasts do not have the granularity to determine if an
operator will likely still be in business or will still remain a small
business entity. Therefore we will use current U.S. operator's fleet
and employment in order to determine the number of operators this
proposal would affect.
    We obtained a list of part 91, 121 and 135 U.S. operators from the
FAA Flight Standards Service.\4\ Using information provided by the U.S.
Department of Transportation Form 41 filings, World Aviation Directory
and ReferenceUSA, operators that are subsidiary businesses of larger
businesses and businesses with more than 1,500 employees were
eliminated from the list of small entities. In many cases the
employment and annual revenue data was not public and we did not
include these companies in our analysis. For the remaining businesses,
we obtained company revenue and employment from the above three
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ AFS-260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methodology discussed above resulted in a sample of 34 U.S.
part 91, 121 and 135 operators, with less than 1,500 employees, who
operate 341 airplanes. Due to the sparse amount of publicly available
data on internal company financial statistics for small entities, it is
not feasible to estimate the total population of small entities
affected by this proposed rule. These 34 U.S. small entity operators
are a representative sample to assess the cost impact of the total
population of small businesses, who operate aircraft affected by this
proposed rulemaking. This representative sample was then applied to the
U.S. Census Bureau data on the Small Business Administration's website
to develop an estimate of the total number of affected small business
entities. The U.S. Census Bureau data lists small entities in the Air
Transportation Industry that employ less than 500 employees. Other
small businesses may own aircraft and not be included in the U.S.
Census Bureau Air Transportation Industry category. Therefore our
estimate of the number of affected small entities affected by this
proposed rulemaking will likely be understated. The estimate of the
total number of affected small entities is developed below.

Cost and Affordability for Small Entities

    To assess the cost impact to small business part 91, 121 and 135
operators, we contacted manufacturers, industry associations, and ADS-B
equipage providers to estimate ADS-B equipage costs. We requested
estimates of airborne installation costs, by aircraft model, for the
output parameters listed in the Equipment Specifications section of the
Regulatory Evaluation.
    To satisfy the manufacturer's request to keep individual aircraft
pricing confidential, we calculated a low, baseline, and high range of
costs by equipment class. The baseline estimate equals the average of
the low and high industry estimates. The dollar value ranges consist of
a wide variety of avionics within each aircraft group. The aircraft
architecture within each equipment group can vary, causing different
carriage, labor and wiring requirements for the installation of ADS-B.
Volume discounting versus single line purchasing also affects the
dollar value ranges. On the low end, the dollar value may represent a
software upgrade or OEM option change. On the high end, the dollar
value may represent a new installation of upgraded transponder systems
necessary to assure accuracy, reliability and safety. We used the
estimated baseline dollar value cost by equipment class in determining
the impact to small business entities.
    We estimated each operator's total compliance cost by multiplying
the baseline dollar value cost, by equipment class, by the number of
aircraft each small business operator currently has in its fleet. We
summed these costs by equipment class and group. We then measured the
economic impact on small entities by dividing the estimated baseline
dollar value compliance cost for their fleet by the small entity's
annual revenue. Each equipment group

operated by a small entity may have to comply with different
requirements in the proposed rule depending on the state of the
aircraft's avionics. In the ADS-B Out Equipage Cost Estimate section of
the Regulatory Evaluation we detail our methodology to estimate
operators' total compliance cost by equipment group.
    The ADS-B cost is estimated to be greater than two percent of
annual revenues for about 35 percent and greater than one percent of
annual revenues for about 54 percent of the small entity operators in
our sample population of 34 small aviation entities. Applying these
percentages to the 2,719 firms with employment under 500 from the Air
Transportation Industry category of the U.S. Census Bureau data \5\
results in the estimated ADS-B cost being greater than two percent of
annual revenues for at least 960 small entities and greater than one
percent of annual revenues for at least 1,476 small entity operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/us04_n6.pdf.

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

    Thus the FAA has determined that a substantial number of small
entities would be significantly affected by the proposed rule. Every
small entity who operates an aircraft in the airspace defined by this
proposal would be required to install ADS-B out equipage and therefore
would be affected by this rulemaking.

Business Closure Analysis

    For commercial operators, the ratio of present-value costs to
annual revenue shows that seven of 34 small business air operator firms
analyzed would have ratios in excess of five percent. Since many of the
other commercial small business air operator firms do not make their
annual revenue publicly available, it is difficult to assess the
financial impact of this proposed rule on their business. To fully
assess whether this proposed rule could force a small entity into
bankruptcy requires more financial information than is publicly
available.
    The FAA seeks comment, with supportive justification, to determine
the degree of hardship, and feasible alternative methods of compliance,
the proposed rule will have on these small entities.

Competitive Analysis

    The aviation industry is an extremely competitive industry with
slim profit margins. The number of operators who entered the industry
and have stopped operations because of mergers, acquisitions, or
bankruptcy litters the history of the aviation industry.
    The FAA analyzed five years of operating profits for the affected
small-entity operators listed above. We were able to determine the
operating profit for 18 of the 34 small business entities. The FAA
discovered that 33 percent of these 18 affected operators' average
operating profit is negative. Only four of the 18 affected operators
had average annual operating profit that exceeded $10,000,000.
    In this competitive industry, cost increases imposed by this
proposed regulation would be hard to recover by raising prices,
especially by those operators showing an average five-year negative
operating profit. Further, large operators may be able to negotiate
better pricing from outside firms for inspections and repairs, so small
operators may need to raise their prices more than large operators.
These factors make it difficult for the small operators to recover
their compliance costs by raising prices. If small operators cannot
recover all the additional costs imposed by this regulation, market
shares could shift to the large operators.
    However, small operators successfully compete in the aviation
industry by providing unique services and controlling costs. To the
extent the affected small entities operate in niche markets, their
ability to pass on costs will be enhanced. Currently small operators
are much more profitable than the established major scheduled carriers.
This proposed rule would offset some of the advantages that these small
operators have of using older aircraft that have lower capital cost.
    Overall, in terms of competition, this rulemaking reduces small
operators' ability to compete. We request comments from industry on the
results of the competitive analysis.

Disproportionality Analysis

    The disproportionately higher impact of the proposed rule on the
fleets of small operators result in higher relative costs to small
operators. Due to the potential of fleet discounts, large operators may
be able to negotiate better pricing from outside sources for
inspections, installation, and ADS-B hardware purchases.
    Based on the percent of potentially affected current airplanes over
the analysis period, small U.S. business operators may bear a
disproportionate impact from the proposed rule.
    Comments received and final rule changes on regulatory flexibility
issues will be addressed in the statement of considerations for the
final rule.

Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative One

    The status quo alternative has compliance costs to continue the
operation and commissioning of radar sites. The FAA rejected this
status quo alternative because the ground based radars tracking
congested flyways and passing information among the control centers for
the duration of the flights is becoming operationally obsolete. The
current system is not efficient enough to accommodate the estimated
increases in air traffic, which would result in mounting delays or
limitations in service for many areas.

Alternative Two

    This alternative would employ a technology called multilateration.
Multilateration is a separate type of secondary surveillance system
that is not radar and has limited deployment in the U.S. At a minimum,
multilateration requires upwards of four ground stations to deliver the
same volume of coverage and integrity of information as ADS-B, due to
the need to ``triangulate'' the aircraft's position. Multilateration is
a process wherein an aircraft position is determined using the
difference in time of arrival of a signal from an aircraft at a series
of receivers on the ground. Multilateration meets the need for accurate
surveillance and is less costly than ADS-B (but more costly than
radar), but cannot achieve the same level of benefits that ADS-B can.
Multilateration would provide the same benefits as radar, but we
estimate that cost to provide multilateration (including the cost to
sustain radar until multilateration is operational), would exceed the
cost to continue full radar surveillance.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ However, the cost to operate and maintain the
multilateration facilities and equipment is less than the cost to
continue full radar surveillance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Three

    This alternative would provide relief by having the FAA provide an
exemption to small air carriers from all requirements of this rule.
This alternative would mean that the small air carriers would rely on
the status quo ground based radars tracking their flights and passing
information among the control centers for the duration of the flights.
This alternative would require compliance costs to continue for the
commissioning of radar sites. Air traffic controller workload and
training costs would increase having to employ two systems in tracking
aircraft. Small entities may request ATC deviations prior to operating
in the airspace

affected by this proposal. It would also be contrary to our policy for
one level of safety in part 121 operations to exclude certain operators
simply because they are small entities. Thus, this alternative is not
considered to be acceptable.

Alternative Four

    This alternative is the proposed ADS-B rule. ADS-B does not employ
different classes of receiving equipment or provide different
information based on its location. Therefore, controllers will not have
to account for transitions between surveillance solutions as an
aircraft moves closer or farther away from an airport. In order to meet
future demand for air travel without significant delays or denial of
service, ADS-B was found to be the most cost effective solution to
maintain a viable air transportation system. ADS-B provides a wider
range of services to aircraft users and could enable applications
unavailable to multilateration or radar.

Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    ICAO is developing a set of standards that are influenced by, and
similar to, the U.S. RTCA developed standards. Initial discussions with
the international community lead us to conclude that U.S. aircraft
operating in foreign airspace would not have to add any equipment or
incur any costs in addition to what they would incur to operate in
domestic airspace under this proposed rulemaking. Foreign operators may
incur additional costs to operate in U.S. airspace, if their national
rules, standards and, current level of equipage are different than
those required by this proposed rule. The FAA is actively engaged with
the international community to ensure that the international and U.S.
ADS-B standards are as compatible as possible. For a fuller discussion
of what other countries are planning with regards to ADS-B, see Section
VII of the preamble. By 2020 ICAO standards may change to harmonize
with this proposed rule and foreign operators will not have to incur
additional costs.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value
of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule is not
expected to impose significant costs on small governmental
jurisdictions such as state, local, or tribal governments but the FAA
calls for comment on whether this expectation is correct. However, this
proposed rule would result in an unfunded mandate because it would
result in expenditures in excess of an inflation-adjusted value of
$128.1 million. We have considered three alternatives to this
rulemaking, which are discussed in section 4.0 and in the regulatory
flexibility analysis in section 7.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 14, 2007.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E7-24713 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24842-24843]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85919; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Independence Policy of the Board of Directors of the Exchange

May 22, 2019.
    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 May 13, 2019, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Independence Policy of the Board
of Directors of the Exchange (``Independence Policy'') by removing
obsolete and unused references and making other non-substantive
changes. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts 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 the Independence Policy by removing
obsolete and unused references and making other non-substantive
changes.
    Pursuant to rule changes, the Exchange no longer has allied members
\5\ and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') no longer has allied
persons.\6\ Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete the obsolete
references to allied members and allied persons in the Independence
Policy. Specifically, it proposes to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84724 (December 6,
2018), 83 FR 63969 (December 12, 2018) (SR-NYSEAMER-2018-54) (notice
of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed amendments to the
Exchange rules to delete references to the term ``Allied Member'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84857 (December 19,
2018), 83 FR 66824 (December 27, 2018) (SR-NYSEARCA-2018-97) (notice
of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed amendments to
delete references to the term ``Allied Person'' from the NYSE Arca
rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Delete the following text from category 1(b) of
``Independence Qualifications'': `` `allied members' (as defined in
Rule 23 of NYSE American LLC), `allied persons' (as defined in Rule
1.1(b) of NYSE Arca, Inc.''; and
     Delete the references to allied members and allied persons
from the title ``Members, Allied Members, Allied Persons and Approved
Persons'' and the accompanying paragraph.
    The Exchange proposes to revise statement 5 under ``Independence
Qualifications'' to delete the references to NYSE Arca and the Chicago
Stock Exchange, Inc. (now NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago'')), as
under the proposed changes they are not referenced by name elsewhere in
the text.\7\ The Exchange would add ``or'' before ``NYSE National,
Inc.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Each of NYSE Arca and NYSE Chicago would continue to be an
``Exchange'' as defined in the Independence Policy under
``Purpose.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a non-substantive administrative change, the Exchange proposes
to add the title ``Approval and Adoption'' and a sentence setting forth
the dates that the Board of Directors of the Exchange approved and
adopted the Independence Policy and the date it became effective.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act \8\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) in particular,\9\ because the proposed rule change would be
consistent with and facilitate a governance and regulatory structure
that it is 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest because the changes would remove obsolete references to
allied persons and allied members, thereby adding clarity and
transparency to the Independence Policy by removing any confusion that
may result if the Independence Policy retained such obsolete
references. Similarly, it would make the Independence Policy more
consistent with the rules of the Exchange and NYSE Arca, thereby
ensuring that persons subject to the Exchange's jurisdiction,
regulators, and the investing public can more easily navigate and
understand the Independence Policy.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the
Independence Policy would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by
adding clarity and transparency to the Independence Policy through
removing unused references to NYSE Arca and NYSE Chicago. Each of NYSE
Arca and NYSE Chicago would continue to be an ``Exchange'' as defined
in the Independence Policy under ``Purpose.'' Similarly, the Exchange
believes that adding the date on which the Independence Policy was
approved and adopted and the date on which it became effective would
add clarity and transparency to the Independence Policy. The Exchange
further believes that market participants would benefit from the
increased clarity, thereby reducing potential confusion.

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 Exchange Act.

The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues
but rather is concerned solely with amending the Independence Policy to
remove obsolete references and make other non-substantive changes.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 Number SR-NYSEAMER-2019-020 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2019-020. 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 Number SR-NYSEAMER-2019-020 and should be
submitted on or before June 19, 2019.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11107 Filed 5-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 32199-32201]
[DOCID:fr07jn10-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2010-0033]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request, 1660-0030; Request for the Site Inspection, Landowners
Authorization/Ingress/Egress Agreement

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 60-day notice and request for comments; revision of a
currently approved information collection; OMB No. 1660-0030; FEMA Form
010-0-09 (formerly 90-1), Request for the Site Inspection; FEMA Form
010-0-10 (formerly 90-31), Landowner's Authorization Ingress-Egress
Agreement.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a proposed revision of a currently approved information
collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this Notice seeks comments concerning

FEMA's temporary housing assistance provides temporary housing to
eligible applicants or victims of federally declared disasters. This
information is required to determine that the infrastructure of the
site supports the installation of the unit, obtains permission for the
unit to be placed on the property and ensured written permission of the
property owner is obtained to allow the housing unit on the property to
include ingress and egress.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID FEMA-2010-0033. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Office of Chief Counsel,
Regulation and Policy Team, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Room 835,
Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) E-mail. Submit comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket
ID FEMA-2010-0033 in the subject line.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact William Fiorini, Program
Specialist,<PHONE_NUMBER> for additional information. You may contact
the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection
of information at facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C 5174) authorizes the President to
provide mobile homes and other readily fabricated dwellings to eligible
applicants who require temporary housing as a result of a major
disaster. Title 44 CFR 206.117 provides the requirements for disaster-
related housing needs of individuals and households who are eligible
for temporary housing assistance. The information collected provides
the facts necessary to determine the feasibility of the proposed site
for placement of temporary housing and so that FEMA can have access to
place the temporary housing unit as well as retrieve it at the end of
the use.

Collection of Information

    Title: Request for the Site Inspection, Landowners Authorization/
Ingress/Egress Agreement.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0030.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 010-0-09 (formerly 90-1),
Request for the Site Inspection; FEMA Form 010-0-10 (formerly 90-31),
Landowner's Authorization Ingress-Egress Agreement.
    Abstract: FEMA's temporary housing assistance provides temporary
housing to eligible applicants or victims of federally declared
disasters. This information is required to determine that the
infrastructure of the site supports the installation of the unit. This
collection also obtains permission for the unit to be placed on the
property, and the property owner certifies that they will not have a
lien placed against the unit for their own debts will maintain the
property so that FEMA can remove the unit when required.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,700 Hours.

                                                       Estimated Annualized Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Number of                Avg. burden     Total                     Total
                                                                Number of    responses    Total No.       per         annual    Avg. hourly     annual
         Type of respondent            Form name/form number   respondents      per           of        response    burden (in   wage rate    respondent
                                                                             respondent   responses    (in hours)     hours)                     cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Individuals or households..........   FEMA Form 010-0-9/            5,000            1        5,000         0.17          850       $28.00      $23,800
                                       Request for the Site
                                       Inspection.
 Individuals or households..........   FEMA Form 010-0-10/           5,000            1        5,000         0.17          850        28.00       23,800
                                       Landowner's
                                       Authorization Ingress-
                                       Egress Agreement.
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................  .......................        5,000  ...........       10,000  ...........        1,700  ...........       47,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Cost: There are no annual capital, start-up, maintenance
or operation costs associated with this collection.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) Evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: May 28, 2010.
Tammi Hines,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2010-13616 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: August 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 159)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50896-50902]
[DOCID:fr18au10-23]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0474; FRL-8838-9]

Diethylene Glycol (DEG); 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 (DEG) (CAS No. 111-46-
6) when used as an inert ingredient as a solvent, stabilizer and/or
antifreeze within pesticide formulations without limitation, under 40
CFR 180.920, for use on growing crops and raw agricultural commodities
pre-harvest 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 establishment of an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a
maximum permissible level for residues of DEG.

DATES: This regulation is effective August 18, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 18, 2010,
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 (703)
305-5805.

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 cite at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the OPPTS harmonized test guidelines
referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://
www.epa.gov/oppts and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. 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 October
18, 2010. 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 that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, 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 39289) (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,
Dow AgroSciences L.L.C., Nufarm Americas Inc., BASF, Stepan Company,
Loveland Products Inc., and Rhodia Inc. The petition requested that 40
CFR 180.920 be amended by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of DEG (CAS No. 111-46-6) when
used as an inert ingredient for use as a solvent, stabilizer and/or
antifreeze without limitation in pesticide formulations applied to use
on growing crops and raw agricultural commodities pre-harvest. 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., the petitioners, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. The Agency
received one comment in response to the notice of filing. 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
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.

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 DEG
including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this
action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with DEG
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 DEG 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.
    DEG has low acute toxicity via the oral route in animals. It has
low acute toxicity via the dermal route. Data were not available
regarding dermal irritation and sensitization. Data on humans show that
the probable LD50 of DEG is approximately 0.5-5 gram/
kilogram (g/kg) and that it is not irritating to the eyes or skin.
However, a man developed allergic dermatitis 2-4 weeks after smoking
cigarettes containing DEG. He also had a local reaction in a 24 hours
covered patch test with DEG.
    In subchronic oral studies in animals, the kidney, liver and
hematopoietic systems were most often the target organs. In subchronic
studies, males were more susceptible to kidney toxicity. Kidney lesions
occurred in the range of 100 to 180 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/
day) and were manifested as tubular damage. DEG caused increased size
and hydropic changes in the liver and oxalate crystals were found in
the urinary bladder and kidney at >100 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL for DEG in
the subchronic rat study was 50 mg/kg/day, based on increased urinary
oxalate at 100 mg/kg/day. Some subchronic studies available in the
literature show kidney toxicity at very high doses. In addition, kidney
toxicity was only evident at very high doses in chronic studies.
    Several developmental studies in rodents were available for review.
In these studies, maternal and developmental toxicity occurred at doses
(> 1,118 mg/kg/day) that were above the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day.
Two reproduction toxicity studies in rodents were available for review.
Again, maternal and offspring toxicity was observed at high doses (>
1,500 mg/kg/day).
    Several mutagenicity studies (Ames test and chromosome aberration)
with DEG were available for review. The TA104 strain was slightly
positive in one assay with metabolic activity. All in vivo assays were
negative. Therefore, based on the overall weight of evidence, DEG is
not considered mutagenic.
    In chronic oral studies, the kidney, liver and hematopoietic
systems were most often the target organs. In chronic studies, kidney
neuropathy occurred at dosages of greater than 920 mg/kg/day and was
manifested as epithelial necrosis of the renal tubules. Bladder tumors
were observed at > 1,500 mg/kg/day; however, these tumors were
associated with irritation from bladder stones. The physiochemical
properties of DEG cause crystal formation and deposition in the kidneys
which leads to irritation, stone formation, kidney damage and tumor
formation. Therefore, protecting from crystal formation would be
protective of subsequent kidney damage and tumor formation. Also, a
Soviet study reported no evidence of cancer in a group of 90 workers
exposed to DEG for 1 to 9 years. In addition, DEG is not listed as a
carcinogen byAmerican Conference of Industrial Hygienist,(ACGIH),
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), National Toxicology
Program,(NTP) or California Proposition 65.
    Metabolism studies demonstrated that DEG was rapidly absorbed and
primarily excreted via the urine.

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.
    The available toxicity studies suggest that the DEG manifested
toxicity appears to occur following high repeated doses. In
developmental toxicity study in rats, mice and rabbits, the clear
NOAELs were observed at doses 559 mg/kg/day and above. In reproduction
studies in mice and rats, the lowest NOAEL was 300 mg/kg/day (highest
dose tested) and one study in mice had a NOAEL of 610 mg/kg/day with a
LOAEL of 3,060 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL for carcinogenicity studies in rats
was 1,000 mg/kg/day and above. One chronic toxicity study in rats had a
LOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day. The subchronic studies gave confounding
results in terms of NOAEL for the study. In a subchronic study in rats
(feeding), the reported NOAEL was 400 mg/kg/day and the second study in
rats reported the NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day. However, in other studies
reported in the literature, no overt toxicity was observed in 20 mice/
sex maintained on a diet containing 5.2 g/kg bw/day for 15 to 18 weeks.
Kidney and liver damage occurred in rabbits given DEG by gavage or in
drinking water at about 15 gram/kilograms bodyweight/day (g/kg bw/day)
for up to 28 days, and also in guinea-pigs, cats and dogs subjected to
similar exposures. Based on the overall weight of evidence from all
studies, a NOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day is considered protective for DEG-
mediated toxicity for estimating risk via all routes of exposure. In
the absence of inhalation studies, 100% inhalation is assumed. The
dermal absorption factor of 25% was estimated based on dermal
absorption of structurally similar compound for converting oral to
dermal equivalent dose.
    Bladder tumors were observed following treatment with DEG at doses
> 1,500 mg/kg/day. However, these tumors appear to be secondary to
irritation and regenerative proliferation associated with the formation
of urinary tract crystals/calculi. This is commonly seen for bladder
carcinogenesis in rodents for non-genotoxic chemicals of the
sulfonamide class. Since DEG presents no concern for mutagenicity and
based on knowledge about other chemicals, EPA considers DEG as not

likely to be a human carcinogen. The cRfD (1.0 mg/kg/day) was
established based on these precursor effects observed at >300 mg/kg/
day. Therefore, the cRfD is considered adequately protective of any
cancer or pre-cancerous effects seen in the carcinogenicity studies.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to DEG, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures
from DEG in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. No adverse effects attributable to a single
exposure of DEG were seen in the toxicity databases. Therefore, an
acute dietary risk assessment for DEG is not necessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S.
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 DEG. 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 levels of
tolerances would be no higher than the concentration of the active
ingredient.
    The Agency believes the assumptions used to estimate dietary
exposures lead 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
concentrations of active ingredient in agricultural products are
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.
    iii. Cancer. As discussed in this unit, the Agency has not
identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to DEG, and,
therefore, a dietary exposure assessment to assess cancer risk is
unnecessary.
    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 DEG, a conservative
drinking water concentration value of 100 parts per billion 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).
    The term ```residential exposure'' is used in this document to
refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and
garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and
tick control on pets). DEG 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 DEG as inert ingredients. The DEG
inerts may be present in consumer personal (care) products and
cosmetics. The Agency selected representative scenarios, based on end-
use product application methods and labeled application rates. The
Agency conducted an assessment to represent worst-case residential
exposure by assessing DEG in pesticide formulations (Outdoor Scenarios)
and DEG in disinfectant-type uses (Indoor Scenarios). The Agency is not
aware of any use of DEG in hard surface cleaning products. However,
this scenario was used for this assessment considering wide use of DEG
in other products. Therefore, the Agency assessed the disinfectant-type
products containing DEG using exposure scenarios used by the
Antimicrobials Division in EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs to
represent worst-case residential handler exposure. Further details of
this residential exposure and risk analysis can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in the memorandum entitled: ``JITF Inert
Ingredients. Residential and Occupational Exposure Assessment
Algorithms and Assumptions Appendix for the Human Health Risk
Assessments to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance When Used as Inert Ingredients in Pesticide

Formulations,'' (D364751, 5/7/09, Lloyd/LaMay in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2008-0710.
    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 DEG to share a common mechanism of toxicity with
any other substances, and DEG does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that DEG 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 website 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 Food Quality
Protection Act (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. There was no evidence of
increased susceptibility of infants and children following prenatal
exposure to DEG in mice, and rabbits. In mice and rabbits, the maternal
or developmental toxicity were seen at or above the limit dose except
in one study in mice where the maternal toxicity NOAEL was 559 mg/kg/
day and developmental toxicity NOAEL was 2,759 mg/kg/day. In these
studies with mice and rabbits, developmental effects were observed in
the presence of maternal toxicity or at a dose above the dose that
produced maternal toxicity. There was some evidence of increased
susceptibility in the rat developmental toxicity study. In the rat
developmental toxicity study, the maternal NOAEL was 4,472 mg/kg/day
and the developmental NOAEL was 1,178 mg/kg/day. However, the concern
for this increased susceptibility was low since the skeletal variations
were seen at dose level above the limit dose.
    Several reproduction studies are available in the database. The
effects seen in these studies are characterized as high dose effects.
There was no evidence of increased susceptibility of infants and
children following prenatal and postnatal exposure to DEG in mice and
rats except in one study in mice. In one reproduction study in mice
(drinking water), the NOAEL for developmental toxicity was 610 mg/kg/
day and the LOAEL was 3,060 mg/kg/day. The maternal toxicity NOAEL in
the mice reproduction was 2,060 mg/kg/day. The reproduction study in
mice suggest some evidence of increased susceptibility, however, the
concern is low because the developmental effects were seen at 3 times
higher dose than the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. Overall, based on
available data in mice, rats and rabbits, the concern for isolated
susceptibility is low because the increased susceptibility was seen at
or above the limit dose and they were not reproduced in other studies
conducted in same species.
    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 DEG is adequate. The following
acceptable studies are available: Developmental toxicity studies in
mice, rats and rabbits, reproduction study in mice and rats and
subchronic and chronic studies including carcinogenicity studies and
mutagenicity studies.
    ii. Clinical signs of neurotoxicity were reported in acute studies
conducted at very high doses. However, no significant clinical signs
were observed in repeated dose studies and no increased susceptibility
was seen in the available developmental or reproduction studies at
doses below the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. Based on overall weight
of evidence, EPA concluded that the developmental neurotoxicity is not
required.
    iii. There was no evidence of increased susceptibility of infants
and children following prenatal exposure to DEG in mice, and rabbits.
    The developmental study in the rat and reproduction study in mice
suggest some evidence of increased susceptibility of infants and
children, however, the concern is low because the developmental effects
were seen at higher doses than the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day and
there is a clear NOAEL established in these studies. Overall, based on
available data in mice, rats and rabbits, the concern for isolated
susceptibility is low because the increased susceptibility was seen at
or above the limit dose and they were not reproduced in other studies
conducted in same species.
    iv. Signs of potential immunotoxicity were not observed in any of
the submitted studies.
    v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on the assumptions of 100% crop treated and tolerance-level residues.
EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and
surface water modeling used to assess exposure to DEG in drinking
water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess
postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral
exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by DEG.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
DEG 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
DEG from food and water will utilize 0.62% of the cPAD for children 1
to 2 years 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).
    DEG 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 DEG.
    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 132 for both
adult males and females. Adult residential exposure combines high end
dermal and inhalation handler exposure from indoor hand wiping with a
high end post application dermal exposure from contact with treated
lawns. EPA has concluded the combined short-term aggregated food,
water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 114 for
children. Children's residential exposure includes total exposures
associated with contact with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth
exposures). As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than
100, 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).
    DEG 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 DEG.
    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 388 for adult males and females. Adult residential
exposure includes 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 133 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 DEG is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of
concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. DEG is not expected
to be carcinogenic since there were no triggers for carcinogenicity in
the published study and a lack of systemic toxicity in the 1-generation
reproduction study in rats as well as a negative response for
mutagenicity.
    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 DEG 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

    The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for
DEG nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels been established for any
food crops at this time.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.920 for DEG (Cas No. 111-46-6) when used
as an inert ingredient (as a solvent, stabilizer and/or antifreeze
within pesticide formulations/products without limitation) in pesticide
formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities
pre-harvest.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of 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 exemption 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) (Public Law 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: August 6, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec. 180.920, in the table, add alphabetically the following
inert ingredient to read as follows:

Sec.  180.910  Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              * * * * * * *
Diethylene Glycol (CAS No. 111-   Without limitation  Solvent,
 46-6)                                                 stabilizer and/or
                                                       antifreeze
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-20318 Filed 8-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S