[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 105 (Thursday, June 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29864-29868]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11693]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92068; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2021-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Amend Equity 4, Rule 4754 Relating to the Limit Up-Limit Down Closing
Cross

May 28, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On February 11, 2021, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'' or
``Nasdaq'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Equity 4, Rule (``Rule'') 4754 relating
to the Limit Up-Limit Down (``LULD'') closing cross. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 3,
2021.\3\ On April 9, 2021, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change, which amended and superseded the proposed rule
change as originally filed.\4\ On April 15, 2021, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ the Commission designated a longer period
within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\ The Commission has not received
any comment letters on the proposed rule change. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 from
interested persons, and is approving the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91208 (February 25,
2021), 86 FR 12503.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange amended the proposal to:
(1) Specify the dissemination of certain imbalance information
before the LULD closing cross; (2) clarify the process for
calculating the LULD closing cross price and the benchmark prices
for the LULD closing cross; (3) specify the treatment of imbalance
only orders for purposes of LULD closing cross price selection; (4)
provide additional explanation to support the proposal; (5) specify
the implementation date for the proposal; and (6) make other
clarifying, technical, and conforming changes. Amendment No. 1 is
available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2021-009/srnasdaq2021009-8670132-235426.pdf.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91581, 86 FR 20759
(April 21, 2021). The Commission designated June 1, 2021, as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1

    The Nasdaq closing cross is the Exchange's process for determining
the price at which orders will be executed at the close and for
executing those orders, and the price determined by the Nasdaq closing
cross is the Nasdaq official closing price for securities that
participate in the cross.\7\ The Nasdaq closing cross begins at 4:00
p.m.,\8\ and the Exchange applies a price range within which the Nasdaq
closing cross must occur.\9\ Currently, the Exchange applies a
threshold amount that is the greater of $0.50 or 10% of the midpoint of
the Nasdaq best bid and offer, and that amount is then added to the
Nasdaq best offer and subtracted from the Nasdaq best bid to establish
the price range.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 4754(a)(6) and (b)(4). See also Rule 4754(b)(2)
(describing the methodology for determining the Nasdaq closing cross
price).
    \8\ All times referenced are in Eastern Time.
    \9\ See Rule 4754(b). If the Nasdaq closing cross price
established pursuant to Rule 4754(b)(2)(A)-(D) is outside the
benchmarks established by the Exchange by a threshold amount, the
Nasdaq closing cross will occur at a price within the threshold
amounts that best satisfies the conditions of Rule 4754(b)(2)(A)-
(D). See Rule 4754(b)(2)(E).
    \10\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 6. Nasdaq management
may set and modify the benchmarks and thresholds from time to time
upon prior notice to market participants. See Rule 4754(b)(2)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LULD closing cross is the Exchange's process for executing
closing trades in Nasdaq-listed securities when an LULD trading pause
pursuant to Rule 4120(a)(12) exists at or after 3:50 p.m.

and before 4:00 p.m.\11\ The Exchange proposes to make certain changes
to the LULD closing cross in order to further align that process with
the regular Nasdaq closing cross process.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 4754(b)(6).
    \12\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 4. The Exchange
proposes to implement the proposed changes by the end of Q3 2021,
and will provide prior notice in an Equity Trader Alert. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. LULD Closing Cross Time and Benchmark Prices

    Currently, unlike the regular Nasdaq closing cross, the LULD
closing cross occurs at 4:00 p.m. unless an order imbalance exists, in
which case the Exchange will extend the time of the cross by one minute
until the order imbalance no longer exists.\13\ If this condition
persists until 5:00 p.m., the Exchange will not conduct an LULD closing
cross in the security and will instead use the last sale on the
Exchange as the Nasdaq official closing price for that security.\14\ In
addition, currently, unlike the regular Nasdaq closing cross, the
Exchange does not apply a price range within which the LULD closing
cross must occur. The Exchange now proposes to eliminate extensions of
the LULD closing cross beyond 4:00 p.m.\15\ and to require that the
LULD closing cross occur within certain benchmark prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rule 4754(b)(6)(A)(i) and (iii).
    \14\ See Rule 4754(b)(6)(A)(iii).
    \15\ In connection with eliminating extensions of the LULD
closing cross, the Exchange proposes to remove Rule
4754(b)(6)(A)(iii), which currently describes extensions of the LULD
closing cross, and parts of Rule 4754(b)(6)(C)(iii), which currently
describe the handling of certain orders after 4:00 p.m. for purposes
of the LULD closing cross.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, for any security that entered a trading pause that was
extended prior to 3:50 p.m., the upper (lower) benchmark price would be
established by adding (subtracting) a threshold amount to the upper
(from the lower) auction collar \16\ that was last updated with the
extension of the trading pause, rounded to the nearest minimum price
increment (with midpoint prices being rounded up), and the lower
(upper) benchmark price would be the lower (upper) auction collar that
was last updated with the upper (lower) auction collar used to
calculate the upper (lower) benchmark price.\17\ For any security that
entered a trading pause that was not extended prior to 3:50 p.m., the
upper (lower) benchmark price would be established by adding
(subtracting) a threshold amount to the upper auction collar for a
Limit Up triggered pause (from the lower auction collar for a Limit
Down triggered pause), rounded to the nearest minimum price increment
(with midpoint prices being rounded up), and the lower (upper)
benchmark price would be the lower (upper) auction collar disseminated
with the upper (lower) auction collar used to calculate the upper
(lower) benchmark price.\18\ For any security that entered a trading
pause at or after 3:50 p.m., the upper (lower) benchmark price would be
established by adding (subtracting) a threshold amount to the upper
band for a Limit Up triggered pause (from the lower band for a Limit
Down triggered pause), rounded to the nearest minimum price increment
(with midpoint prices being rounded up), and the lower (upper)
benchmark price would be the lower (upper) band in place at the time
the trading pause was triggered.\19\ The benchmark prices would be
published via the Nasdaq UTP SIP and Exchange proprietary data
feeds.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 4120(c)(10) (describing the auction collars for
reopening following an LULD trading pause).
    \17\ See proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(E)(i). The Exchange states
that it would use the last widened auction collar in this scenario
because a security that entered a trading pause prior to 3:50 p.m.
would be subject to the Exchange's reopening process in Rule
4120(c)(10), where the Exchange would halt the security for an
initial five-minute period and extend the halt in five-minute
increments if the specified reopening criteria are not met, widening
the relevant auction collar at the start of each five-minute
extension. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 9 n.18.
    \18\ See proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(E)(ii). The Exchange states
that this scenario would cover securities that entered a trading
pause between 3:45 p.m. and 3:50 p.m., and because the Exchange does
not extend the reopening process in Rule 4120(c)(10) or widen
auction collars past 3:50 p.m., it would use the initial reopening
auction collar. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 9-10 n.19.
    \19\ See proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(E)(iii). The Exchange states
that it would use the LULD band that triggered the pause in this
scenario because the Exchange does not conduct the LULD reopening
process at or after 3:50 p.m. and therefore there are no reopening
auction collars in this scenario. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4,
at 10 n.20.
    \20\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to initially set the price threshold amounts
at the greater of $1.00 or 10% for securities with a reference price
greater than $1.00 (or $0.50 for securities with a reference price
equal to or less than $1.00).\21\ As proposed, Nasdaq management would
be able to set and modify these thresholds from time to time upon prior
notice to market participants.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. at 8-9.
    \22\ See proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(E). These threshold amounts,
like the threshold amounts currently used for the regular Nasdaq
closing cross, would be published on the Exchange's public website.
See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, at 4:00 p.m., the Exchange would conduct the LULD
closing cross, and if the cross price would fall outside of the
benchmark prices, the LULD closing cross would execute all available
orders at a price within or equal to the benchmark prices.\23\ Any
unexecuted orders intended for the LULD closing cross (i.e., market on
close (``MOC''),\24\ limit on close (``LOC''),\25\ and imbalance only
(``IO'') orders),\26\ including those that fall outside the benchmark
prices, would be cancelled.\27\ All other orders not executed in the
LULD closing cross would be processed according to the entering firm's
instructions.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 12.
    \24\ See Rule 4702(b)(11) (defining a MOC order as an order type
entered without a price that may be executed only during the Nasdaq
closing cross).
    \25\ See Rule 4702(b)(12) (defining a LOC order as an order type
entered with a price that may be executed only in the Nasdaq closing
cross, and only if the price determined by the Nasdaq closing cross
is equal to or better than the price at which the LOC order was
entered).
    \26\ See Rule 4702(b)(13) (defining an IO order as an order
entered with a price that may be executed only in the Nasdaq closing
cross and only against MOC orders or LOC orders).
    \27\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 12.
    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. LULD Closing Cross Price Determination

    Currently, the LULD closing cross price is determined by the same
execution algorithm as the regular Nasdaq closing cross.\29\ The
Exchange now proposes to modify the methodology for determining the
LULD closing cross price.\30\ As proposed, the LULD closing cross would
occur at the price within the benchmark prices established pursuant to
proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(E) that maximizes the number of shares of
eligible interest,\31\ MOC, LOC, and IO orders in the Nasdaq market
center to be executed.\32\ If more than one such price exists, the LULD
closing cross would occur at the price within the benchmark prices that
minimizes any imbalance.\33\ If more

than one such price exists, the LULD closing cross would occur at the
entered price within the benchmark prices at which shares will remain
unexecuted in the cross.\34\ If no price within the benchmark prices
would satisfy these conditions, then: (i) If an imbalance exists, the
LULD closing cross would occur at a price equal to the upper (lower)
benchmark price for a buy (sell) imbalance; and (ii) if no imbalance
exists, the LULD closing cross would occur at a price that minimizes
the distance from the last published upper band (lower band) for a
Limit Up (Limit Down) trading pause.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See id. at 16.
    \30\ See proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(D). See also Rule
4754(b)(2)(A)-(F) (describing the methodology for determining the
regular Nasdaq closing cross price).
    \31\ For purposes of the LULD closing cross, the Exchange
proposes to define ``eligible interest'' to have the same meaning as
``close eligible interest'' in Rule 4754(a), with the addition of
any new orders with an eligible underlying order type and order
attribute entered during the trading pause. See proposed Rule
4754(b)(6)(A)(i). See also Rule 4754(a)(1) (defining ``close
eligible interest'' to mean any quotation or any order that may be
entered into the system and designated with a time-in-force of SDAY,
SGTC, MDAY, MGTC, SHEX, or GTMC).
    \32\ See proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(D)(i). The Exchange states
that proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(D)(i) is similar to Rule 4754(b)(2)(A)
(i.e., maximizing the number of shares executed in the cross). See
Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 16.
    \33\ See proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(D)(ii). For purposes of the
LULD closing cross, the Exchange proposes to define ``imbalance'' to
mean the number of shares of buy or sell MOC or LOC orders or
eligible interest that cannot be matched with other MOC, LOC, or IO
orders or eligible interest at a particular price at any given time.
See proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(A)(ii). The Exchange states that
proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(D)(ii) is based on the same principle as
Rule 4754(b)(2)(B) (i.e., minimizing the number of shares that
cannot be matched in the cross). See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4,
at 17.
    \34\ See proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(D)(iii). The Exchange states
that proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(D)(iii) is similar to Rule
4754(b)(2)(C). See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 18.
    \35\ See proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(D)(iv). The Exchange states
that Rule 4754(b)(2)(D) uses the midpoint of the Nasdaq best bid and
offer as the tiebreaker for the regular Nasdaq closing cross,
whereas there would be no continuous market prior to the execution
of the LULD closing cross and proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(D)(iv) would
better reflect current market forces and conditions for an LULD
closing cross. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Rule 4754(b)(6) provides that, in the event of an LULD
closing cross, MOC, LOC, and IO orders intended for the closing cross
entered into the system and place on the book prior to the trading
pause will remain on the book to participate in the LULD closing cross,
but these orders may not be modified or cancelled. Rule 4754(b)(6) also
provides that, during the pause and prior to 4:00 p.m., new orders
(other than MOC or LOC orders) may be entered, modified, and cancelled
and may participate in the LULD closing cross. The Exchange now
proposes to modify the handling of MOC, LOC, and IO orders such that
they could be entered, modified, and cancelled pursuant to Rules
4702(b)(11), 4702(b)(12), and 4702(b)(13), respectively.\36\ Therefore,
as proposed, MOC, LOC, and IO orders could be entered, modified, and
cancelled during the same time periods for an LULD closing cross as for
a regular Nasdaq closing cross. However, unlike the regular Nasdaq
closing cross where if the price of an IO order to buy (sell) is higher
than (lower than) the highest bid (lowest offer) on the Nasdaq book,
the price of the IO order will be modified repeatedly to equal the
highest bid (lowest offer) on the Nasdaq book,\37\ for purposes of LULD
closing cross price selection, buy (sell) IO orders would be re-priced
to one minimum price increment below (above) the LULD band that
triggered the trading pause.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(F)(ii).
    \37\ See Rule 4702(b)(13)(A).
    \38\ See proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(F)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Imbalance Information

    Currently, Rule 4754(b)(6)(B) provides that, in the event of an
LULD closing cross, the Exchange continues disseminating the order
imbalance indicator (``NOII'') every second until after hours trading
begins. The Exchange proposes to amend this rule to also specify the
dissemination of the early order imbalance indicator (``EOII'') before
the LULD closing cross.\39\ As with the regular Nasdaq closing cross,
EOII would be disseminated every 10 seconds beginning at 3:50 p.m.
until the NOII begins to disseminate, and the NOII would be
disseminated every second beginning at 3:55 p.m. until market
close.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(C).
    \40\ See id.; Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 21-22. See also
Rule 4754(b)(1) (describing EOII and NOII dissemination for the
regular Nasdaq closing cross).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Rule 4754(b)(6)(B) also provides that the near price,
far price, and reference prices contained in the NOII all represent the
price at which the LULD closing cross would execute should the cross
conclude at that time. As proposed, the near clearing price \41\ and
reference price contained in the EOII and NOII, as applicable, would
represent the price at which the LULD closing cross would execute
should the cross conclude at that time (i.e., bounded by the benchmark
prices),\42\ and the far clearing price would represent the price at
which eligible interest, MOC, LOC, and IO orders would execute (i.e.,
not bounded by the benchmark prices).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The Exchange proposes to replace all references to the
``near price'' and ``far price'' with the ``near clearing price''
and ``far clearing price'' respectively to align with terminology
used throughout Rule 4754. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 22.
    \42\ See proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(C); Amendment No. 1, supra
note 4, at 22.
    \43\ See proposed Rule 4754(b)(6)(C); Amendment No. 1, supra
note 4, at 22. The far clearing price would be different from the
near clearing price and reference price to indicate that not all
marketable orders can be filled within the benchmark prices. See
Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Other Changes

    The Exchange proposes to specify in Rule 4754(b)(6) that the LULD
closing cross process only applies to Nasdaq-listed securities, rather
than all stocks. The Exchange also proposes a conforming change in Rule
4754(b)(6)(B)(i) to clarify that the LULD closing cross applies when a
trading pauses exists (rather than is triggered) at or after 3:50 p.m.
and before 4:00 p.m. Finally, the Exchange proposes to update obsolete
cross references in Rules 4756(c)(3)(B) and 4763(b) to Rule 4751.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\45\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No, 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\46\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed benchmark prices and
other changes to the LULD closing cross would more closely align the
LULD closing cross process with the regular Nasdaq closing cross
process and would promote a more consistent experience for those that
participate in the crosses. The Commission also believes that the
differences between the proposed LULD closing cross process and the
regular Nasdaq closing cross process are reasonably designed to reflect
the differences in market conditions leading up to the crosses.
    More specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed
benchmark prices for the LULD closing cross would help ensure that the
closing price of a security is reasonably related to current market
conditions. The Commission also believes that the addition of benchmark
prices would further harmonize the LULD closing cross process with the
regular Nasdaq closing cross process, while reflecting market

conditions for the security leading up to the LULD closing cross. In
particular, the Commission believes that the proposed methodology for
determining the benchmark prices would reflect that there is no
continuous trading in the security and no Nasdaq best bid and offer
based on continuous trading in the security during the pause leading up
to the cross,\47\ that the cross would occur following a period of
increased volatility in the security,\48\ and the direction of trading
that triggered the pause in the security and the existence of buy or
sell pressure in the security leading up to the cross.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ As described above, the benchmark prices for the LULD
closing cross would be calculated based on the reopening auction
collars or the LULD bands, rather than the midpoint of the Nasdaq
best bid and offer as is the case with the regular Nasdaq closing
cross.
    \48\ As described above, the initial threshold amounts for
determining the benchmark prices for the LULD closing cross (i.e.,
the greater of $1.00 or 10% for securities with a reference price
greater than $1.00, and $0.50 for securities with a reference price
equal to or less than $1.00) may be greater than the current
threshold amounts for determining the price range for the regular
Nasdaq closing cross (i.e., the greater of $0.50 or 10%). As with
the regular Nasdaq closing cross, Nasdaq management would be able to
set and modify these threshold amounts from time to time upon prior
notice to market participants.
    \49\ As described above, the threshold amounts for the LULD
closing cross would be applied to the most recently expanded
reopening auction collar (if the trading pause was extended before
3:50 p.m.) or in the direction of trading that caused the trading
pause (if the trading pause was not extended before 3:50 p.m. or if
the trading pause occurred at or after 3:50 p.m.), whereas the
threshold amounts for the regular Nasdaq closing cross are applied
to both the Nasdaq best bid and Nasdaq best offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the proposed methodology for
determining the LULD closing cross price would reflect the proposed
benchmark prices and allow for similar experiences for those that
participate in the regular Nasdaq closing cross and the LULD closing
cross. In addition, the Commission believes that the proposed
methodology, including the proposed definitions of eligible interest
and imbalance and the proposed treatment of IO orders, are reasonably
designed to reflect market conditions leading up to the LULD closing
cross, including that there is no continuous trading in the security
and no Nasdaq best bid and offer based on continuous trading in the
security leading up to the cross, and the existence of any buy or sell
imbalance in the security leading up to the cross.
    Further, the Commission believes that the proposal to eliminate
extensions of the LULD closing cross past 4:00 p.m. would provide more
certainty regarding the timing of the LULD closing cross and align that
timing with the regular Nasdaq closing cross. The Commission also
believes that the proposed timing for entering, modifying, and
cancelling MOC, LOC, and IO orders for the LULD closing cross would
allow additional interest to participate in the cross and further align
the LULD closing cross process with the regular Nasdaq closing cross
process with respect to these orders.
    Finally, the Commission believes that the proposal to specify the
dissemination of EOII would provide transparency regarding the
information that is disseminated in advance of the LULD closing
cross.\50\ Similarly, the Commission believes that the proposal to
specify that the LULD closing cross only applies to Nasdaq-listed
securities and clarify that the LULD closing cross applies when a
trading pause exists (rather than is triggered) at or after 3:50 p.m.
and before 4:00 p.m. would provide greater transparency regarding the
LULD closing cross process. The Commission also believes that updating
obsolete cross references in Rules 4756(c)(3)(B) and 4763(b) would
provide greater clarity in the Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The Commission also believes that the proposed differences
between the near clearing price and reference price, and the far
clearing price, would reflect the addition of benchmark prices to
the LULD closing cross.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule
Change

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 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-NASDAQ-2021-009 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-NASDAQ-2021-009. 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-NASDAQ-2021-009, and should be submitted
on or before June 24, 2021.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No.
1 in the Federal Register. As discussed above, in Amendment No. 1, the
Exchange specified the dissemination of certain imbalance information
before the LULD closing cross, clarified the process for calculating
the LULD closing cross price and the benchmark prices, specified the
treatment of IO orders for purposes of LULD closing cross price
selection, provided additional explanation to support the proposal,
specified the implementation date for the proposal, and made other
clarifying, technical, and conforming changes. The Commission believes
that the changes made in Amendment No. 1 do not raise any material or
novel regulatory issues and they provide further clarity to and
consistency within the proposal. Accordingly, the Commission finds good
cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\51\ to approve the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\52\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2021-009), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11693 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 11459-11462]
[DOCID:fr03mr08-108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0038]

Notice and Request for Information and Comment on Development and
Application of Crash Warning Interface Metrics

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for information and comment on development
and application of crash warning interface metrics.

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

SUMMARY: During the NHTSA-led Human Factors Forum on Advanced Vehicle
Safety Technologies in early 2007, participants from the automobile
industry, government, and academia gathered to discuss the research
necessary to ensure that future design and operation of these
technologies are developed with an understanding of the driver's
ability to use them. Underlying this objective is a requirement to have
techniques and metrics to quantify how well drivers can use and benefit
from the technologies. Without common, reliable, and safety-related
metrics, it is difficult to develop, evaluate, and compare different
systems as well as to determine the impact of non-standardized warning
interfaces.
    To address this issue, NHTSA is initiating a program to develop a
set of standard metrics and test procedures to assess the Driver-
Vehicle Interface (DVI) of Advanced Crash Warning Systems (ACWS). ACWS
are technologies to assist drivers who may be unaware of impending
collisions by alerting them of potential threats. Examples include
forward collision warnings, lane departure warnings, and road departure
warnings. The DVI is the means by which ACWS communicate with drivers
to help them avoid a threat. In order for ACWS to achieve their
intended safety benefits, drivers need to be able to quickly understand
the ACWS threat information and respond appropriately without
confusion. The warning timing, reliability, warning modes, device
controls, and displays are examples of the DVI characteristics that can
affect the ability of drivers to achieve the intended safety benefits
without possible adverse consequences. Crash Warning Interface Metrics
(CWIM) are derived from tests of drivers' performance using ACWS,
indicating the compatibility of the DVI with drivers' capabilities and
needs.
    This notice invites comments, suggestions, and recommendations from
all individuals and organizations that have an interest in the
development and use of Crash Warning Interface Metrics. NHTSA requests
comments to assist the agency in identifying, evaluating, and selecting
CWIM and associated test methods for assessing the role of the DVI in
influencing driver performance with ACWS.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than April 17, 2008. Late
comments may be considered.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2007-0038 by any of the following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
wwww.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of 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).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Traube, Office of Human Vehicle
Performance Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone number:
202-366-5673; E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: One recent development in vehicle safety
technology has been the introduction of Advanced Crash Warning Systems
(ACWS). These systems alert drivers about emerging hazardous situations
using auditory, visual, or haptic warnings. In some cases, limited
vehicle control action, such as braking or steering, are initiated to
alert drivers to respond. Systems that do not warn or provide some type
of feedback to the driver would not be considered ACWS. Examples of
ACWS include (but are not limited to) road departure warnings, lane
change (blind spot) warnings, adaptive cruise control, curve speed
warnings, and forward collision warnings.
    While the implementation of ACWS in production vehicles appears to
be increasing, the question remains as to whether ACWS will produce
significant safety improvements or will introduce unforeseen problems,
particularly if drivers are unfamiliar with ACWS warnings. The NHTSA-
sponsored Human Factors Forum on Advanced Vehicle Safety Technologies
was held in 2007 to begin to address this issue.
    A key to ACWS effectiveness is the quality of its interface, which
can affect the driver's performance as well as acceptance of the
technology. The interface of an ACWS consists of the controls that
drivers use to adjust the system operation and any visual, auditory, or
haptic warnings as well as operational cues that can influence driver
actions. Whether drivers will be able to effectively utilize this
feedback to avoid crashes may be determined through tests that measure
various aspects of driver/vehicle response, such as brake reaction
time, gas pedal release time, brake force, threat recognition, response
appropriateness, eye glance behaviors, etc. Because different
manufacturers employ different test protocols, measures, and criteria
to determine the design of the Driver-Vehicle Interface (DVI), a
variety of interfaces have been proposed and in some cases deployed in
production vehicles.
    The Forum's focus on driver centered design highlighted the
importance of these issues. Attendees stressed that future research
should determine how to assess if drivers understand the system, if the
system leads to appropriate driver reactions, and if drivers accept the
new systems. Other discussion focused on the unintended consequences--
understanding how inadequate mental models may affect safety and how
design can strengthen those models. In addition, discussion addressed
research needs related to integration of interfaces when several
warning systems are installed. Other topics included the question of
designing interfaces compatible with the capabilities of the majority
of the driving population and compatible with each other. The later is
where the topic of interface standardization was addressed as an
approach to minimize driver confusion.
    Without a meaningful basis for evaluating the driver/vehicle
interface, the research topics suggested at the Forum would be
difficult to resolve. In order to better evaluate and compare different
ACWS interfaces, NHTSA has initiated a major research effort to develop
human factors test protocols and related metrics of driver/system
performance that will form the basis for a set of crash warning
interface metrics (CWIM). The development of CWIM will benefit public
safety by helping to identify effective ACWS. Secondly, CWIM will help
to assess the whether lack of standardization of ACWS interface
characteristics could confuse drivers and compromise system
effectiveness. The issues of standardization and CWIM are interrelated
because without metrics, the effects of non-standardized DVIs on driver
performance cannot be objectively assessed. In addition, NHTSA may use
results from the CWIM project to enhance test procedures developed
under the Advanced Crash Avoidance Technology program and other ongoing
activities.
    NHTSA requests comments to assist the agency in identifying,
evaluating, and selecting CWIM and associated test methods for
assessing the role of the DVI in influencing driver performance with
ACWS. The agency is interested in comments related to both the
scientific merit of different metrics as well as the practical or
institutional considerations for end users of CWIM.
    While the research effort is making use of published research,
guidelines, standards, and other materials, it will benefit greatly
from the experience and opinion of various stakeholder groups, who face
related issues. Therefore, we hope to receive comments that will
reflect lessons learned, new ideas and approaches, criteria for optimal
methods, practical concerns in application, and other information
unlikely to be reflected in published literature. Responses to this
notice may also help to provide greater consistency with current
practice and assure maximum usefulness.
    The following are some of the key issues that the agency would like
commenters to address. In addition to general comments, the agency
requests submission of documents, studies, test protocols, or
references relevant to the issues.

A. Potential Measures and Procedures

    (A1) What techniques, metrics, and criteria are now being used by
vehicle manufacturers for developing and evaluating the human factor
aspects of interface design and operation of ACWS at various stages of
product development? What tools and environments (e.g. simulators, test

tracks, etc.) are used to evaluate DVIs? Are there ``lessons learned''
regarding their use, practicality, or acceptance? What measures and
procedures are the most predictive of relevant safety parameters?
    (A2) To what extent are DVI assessment techniques shared industry-
wide and to what extent are these methods proprietary? What performance
requirements, standards or guidance documents have been used by vehicle
manufacturers and/or system suppliers to address the human factors
aspects of the design and evaluation of CWIM for ACWS? Are they
helpful? What are their limitations?
    (A3) If various functions (e.g., Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC),
Frontal Crash Warning (FCW), Lane Departure Warning (LDW)) are packaged
together as an integrated in-vehicle system, can CWIM be applied
individually to each function or is there a need to treat each function
in the context of the other functions present as well as other aspects
of vehicle design? How can or should this be done? Are there common
metrics and protocols that can be used to assess several ACWS?

B. Evaluation of CWIM

    (B1) What criteria should be used to determine the most sensitive,
reliable, relevant, and useful metrics?
    (B2) If consumers are annoyed or otherwise dislike the system, they
may turn it off or not purchase it. How should consumer acceptance or
driver annoyance be evaluated with respect to their influence on system
effectiveness?
    (B3) Driver response to ACWS can vary from person to person. Even
the same person can vary in performance depending on their state of
mind, e.g., drowsy or distracted. What subsets of the population need
to be included in developing criteria for CWIM? How should their needs
and capabilities be integrated into the assessment?
    (B4) What type of evaluation of the DVI is being done or should be
done to follow up on driver performance with production systems and its
implication for the validity of CWIM?

C. Applying CWIM

    (C1) CWIM may be used by suppliers, vehicle manufacturers, and the
Government to design, evaluate, and compare usability and potential
safety implications of ACWS. However, protocols that are too
complicated or costly may be difficult to implement. Protocols that are
perceived as invalid or not sensitive to different characteristics of
interface design may not be used. What are the practical considerations
that need to be factored into the development of metrics and related
test protocols to make them useful and also acceptable to those who
must apply the methods? What factors should be considered in the choice
of test equipment (e.g., simulators, test tracks, vehicle
instrumentation) needed to collect driver data?
    (C2) As the number of ACWS increases in the vehicle fleet, the lack
of standardization of the DVI among different vehicle makes and models
may increase the likelihood of driver confusion in responding to the
warning information intended to assist the driver. This lack of
standardized design and operation of ACWS may reduce the safety
benefits of these technologies. What mechanism (e.g., voluntary
standards promulgated by SAE, ISO, or NHTSA or mandatory standards set
forth in the FMVSS, etc.) should be used to standardize CWIM? How can
standardization be balanced against restricting innovation? What test
procedures and metrics can be applied to objectively evaluate the need
for standardization? What criteria should be used to judge the need for
standardization?
    (C3) How should the criteria for acceptability be determined; that
is, what determines if a DVI is ``good enough''? Also, how should the
metrics be calibrated to determine if differences between measured
values are of practical significance?

D. Research Needs

    (D1) What research or other steps are required to identify CWIM and
establish their validity as a basis for assessment?
    (D2) What is the best way to encourage and coordinate international
harmonized research on CWIM?

Public Participation

A. How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR
553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary
comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.

B. How can I be sure my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.

C. How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission,
including the information you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
    In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information to Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES, or submit them electronically
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

D. Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date.

E. How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the Docket Management at the
address given under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated
above in the same location. To read the comments on the Internet, go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information on the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.

    Issued on February 26, 2008.
Joseph N. Kanianthra,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
 [FR Doc. E8-4004 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-69-P


Docket Index Table of Contents
A.	U.S. EPA Guidance Documents, Policies, and Rulemakings	1
B.	State Plans, Support Documents, Reports, and Correspondence	2
C.	Additional Documents for Proposed Rulemaking	2
D.	Notice of Proposed Rulemaking	3
E.	Public Comments and Related Documents	3
F.	Additional Documents for Final Rulemaking	3
G.	Notice of Final Rulemaking	3

    U.S. EPA Guidance Documents, Policies, and Rulemakings

    "National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter," Final rule. 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997).
    U.S. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No. EPA/600/P - 99/002aF and EPA/600/P - 99/002bF, October 2004
    "National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter," Final rule. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006).
    "Air Quality Designations for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards," Final rule. 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).
    "National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter," Final rule. 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
    "Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS," Final rule. 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014).
    "Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; South Coast; Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS," Final rule. 81 FR 1514 (January 13, 2016).
    "Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements," Final rule. 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016).
    "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Serious Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS," Final rule. 84 FR 3305 (February 12, 2019).
    "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan and Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS." Pre-publication copy, signed June 5, 2020.
    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan and Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS," Proposed rule. 85 FR 40026 (July 2, 2020).

    State Plans, Support Documents, Reports, and Correspondence
    Letter dated April 27, 2017, from Richard Corey, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, EPA.
    "Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (March 2017)," adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017; submitted to the EPA on April 27, 2017.
    "Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan (March 2017)" California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board; submitted to the EPA on April 27, 2017.
    Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, Environmental Department, 2018 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan, July 1, 2018.
    South Coast Air Quality Management District "Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan," July 1, 2019, including letter dated June 26, 2019, from Rene M. Bermudez, SCAQMD, to Jennifer Williams, EPA Region IX..
    Letter dated April 29, 2020, from Kelcey Stricker, Environmental Director, Pechanga, to Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, certifying calendar year 2019 ambient air quality data and quality assurance data.
    Letter dated April 30, 2020, from Jason Low, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, Science and Technology Advancement, SCAQMD, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, certifying calendar year 2019 ambient air quality data and quality assurance data.

    Additional Documents for Proposed Rulemaking
    Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, Presidential Executive Order 13175. 65 FR 67249 (November 9, 2000).
    Letter dated October 29, 2018, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, EPA Region IX, Air Quality Analysis Office, to Kelcey Stricker, Environmental Director, Pechanga Environmental Department, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians.
    Letter dated October 29, 2019, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, EPA Region IX, Air Quality Analysis Office, to Matt Miyasato, Deputy Executive Officer, Science and Technology Advancement, SCAQMD.
    Letter dated May 22, 2020, from Elizabeth Adams, Air and Radiation Division Director, EPA Region IX, to Danial Salgado, Tribal Chairman, Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians of the Cahuilla Reservation.
    Letter dated May 22, 2020, from Elizabeth Adams, Air and Radiation Division Director, EPA Region IX, to Mark A. Macarro, Tribal Chairman, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation.
    Letter dated May 22, 2020, from Elizabeth Adams, Air and Radiation Division Director, EPA Region IX, to Ken Ramirez, Tribal Chairperson, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.
    Letter dated May 22, 2020, from Elizabeth Adams, Air and Radiation Division Director, EPA Region IX, to Joseph Hamilton, Tribal Chairman, Ramona Band of Cahuilla.
    Letter dated May 22, 2020, from Elizabeth Adams, Air and Radiation Division Director, EPA Region IX, to Robert Martin, Tribal Chairman, Morongo Band of Mission Indians.
    Letter dated May 22, 2020, from Elizabeth Adams, Air and Radiation Division Director, EPA Region IX, to Isaiah Vivanco, Tribal Chairman, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.
    EPA, AQS Design Value Report (AMP480), Report Request ID: 1846500, June 3, 2020.
    EPA, AQS Raw Data Qualifier Report (AMP360), Report Request ID: 1846503, June 3, 2020.
    EPA, AQS Design Value Report (AMP480), Report Request ID: 1846520, June 3, 2020.
    "Supplemental Technical Support for State and Tribal Air Quality 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) Designations," Chapter 1, "Introduction," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  October 2009.
 "Technical Support for State and Tribal Air Quality 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) Designations," Chapter 7, "Santa Rosa Band of Mountain Cahuilla Indians Technical Support Document."

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    "Finding of Failure to Attain the 2006 24-hour Fine Particulate Matter Standards; California; Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin," Proposed rule. Published July 10, 2020.

    Public Comments and Related Documents
    Reserved.

    Additional Documents for Final Rulemaking
    Reserved.

    Notice of Final Rulemaking
    Reserved.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 204 (Friday, October 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72799-72800]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25515]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-2179-032.
    Applicants: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2756-006; ER10-2757-006.
    Applicants: Arlington Valley, LLC, Griffith Energy LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 30, 2016 Triennial Market Power
Update for the Southwest Region of Arlington Valley, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1641-003; ER15-1045-003.
    Applicants: Chestnut Flats Lessee, LLC, Pilot Hill Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Chestnut
Flats Lessee, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2589-000.
    Applicants: CPV Shore, LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-896-001; ER16-899-001.
    Applicants: Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
    Description: Notification of Completion of Transaction and
Effective Date of Cancellation of Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.,
et al.
    Filed Date: 9/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160929-5203.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1483-004.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-10-17 Compliance Filing with
Sept. 16 Order Frequency Response to be effective 8/15/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2643-001.
    Applicants: Panda Stonewall LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Market-Based Rate
Application to be effective 11/21/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-116-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017 Capital Budget and
Revised Tariff Sheets for Recovery of 2017 Admin. Costs to be effective
1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-117-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Wisconsin Electric--UMERC
Formula Rate Service Agreement No 3 to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-118-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: WPS Corp Filing of Rate
Schedule No. 94 for Wholesale Distribution Service to be effective 1/1/
2017.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-119-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: WPS Corp Filing of Service
Agreement No. 12 under its Rate Schedule W-1A to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-120-000.
    Applicants: Upper Michigan Energy Resources Corporation.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: UMERC to Wisconsin Electric
Rate Schedule No. 1 to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-121-000.
    Applicants: Upper Michigan Energy Resources Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: UMERC to Wisconsin Public
Service Rate Schedule No. 2 to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-122-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits Third Quarter 2016
Capital Budget Report.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-123-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Queue Position AA1-121,
Original Service Agreement No. 4565 to be effective 9/15/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-124-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order 819 Compliance Filing to be
effective 2/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-125-000.
    Applicants: UniSource Energy Development Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 819 Compliance Filing to
be effective 2/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-126-000.
    Applicants: UNS Electric, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 819 Compliance Filing to
be effective 2/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-127-000.
    Applicants: Portal Ridge Solar B, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SFA and CTA Agreement to be
effective 11/4/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-128-000.
    Applicants: Portal Ridge Solar C, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SFA Concurrence filing to be
effective 11/4/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-129-000.
    Applicants: Portal Ridge Solar C, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: CTA Concurrence filing to be
effective 11/4/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-130-000.
    Applicants: Northampton Generating Company, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Northampton Generating Co.
Change in Status supplemental filing--Clone to be effective 9/16/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

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

    Dated: October 17, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25515 Filed 10-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 47999]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Intent To Release Airport Property

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on request to release airport property
for non-aeronautical use; Kenai Municipal Airport (ENA), Kenai, Alaska

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
release of airport property at the Kenai Municipal Airport, Kenai,
Alaska.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 11, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA
Anchorage Airports Regional Office, Molly Lamrouex, Compliance Manager,
222 W 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/Fax: (907)
271-2851 and the Kenai Municipal Airport, Mary Bondurant, Airport
Manager, 305 N Willow Street, Suite 200, Kenai, Alaska 99611.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or
mailed to: Molly Lamrouex, Compliance Manager, Federal Aviation
Administration, Airports Anchorage Regional Office, 222 W. 7th Avenue,
Anchorage AK 99513, Telephone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>/FAX Number: (907)
271-2851.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Molly Lamrouex, Compliance Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Alaskan Region Airports District
Office, 222 W 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99513. Telephone Number: (907)
271-5439/FAX Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to either sell in fee, or release the aeronautical use only
grant provision, for Lots 1 through 19, inclusive, located in the Kenai
Industrial Park Subdivision under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.
47107(h)(2). This release includes up to 37 acres located south of
Marathon Road at the Kenai Airport. The FAA has determined that the
release of the property will not adversely affect future aviation needs
at the Airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part,
no sooner than 30 days after the publication of this notice.
    The disposition of proceeds from the non-aeronautical use of the
airport property will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures
Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal
Register on February 16, 1999 (64 FR 7696).

    Issued in Anchorage, Alaska, on September 5, 2019.
Patrick J. Zettler,
Acting Director, Alaskan Airports Regional Office, FAA, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 2019-19599 Filed 9-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


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

EPA Registration Division contact:
Hope Johnson<PHONE_NUMBER>

OAT AGRIO CO., LTD.
EPA Company No. 11581

PP 5F8408

	EPA has received a pesticide petition 5F8408 from OAT AGRIO CO., LTD., 1-3-1 Kanda Ogawa-machi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0052, Japan proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of Flutianil, (Z)-2-[2-fluoro-5-(trifluoromethyl)phenylthio]-2-[3-(2-methoxyphenyl)-1,3-thiazolidin-2-ylidene]acetonitrile, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on apple at 0.15 ppm, apple, wet pomace at 0.30 ppm, cantaloupe at 0.07 ppm, cherry at 0.40 ppm, cucumber at 0.20 ppm, grape at 0.70 ppm, squash at 0.05 ppm, and strawberry at 0.50 ppm and to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for indirect or inadvertent residues of flutianil, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on all food commodities that do not have tolerances. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A.	Residue Chemistry

 Plant metabolism.

The plant metabolism of flutianil is adequately understood in four diverse crops: apple, cucumber, grape and lettuce. The parent compound, flutianil, accounted for the majority of residues extracted in all crops. The metabolism of flutianil in plants is understood for the purposes of the proposed tolerances.

 Analytical method.

The following analytical method was used for apple, cantaloupe, cherry, cucumber, squash and strawberry samples:  residues were extracted with acetonitrile/water solution and the aqueous sample was cleaned up by liquid/liquid partition with hexane. The organic phase was concentrated and further cleaned up using a silica gel column. Quantitation was achieved by GC/MSD in selective ion monitoring mode.

The lowest level of method validation (LLMV) in the apple study was 0.01 ppm. Based on recoveries of samples fortified at the LLMV, the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) were calculated as 0.001 ppm and 0.0037 ppm, respectively for the apple RAC, 0.002 ppm and 0.0046 ppm for apple juice, and as 0.0003 ppm and 0.00076 ppm, respectively, for apple wet pomace.

The LLMV in the cantaloupe study was 0.010 ppm. Based on recoveries of samples fortified at the LLMV, the LOD and LOQ were calculated as 0.001 ppm and 0.0038 ppm, respectively.

For the cherry study, the LLMV was 0.010 ppm.

Based on recoveries of samples fortified at the LLMV, the LOD and LOQ were calculated as 0.0009 ppm and 0.0027 ppm, respectively in the cucumber study. The LLMV in the cucumber study was 0.01 ppm.

In the squash study, the LLMV in this study was 0.01 ppm. Based on recoveries of samples fortified at the LLMV, LOD and LOQ were calculated as 0.001 ppm and 0.0030 ppm, respectively.

The LOD was determined to be 0.0025 ppm for strawberry, and the LOQ was 0.0076 ppm. The LLMV was 0.010 ppm for strawberry.

In the grape RAC and PC study, the analytical method was as follows:  flutianil residues were analyzed and quantified in grapes, grape juice and raisins by gas chromatography after extraction and cleanup. Flutianil metabolite OC-56635 residues were analyzed and quantified in grapes, grape juice and raisins by high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectral detection (LCMS/MS). A LOQ of 0.01 mg/kg was determined for flutianil and OC-56635 in grapes and grape juice. A LOQ of 0.10 mg/kg was determined for flutianil and OC-56635 in raisins. The limit of detection was set at 30% of the LOQ.

 Magnitude of residues.

Apple

Foliar applications of flutianil (V-10118, a 5EC formulation) at a rate of approximately 0.04 lb ai/A each were made 4 times (~7 day retreatment interval), for a total of approximately 0.16 lb ai/A in the apple magnitude of residues study. The results from the trials show that the maximum residues in/on apple were 0.095 ppm. V-10118 was also applied at 5X the application rate (approximately 0.2 lb ai/A) at three sites to provide apples for processing into juice and wet pomace. The results from the trials show that the maximum residues in/on apple juice to be 0.016 ppm and wet pomace to be 1 ppm.

Cantaloupe

For cantaloupes, foliar applications of V-10118 at a rate of approximately 0.04 lb ai/A each were made 5 times (~7 day retreatment interval), for a total of approximately 0.20 lb ai/A.  The results from the trials show that the maximum residues in/on cantaloupe were 0.042 ppm.

Cherry

Foliar applications of V-10118 at a rate of approximately 0.04 lb ai/A each were made 4 times (~7 day retreatment interval), for a total of approximately 0.16 lb ai/A for cherry.  Five applications were made at the Washington site for a total of approximately 0.20 lb ai/A due to a delay in crop maturity. The results from the trials show that the maximum residues in/on cherry were 0.26 ppm.

Cucumber

For cucumbers, six trials were conducted in the field and two trials were conducted in the greenhouse.  Foliar applications of V-10118 at a rate of approximately 0.04 lb ai/A each were made 5 times (~7 day retreatment interval), for a total of approximately 0.20 lb ai/A. The maximum residues in/on cucumber were 0.014 ppm.

Grape

Foliar applications of flutianil at a rate of approximately 0.09 lb ai/ha each were made 5 times (~7 day retreatment interval), for a total of approximately 0.49 lb ai/ha in the grape residue study.  Flutianil residues in treated grape samples ranged from <LOQ to 0.4977 ppm. OC-56635 residues in treated grape samples ranged from <LOQ to 0.0536 ppm.  For grape raisins and juice, flutianil was also applied at 5X the application rate (approximately 0.49 lb ai/ha per application) at one site to provide grapes for processing into juice and raisins.    Flutianil residues in grape juice were found with a maximum residue of 0.2059 ppm. Flutianil residues in raisins were found with a maximum residue of 0.2993 ppm.   OC-56635 residues in grape juice were found with a maximum residue of 0.0187 ppm.  OC-56635 residues in raisins were found with a maximum residue of <LOQ.

Squash

For squash (summer), the trials were conducted foliar applications of V-10118 at a rate of approximately 0.04 lb ai/A each were made 5 times (~7 day retreatment interval), for a total of approximately 0.20 lb ai/A.  The results from the trials show that the maximum residue in/on summer squash is 0.021 ppm.

Strawberry

For strawberries, trials foliar applications of V-10118 at a rate of approximately 0.04 lb ai/A each were made 5 times (~7 day retreatment interval), for a total of approximately 0.20 lb ai/A.
At the Florida trial, one additional application was needed to allow the fruit to ripen for a total of approximately 0.24 lb ai/A.  At the Colorado trial, two additional applications were needed to obtain fruit for harvest for a total of approximately 0.28 lb ai/A. The results from the trials show that the maximum residues in/on strawberry were 0.24 ppm.

B. Toxicological Profile

      1. Acute toxicity.

Technical flutianil shows low acute toxicity (Toxicity Category IV) via the oral, dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. Flutianil has a very low acute oral (LD50: >5,000 mg/kg bw), dermal (LD50: >5,000 mg/kg bw) and inhalation toxicity (LC50: >5.17 mg/L air) in male and female rats. Flutianil shows no irritation to the eye or skin and shows no skin sensitization potential under the conditions of the guinea pig maximization test. There were no acute neurotoxicity concerns.

      2. Genotoxicity.

Flutianil was tested for its genotoxic potential in a battery of four in vitro or in vivo studies covering all required end-points (gene mutations, chromosomal aberrations). There was no evidence of genotoxicity.

      3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.

Flutianil shows no evidence of primary developmental or reproductive effects. In the prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and in the two-generation reproduction study in rats, neither fetal toxicity nor maternal toxicity was present. There was no evidence to suggest that Flutianil possessed a teratogenic potential in either species.

      4. Subchronic toxicity.

The subchronic toxicity of Flutianil was investigated in 90-day toxicity studies via the oral route in mouse, rat and dog and via inhalation and dermal routes in 28-day toxicity studies in the rat. Rats, dogs, and mice tolerated the chemical in excess of the limit dose without mortalities or clinical signs.  The NOAEL for oral studies were 10000 ppm (1387 mg/kg), 20000 ppm (1271 mg/kg/ bw for males and 1500 mg/kg/bw for females), and 1000 mg/kg in the mouse, rat and dog respectively.  A LOAEL was not established for mice, rats or dogs. The NOAEL in the rat for dermal exposure was >1000 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested). The NOAEL for inhalation was 14.4 mg/kg (100 mg/m[3]).

      5. Chronic toxicity.

The chronic toxicity of Flutianil was evaluated in the dog, rat, and mouse. Oncogenic potential was evaluated in rats and mice. The NOAEL from the one-year feeding study in the dog was 1000 mg/kg bw/day, the highest dose tested. In a combined chronic/carcinogenicity rat study, the NOAEL in males rats was 6000 ppm (249 mg/kg), the highest dose evaluated.  The NOAEL in female rats in the combined study was 20000 ppm (1130 mg/kg/day), the highest dose tested. The LOAEL was not established for either sex. The NOAEL in the oncogenic mouse study was 10000 ppm (1084 mg/kg/day for males and 1063 mg/kg bw/day for females), the highest dose tested.  No flutianil induced carcinogenicity was observed. Flutianil is not likely to be carcinogenic, based on rat and mouse bioassays as well as negative in vivo and in vitro mutagenic effects.

      6. Animal metabolism.

The elimination of flutianil was very rapid with over 90% being eliminated in the first 24 hours with little absorbed material.  Absorption of [[14]C]-flutianil was low and biotransformation of absorbed radioactivity was rapid, giving rise to an extensive range and number of metabolites. The number and nature of metabolites and difference in radio-profiles for animals dosed with [trifluoromethyl-[14]C] and [2-methoxyphenyl-U-[14]C] labelled flutianil suggested that cleavage of the molecule was a significant process in the metabolic pathway.  This was observed in both the rat and goat metabolism studies.

      7. Metabolite toxicology.

One major soil metabolite was evaluated in a 28-day study which showed a NOAEL of 1380 mg/kg, which was similar to parent flutianil.  Mutagenicity testing (in vitro bacterial reverse mutation and mouse lymphoma gene mutation and in vivo mouse micronucleus) was conducted with three major metabolites and all were negative. None of the studies or assessments showed any toxicity of the metabolite greater than the parent, flutianil.

      8. Endocrine disruption.

The toxicology database for Flutianil is current and complete. There is no evidence that flutianil has any effect on endocrine organs or function in subchronic, chronic, carcinogenicity, developmental, reproductive or developmental neurotoxicity studies.  Furthermore, histological investigation of endocrine organs in chronic dog, rat and mouse studies did not indicate that the endocrine system is targeted by flutianil.

      9. Immunotoxicity.

Flutianil was evaluated in a 28-day dietary immunotoxicity study.  The NOAEL was greater than 13000 ppm (1251 mg/kg/day).  There was no effect on immune function.

B.	Toxicological Endpoints

The toxicological database for flutianil is complete for risk assessment. No single or repeated dose study conducted by any route of exposure (oral, dermal or inhalation) produced an adverse effect following flutianil exposure below, at, or above the limit dose (1000 mg/kg/day).  In addition, there was no evidence that flutianil produced susceptibility in fetuses or pups with prenatal or postnatal exposures. Flutianil is not carcinogenic based on the carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice and does not cause genotoxicity. Based on the toxicological studies for flutianil, no toxicological endpoints of concern or points of departure were selected for dietary (acute or chronic) or non-dietary (oral, dermal or inhalation route for any duration of exposure (short, intermediate or long term)) risk assessment. As a result, no dietary, occupational, residential, or aggregate quantitative risk assessments were conducted. Therefore, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor to protect children is not needed.

C.	Exposure Assessment

	1. 	Dietary Exposure
There is a potential for exposure to flutianil via food and drinking water based on the proposed uses; however, no adverse effects were observed in the toxicological studies for flutianil based on the route of exposure. No dietary exposure assessments are needed for the EPA to conclude with reasonable certainty that dietary exposures to flutianil do not pose a significant human health risk.

	a.	Acute exposure

Acute dietary risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one day or single exposure. No toxicological endpoint attributable to a single (acute) dietary exposure was identified; therefore, an acute risk assessment was not performed.

	b.	Chronic exposure

Chronic dietary risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of prolonged or repeated exposure. Since no repeated dose study conducted by any route of exposure (oral, dermal or inhalation) produced an adverse effect following flutianil exposure below, at, or above the limit dose (1000 mg/kg/day), a chronic risk assessment was not performed. No toxicological endpoints of concern or points of departure were selected for chronic dietary assessment.

	c.	Cancer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flutianil is not carcinogenic based on the carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice and does not cause genotoxicity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      	2.	Non-dietary exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	a.	Occupational exposure

Flutianil is formulated a 5% emulsifiable concentrate to be applied to strawberry, cantaloupe, cucumber, summer squash, apple, cherry, and grape using groundboom or airblast spray equipment. Based on the toxicological studies for flutianil, no toxicological endpoints of concern or points of departure were selected for non-dietary [oral, dermal or inhalation route for any duration of exposure (short, intermediate or long term)] risk assessment. As a result, no occupational risk assessments were conducted.

	b.	Residential (Non-occupational) exposure and risk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the toxicological studies for flutianil, no toxicological endpoints of concern or points of departure were selected for non-dietary [oral, dermal or inhalation route for any duration of exposure (short, intermediate or long term)] risk assessment. As a result, no residential risk assessments were conducted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.  	Cumulative Effects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity: Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the 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."

Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to flutianil and any other substances, and flutianil does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. Therefore for the purposes of this tolerance action, EPA has not assumed that flutianil has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. 	Safety Factor for Infants and Children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In general, Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional ten-fold 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 that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a MOE analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans.

Prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rabbits and rats showed no qualitative/qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility in offspring.  The 2-generation reproduction study in rats did not show evidence of qualitative/qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility in offspring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The toxicological database for flutianil is complete for risk assessment. No single or repeated dose study conducted by any route of exposure (oral, dermal or inhalation) produced an adverse effect following flutianil exposure below, at, or above the limit dose (1000 mg/kg/day).  In addition, there was no evidence that flutianil produced susceptibility in fetuses or pups with prenatal or postnatal exposures. Based on the toxicological studies for flutianil, no toxicological endpoints of concern or points of departure were selected for risk assessment. A quantitative human health risk assessment was not conducted. Therefore, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor to protect children is not needed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. 	Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed uses are the first uses proposed for flutianil in the United States.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Acute risk
An acute risk assessment was not performed. No toxicological endpoint attributable to a single (acute) dietary exposure was identified. Therefore, acute risk from flutianil exposure to is not expected.

 Chronic risk

A chronic risk assessment was not performed. No toxicological endpoint attributable to a prolonged or repeated dietary exposure was identified. Therefore, chronic risk from flutianil exposure to is not expected.

 Short-term risk

Based on the toxicological studies for flutianil, no toxicological endpoints of concern or points of departure were selected for non-dietary (oral, dermal or inhalation route) for short-term risk assessment.

 Intermediate-term risk

Based on the toxicological studies for flutianil, no toxicological endpoints of concern or points of departure were selected for non-dietary (oral, dermal or inhalation route) for intermediate-term risk assessment.

Cancer risk

Flutianil is not expected to pose a cancer risk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Determination of safety
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since no toxicological endpoints of concern or points of departure were selected for risk assessment. A quantitative human health risk assessment was not conducted. Therefore, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor to protect children is not needed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.	 International Tolerances

Tolerances have been established in Japan for the following crops:  eggplant (0.2 ppm), cucumber (including gherkin (0.2 ppm)), pumpkin (including squash (0.05 ppm)), watermelon (0.05 ppm), melons (0.05 ppm) and strawberry (0.5 ppm).  Tolerances have been established in Korea for the following crops:  green and red pepper (0.5 ppm), strawberry (0.3 ppm), melon (0.05 ppm), watermelon (0.05 ppm), cucumber (0.05 ppm), Korean melon (0.05 ppm) and sweet pepper (0.5 ppm).


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2158-2159]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00445]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0137]

Entry-Level Driver Training: National Ground Water Association;
Application for Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny the exemption request
from the National Ground Water Association (NGWA). NGWA sought an
exemption from the entry-level driver training (ELDT) regulations ``for
individuals operating class B ground water well drilling rigs.'' FMCSA
analyzed the exemption application and public comments and determined
that the exemption would not achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket
number ``FMCSA-2022-0137'' in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, click ``Browse Comments.''
    To view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in
the docket, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket number
``FMCSA-2022-0137'' in the keyword box, click ``Search,'' and chose the
document to review.
    If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202) 366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets Operations.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Background

Current Regulation Requirements

    The ELDT regulations, implemented on February 7, 2022 and set forth
in 49 CFR part 380, subparts F and G, establish minimum training
standards for individuals applying for certain commercial driver's
licenses (CDLs) and define curriculum standards for theory and behind-
the-wheel (BTW) training. They also established an online training
provider registry (TPR), eligibility requirements for providers to be
listed on the TPR, and requirements for ELDT instructors. Under 49 CFR
380.609(a), an individual who applies, for the first time, for a Class
A or Class B CDL, or who upgrades to a Class A or B CDL, must complete
driver training from a provider listed on the TPR, as set forth in
subpart G.

Applicant's Request

    NGWA states that it is the country's largest professional
association representing water well contractors, groundwater
scientists, and manufacturers and suppliers of groundwater technology.
NGWA seeks an exemption from the ELDT regulations ``for individuals
operating class B ground water well drilling rigs'' which transport
water well field equipment used to access ground water. NGWA states
that increasing demands for groundwater and private water wells, along
with labor and supply shortages, have contributed to delays in drilling
new water wells. NGWA believes that the exemption, if granted, would
allow ground water well drilling rig operators to receive on-the-job
training, which could save hundreds of hours each year for water well
contractors. NGWA asserts that, if the exemption was granted, on-the-
job ``safe driver'' training would be provided to drivers covered by
the exemption prior to ``taking their CDL exam.'' NGWA did not,
however, provide details regarding such training or how the training
would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level
of safety achieved by complying with the ELDT regulations.

IV. Public Comments

    On July 7, 2022, FMCSA published notice of this application and
requested public comments (87 FR 40581). The Agency received 18
comments: nine in support, eight in opposition, and one neutral. The
Owner-Operator Independent Driver's Association (OOIDA) and the AFL-
CIO/Transportation Trades Department (AFL-CIO/TTD) both strongly
opposed the exemption request, along with six other individuals/small
companies. OOIDA cited a number of reasons for its opposition,
including its participation as an industry stakeholder on the Entry-
Level Driver Training Advisory Committee when the ``framework'' of the
ELDT regulations were agreed upon. OOIDA believes this exemption could
allow individuals who drive Group B water well drilling rigs to drive
other types of Group B vehicles without sufficient knowledge of basic
commercial motor vehicle maneuvers, which would not result in an
equivalent level of safety. The AFL-CIO/TTD also opposed the request,
stating that there are alternatives that would ensure equivalent levels
of safety without

undermining the applicability of the ELDT requirements that are
designed to protect workers and the public.
    Nine commenters supported the request, including representatives
from the ground water well industry, such as the Florida Ground Water
Association and the Georgia Association of Ground Water Professionals.
Those filing in support primarily cited the shortage of CDL drivers in
their industry, and the fact that ground water well companies are, for
the most part, already conducting in-house driver training. They
further cited the added costs of the ELDT requirements, which they
assert discourage younger individuals from seeking and applying for a
CDL in their industry.

VI. Equivalent Level of Safety Analysis and Decision

    FMCSA denies the exemption. Although the NGWA stated that it would
provide on-the-job ``safe driver'' training to drivers covered by the
exemption prior to obtaining their CDL, NGWA did not provide any
details of that training or explain how such training would provide an
equivalent or greater level of safety as compliance with the existing
regulations, as required by 49 CFR 381.310(c)(5). FMCSA therefore has
no basis to conclude that the training would likely ensure an
equivalent or greater level of safety as would be achieved absent the
exemption, as required by statute (49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1)).
    For the above reasons, NGWA's exemption application is denied.

Robin Hutcheson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-00445 Filed 1-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P