[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 65 (Thursday, April 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20344-20345]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07816]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1300]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before July 3, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1300, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of

the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have
been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60
days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community Map Repository
               Community                             Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Solano County, California, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.r9map.org/Pages/ProjectDetailsPage.aspx?choLoco=48&choProj=285
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Vallejo........................  Public Works, 555 Santa Clara
                                          Street, Vallejo, CA 94590.
Unincorporated Areas of Solano County..  Public Works Department, 675
                                          Texas Street, Suite 5500,
                                          Fairfield, CA 94533.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Charlton County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.georgiadfirm.com/status/mapmodStatus.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Folkston.......................  City Hall, 103 North First
                                          Street, Folkston, GA 31537.
Town of Homeland.......................  Town Hall, 607 Pennsylvania
                                          Avenue, Homeland, GA 31537.
Unincorporated Areas of Charlton County  Charlton County Courthouse, 68
                                          Kingsland Drive, Folkston, GA
                                          31537.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-07816 Filed 4-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75524-75526]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30317]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63381; File No. SR-NYSEAMEX-2010-106]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Amex LLC Amending NYSE
Amex Equities Rule 5190 To Correspond With Rule Changes Filed by the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.

November 29, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on November 19, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the NYSE Amex. The Exchange
has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\4\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 5190 to
correspond with rule changes filed by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') and approved by the Commission. The text of
the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, NYSE Amex included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule changes is to amend NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 5190 (Notification Requirements for Offering
Participants) to correspond with rule changes filed by FINRA and
approved by the Commission.
    Background:
    On July 30, 2007, FINRA's predecessor, the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), and NYSE Regulation, Inc.
(``NYSER'') consolidated their member firm regulation operations into a
combined organization, FINRA. Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), NYSE, NYSER
and FINRA entered into an agreement (the ``Agreement'') to reduce
regulatory duplication for their members by allocating to FINRA certain
regulatory responsibilities for certain NYSE rules and rule
interpretations (``FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules''). NYSE Amex LLC
(``NYSE Amex'') became a party to the Agreement effective December 15,
2008.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56148 (July 26,
2007); 72 FR 42146 (Aug. 1, 2007) (order approving the Agreement),
56147 (July 26, 2007); 72 FR 42166 (Aug. 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-054)
(order approving the incorporation of certain NYSE Rules as ``Common
Rules''), and 60409 (July 30, 2009); 74 FR 39353 (Aug. 6, 2009)
(order approving the amended and restated Agreement, adding NYSE
Amex LLC as a party). Paragraph 2(b) of the Agreement sets forth
procedures regarding proposed changes by FINRA, NYSE, or NYSE Amex
to the substance of any of the Common Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its effort to reduce regulatory duplication and relieve
firms that are members of FINRA, NYSE, and NYSE Amex of conflicting or
unnecessary regulatory burdens, FINRA

is now engaged in the process of reviewing and amending the NASD and
FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules in order to create a consolidated FINRA
rulebook.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FINRA's rulebook currently has three sets of rules: (1) NASD
Rules, (2) FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules, and (3) consolidated FINRA
Rules. The FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to those members
of FINRA that are also members of the NYSE (``Dual Members''), while
the consolidated FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA members. For more
information about the FINRA rulebook consolidation process, see
FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Conforming Amendments to NYSE Amex Equities Rules:
    FINRA recently amended FINRA Rule 5190 to amend the notice
requirements applicable to distributions of securities that are
considered ``actively traded'' and thus are not subject to a restricted
period under Rule 101 of Regulation M.\8\ As approved, the substance of
the information that must be provided in the notice did not change,
only the timing of the notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62970 (Sept. 22,
2010); 75 FR 59771 (Sept. 28, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange previously adopted NYSE Amex Equities Rule 5190 to
harmonize the notification requirements for offering participants with
FINRA Rule 5190.\9\ In order to harmonize the NYSE Amex Equities Rules
with the approved FINRA Rules, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 5190 to conform to the recently approved amendments to
FINRA Rule 5190.\10\ Accordingly, the Exchange similarly proposes to
amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 5190(d) to provide that member
organizations will be required to provide a single notice under
subparagraphs (1) and (2) of Rule 5190(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59975 (May 26,
2009); 74 FR 26449 (June 2, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2009-26).
    \10\ NYSE has submitted a companion rule filing amending its
rules in accordance with FINRA's rule changes. See SR-NYSE-2010-73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and further the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that
they are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes support the
objectives of the Act by providing greater harmonization among NYSE
Rules, NYSE Amex Equities Rules, and FINRA Rules (including Common
Rules) of similar purpose, resulting in less burdensome and more
efficient regulatory compliance for Dual Members. To the extent the
Exchange has proposed changes that differ from the FINRA version of the
Rules, such changes are technical in nature and do not change the
substance of the proposed NYSE Amex Equities Rules.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\16\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission notes that
the proposed rule change would bring NYSE Amex Equity Rule 5190 into
harmony with FINRA Rule 5190. For this reason, the Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay \17\ is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within the 60-day period beginning on the date of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMEX-2010-106 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMEX-2010-106. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the

proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at http://www.nyse.com. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMEX-2010-106 and should be
submitted on or before December 27, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30317 Filed 12-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70942-70944]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24915]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0154]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending several permanent safety zones
located in the Captain of the Port San Francisco zone that are
established to protect public safety during annual firework displays.
These amendments are necessary to update listed events to accurately
reflect the firework display locations. This regulation prohibits the
movement of vessels within the established firework display areas
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco or a
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective November 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0154 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Christina Ramirez, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On April 19, 2016 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; San Francisco, CA, in the Federal
Register (81 FR 22946), to amend several permanent safety zones located
in the Captain of the Port San Francisco zone that are established to
protect public safety during annual firework displays. There we stated
why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory
action related to the amended fireworks safety zones. We received no
comments on the NPRM nor did we receive a request for public meeting. A
public meeting was not held.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the current outdated fireworks
locations, if not updated, pose safety concerns for event crew,
spectators, participants of the event, participating vessels, and other
users and vessels of the waterway.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published on
April 19, 2016. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this
rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule amends Table 1 in Sec.  165.1191 to update three events
to reflect the current event locations. These events are listed
numerically in Table 1 of this section: (7), (8), (22).

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of each safety zone. Vessel traffic
would be able to safely transit around each safety zone which would
impact a small designated area of the COTP San Francisco zone for less
than 1 hour during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low.
Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Local Notice to Mariner and
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the
zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the
zones.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety zones lasting less than 1 hour
that would prohibit entry within 1,000 feet of a fireworks barge.
Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1,
6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  165.1191, in Table 1 to Sec.  165.1191, revise items 7, 8,
and 22, to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1191  Northern California and Lake Tahoe Area Annual
Fireworks Events.

* * * * *

Table 1 to Sec.  165.1191

* * * * *

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               7. San Francisco Independence Day Fireworks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor......................  The City of San Francisco.
Event Description............  Fireworks Display.
Date.........................  July 4th.
Location 1...................  A barge located approximately 1000 feet
                                off San Francisco Pier 39 at
                                approximately 37[deg]48'49'' N.,
                                122[deg]24'46'' W.
Location 2...................  A barge located at the end of the San
                                Francisco Municipal Pier at Aquatic Park
                                at approximately 37[deg]48'39'' N.,
                                122[deg]25'37'' W.
Regulated Area 1.............  1. 100-foot radius around the fireworks
                                barge during the loading, transit,
                                setup, and until the commencement of the
                                scheduled display. Increases to a 1,000-
                                foot radius upon commencement of the
                                fireworks display.
Regulated Area 2.............  2. 100-foot radius around the fireworks
                                barge during the loading, transit,
                                setup, and until the commencement of the
                                scheduled display. Increases to a 1,000-
                                foot radius upon commencement of the
                                fireworks display.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              8. Fourth of July Fireworks, Berkeley Marina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor......................  Berkeley Marina.
Event Description............  Fireworks Display.
Date.........................  July 4th.
Location.....................  A barge located near Berkeley Pier at
                                approximately 37[deg]51'40'' N.,
                                122[deg] 19'19'' W.
Regulated Area...............  100-foot radius around the fireworks
                                barge during the loading, transit,
                                setup, and until the commencement of the
                                scheduled display. Increases to a 1,000-
                                foot radius upon commencement of the
                                fireworks display.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     22. Monte Foundation Fireworks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor......................  Monte Foundation Fireworks.

Event Description............  Fireworks Display.
Date.........................  Second Saturday in October.
Location.....................  Capitola Pier in Capitola, CA.
Regulated Area...............  1,000-foot safety zone around the
                                navigable waters of the Capitola Pier.

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

    Dated: September 15, 2016.
Anthony J. Ceraolo,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2016-24915 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 21221]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08444]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1564-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-04-07--MVP Triennial Review Compliance Filing to
be effective 6/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20140407-5284.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1548-001.
    Applicants: Copper Mountain Solar 3, LLC.
    Description: Copper Mountain Solar 3 LLC Market-Based Rates Tariff
Supplement to be effective 4/15/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/4/14.
    Accession Number: 20140404-5274.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1662-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Planning Reserve Agreement to be effective 6/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/4/14.
    Accession Number: 20140404-5289.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1663-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Amendment to CDWR's Comprehensive Agreement, South Bay
Removal to be effective 6/9/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20140407-5008.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1664-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: Filing of Supplement to FERC Elec Rate Sch No. 14 to
be effective 5/5/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20140407-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1665-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Exchange Inc.
    Description: NGX--New MBR Tariff to be effective 5/8/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20140407-5241.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1666-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Notices of Cancellation of SGIA DSA with County
Sanitation Dist No. 2 of LA Cty to be effective 4/4/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20140407-5242.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1667-000.
    Applicants: Hardee Power Partners Limited.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Switchyard Facility Sharing
Agreement of Hardee Power Partners Limited.
    Filed Date: 4/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20140407-5255.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/14.

    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: April 7, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08444 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1595 Wynkoop Street
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver, CO   80202-1129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.epa.gov/region8

Ref: 8ARD-PM

Luke Duncan, Chairman
Ute Indian Tribe
P.O. Box 70
910 South 7500 East
Fort Duchesne, Utah  84026-0190

Re: 	Consultation and Coordination on the Draft Renewal Permit to Operate for the Deseret Generation and Transmission Co-operative, Bonanza Power Plant

Dear Chairman Duncan:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 is offering an opportunity to consult to the Ute Indian Tribe for the Deseret Generation and Transmission Co-operative, Bonanza Power Plant to obtain a renewed Clean Air Act Title V operating permit pursuant to the Title V Operating Permit Program at 40 CFR part 71 (Part 71). This letter represents our invitation to the Ute Indian Tribe to consult with us as we renew the Part 71 permit pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), for the Bonanza Power Plant within the exterior boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation. There were no permit modifications or facility changes in this renewal. The initial permit was issued on December 5, 2014.

The consultation and coordination process would be conducted in accordance with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (www.epa.gov/tribal/consultation/consult-policy.htm). We invite you and your designated consultation representative(s) to participate in this process.

If you choose to consult about this permitting action, please provide a reply in writing via letter or email to this letter within 30 days after you receive it. The official EPA contact person for any consultation and coordination process on this permit action is Colin Schwartz, a permit engineer on my staff. Upon receipt of your reply, we will work with you to schedule a consultation date and method of consultation. The agency's goal is to ensure that you have an opportunity to provide tribal input into this permit action.

In addition to offering government-to-government consultation, the EPA plans to regularly coordinate and communicate with the Ute Indian Tribe's Air Quality Program's Director, Mike Natchees, for facilities located on Indian country lands within the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation. If you prefer to designate an alternative representative, or additional points of contact for communication on air pollution control permitting matters, please notify us of that person's name and contact information. We will continue to keep you and the tribal government informed and seek your input on these permits.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Please contact me at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or your staff may contact Colin Schwartz at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>should you have any questions on this action. We look forward to hearing from you on this important matter.

                                    Sincerely,

                                    Carl Daly
                                    Acting Director
                                    Air and Radiation Division

cc: 	Tony Small  -  Vice Chairman, UBC
	Shaun Chapoose, Council Member
	Edred Secakuku, Council Member
	Sal Wopsock, Council Member
	Ron Wopsock, Council Member
	Sonja Willie
	Kirby Arrive
      Mike Natchees, Director, Air Quality Program, Energy and Minerals Division, Ute Indian Tribe
      Jeremy Patterson, Attorney - Patterson, Earnhart, Real Bird & Wilson, LLP

bcc:	Jason Deardorff, Tribal Program Manager, U.S. EPA, R8
      Kim Varilek, Tribal Affairs Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, R8

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed on Recycled Paper


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61369-61370]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2011-0914]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of
revisions to the following collection of information: 1625-0015, Bridge
Permit Application Guide. Our ICR describes the information we seek to
collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast
Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 5,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2011-0914] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-611), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2100 2nd Street, SW., Stop 7101, Washington, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek approval of
revisions of the Collection. We will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2011-0914], and
must

be received by December 5, 2011. We will post all comments received,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any
personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use
their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2011-0914], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or hand delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES;
but please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment
online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2011-0914''
in the ``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0914'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF 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., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
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 a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Bridge Permit Application Guide.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0015.
    Summary: The collection of information is a request for a bridge
permit submitted as an application for approval by the Coast Guard of
any proposed bridge project. An applicant must submit to the Coast
Guard a letter of application along with letter-size drawings (plans)
and maps showing the proposed project and its location.
    Need: 33 U.S.C. 401, 491, and 525 authorize the Coast Guard to
approve plans and locations for all bridges and causeways that go over
navigable waters of the United States.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Public and private owners of bridges over navigable
waters of the United States.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden is 10,760 hours a year.

    Dated: September 29, 2011.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-25543 Filed 10-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 58837]
[DOCID:fr17oc07-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-1-000]

MarkWest New Mexico, L.P.; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

October 10, 2007.
    Take notice that on October 1, 2007, MarkWest New Mexico, L.P.
(MarkWest), 1515 Arapahoe Street, Tower 2, Suite 700, Denver, Colorado
80202-2126, filed in Docket No. CP08-1-000, a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.210 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for
authorization to construct, own, operate, and maintain approximately
3.16 miles of new 16-inch diameter pipeline and appurtenant facilities
on its existing natural gas transmission mainline, located in Lea
County, New Mexico, all as more fully set forth in the application,
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    MarkWest states that its existing natural gas transmission system
consists of approximately five miles of 10- and 12-inch diameter
pipeline facilities, which provide firm transportation service to two
power plants owned by Southwestern Public Service Company. MarkWest
proposes to construct approximately 1.45 miles of 16-inch diameter
pipeline parallel to and looping the existing 10- and 12-inch diameter
mainline and approximately 1.71 miles of additional 16-inch diameter
pipeline to provide firm transportation service to a third power plant
that is to be constructed by Lea Power Partners, LLC, located in Lea
County, New Mexico. MarkWest asserts that the expansion facilities will
increase the maximum capacity of MarkWest's system from 166 MMcf/d to
276 MMcf/d and will include the construction of a new interconnection
with Northern Natural Gas Company. MarkWest estimates the cost of
construction to be $3.2 million.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Danny
Dollar, MarkWest New Mexico, L.P., 1515 Arapahoe Street, Tower 2, Suite
700, Denver, Colorado 80202-2126, or call at (1-800) 852-9226.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR
157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the
time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as
an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-20395 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62166-62168]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22181]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96003; File No. SR-CBOE-2022-050]

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

October 6, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 26, 2022, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to modify the fee
for the SPX (and SPXW) Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee change, among
other changes, on June 1, 2022 (SR-CBOE-2022-026). On June 10, 2022,
the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2022-029. On
August 5, 2022, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-
CBOE-2022-042. On September 26, 2022, the Exchange withdrew that
filing and submitted this filing to address the proposed fee change
relating to the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, Exchange Rule 5.50(g)(2) provides that the
Exchange may establish one or more types of tier appointments and
Exchange Rule 5.50(g)(2)(B) provides such tier appointments are subject
to such fees and charges the Exchange may establish. In 2010, the
Exchange established the SPX Tier Appointment and adopted an initial
fee of $3,000 per Market-Maker trading permit, per month.\4\ The SPX
(and SPXW) Tier Appointment fee for Floor Market-Makers currently
applies to any Market-Maker that executes any contracts in SPX and/or
SPXW on the trading floor.\5\ The Exchange now seeks to increase the
fee for the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment from $3,000
per Market-Maker Floor Trading Permit to $5,000 per Market-Maker Floor
Trading Permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62386 (June 25,
2010), 75 FR 38566 (July 2, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-060).
    \5\ The Exchange notes that the fee is not assessed to a Market-
Maker Floor Permit Holder who only executes SPX (including SPXW)
options transactions as part of multi-class broad-based index spread
transactions. See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Market-Maker Tier
Appointment Fees, Notes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the proposed change, the Exchange also proposes
to update Footnote 24 in the Fees Schedule, as well as remove the
reference to Footnote 24 in the Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee
Table. By way of background, in June 2020, the Exchange adopted
Footnote 24 to describe pricing changes that would apply for the
duration of time the Exchange trading floor was being operated in a
modified manner in connection with the COVID-19

pandemic.\6\ Among other changes, Footnote 24 provided that the monthly
fee for the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee was to be
increased to $5,000 per Trading Permit from $3,000 per Trading Permit.
As the Exchange now proposes to maintain the $5,000 rate on a permanent
basis (i.e., regardless of whether the Exchange is operating in a
modified state due to COVID-19 pandemic), the Exchange proposes to
eliminate the reference to the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier
Appointment Fee in Footnote 24.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89189 (June 30,
2020), 85 FR 40344 (July 6, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-058).
    \7\ The Exchange notes that since its transition to a new
trading floor facility on June 6, 2022, it has not been operating in
a modified manner. As such Footnote 24 (i.e., the modified fee
changes it describes) does not currently apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal to increase the SPX (and SPXW)
Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee is reasonable because the
proposed amount is not significantly higher than was previously
assessed (and is the same amount that has been assessed under Footnote
24 for the last two years). Additionally, the Exchange believes its
proposal to increase the fee is reasonable as the fee amount has not
been increased since it was adopted over 12 years ago in July 2010.\11\
Since its adoption 12 years ago, there has been both inflation and
increased costs of services, including relating to facility and
technology upgrades associated with the new trading floor. Indeed, the
Exchange notes that the trading pit for SPX in particular is the
largest trading pit on the new trading floor and represents a
significant amount of space on the new trading floor. Additionally,
over the last decade the Exchange has made, and continues to make,
further investments to encourage growth trends in SPX volume, including
investments in marketing, sales teams, global coverage teams, and new
product innovations (such as adding additional weekly expirations and
LEAPS). The Exchange notes that the SPX (and SPXW) Tier Appointment fee
helps fund these efforts. Moreover, although the SPX (and SPXW) Tier
Appointment fee has not increased since 2010, SPX volume, including
volume on the trading floor, has increased significantly since that
time. The Exchange therefore believes the proposed fee increase is
reasonable because it allows the Exchange to recoup fees associated
with the costs of maintaining and growing SPX and SPXW, which products
can help market participants achieve broad market protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62386 (June 25,
2010), 75 FR 38566 (July 2, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-060).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as it applies to all Market-Makers that trade SPX on the
trading floor uniformly. The Exchange believes it's reasonable
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to increase the SPX/SPXW
floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee and not the SPX/SPXW electronic
Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee, as Floor Market-Makers are not
subject to other costs that electronic Market-Makers are subject to.
For example, while all Floor Market-Makers automatically have an
appointment to trade open outcry in all classes traded on the Exchange
and at no additional cost per appointment, electronic Market-Makers
must select an appointment in a class (such as SPX) to make markets
electronically and such appointments are subject to fees under the
Market-Maker Electronic Appointments Sliding Scale.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Cboe Options Rules 5.50(a) and (e). See also Cboe
Options Fees Schedule, Market-Maker EAP [sic] Appointments Sliding
Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes
would be applied in the same manner to all Floor Market-Makers that
trade SPX (and/or SPXW). As noted above, the Exchange believes it's
reasonable to increase the SPX/SPWX Tier Appointment Fee for only Floor
Market-Makers only as opposed to electronic Market-Makers, because
electronic Market-Makers are subject to costs Floor Market-Makers are
not, such as the fees under Market-Maker EAP [sic] Appointments Sliding
Scale.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed rule changes apply only to a fee relating to a product
exclusively listed on the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange notes it
operates in a highly competitive market. In addition to Cboe Options,
TPHs have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
(which list products that compete with SPX options) and direct their
order flow, including 15 other options exchanges (four of which also
maintain physical trading floors), as well as off-exchange venues,
where competitive products are available for trading. Based on publicly
available information, no single options exchange has more than 18% of
the market share of executed volume of options trades.\13\ Therefore,
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
option order flow. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed
its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in
determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the
importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and,
also, recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has
been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \14\ The

fact that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by
the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the
D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition
for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S.
national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the
broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide
range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no
exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted'
because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in
the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''.\15\
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed changes to the
incentive programs impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
by Month (September 26, 2022), available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_share/.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \15\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (DC Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \17\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2022-050 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-CBOE-2022-050. 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-CBOE-2022-050 and should be submitted on
or before November 3, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22181 Filed 10-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29050-29053]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10162]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0632; FRL-9800-01-OCSPP]

Complex Polymeric Polyhydroxy Acid (CPPA); Exemption From the
Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of complex polymeric polyhydroxy acid (CPPA) by
establishing use in or on all food commodities when used, in accordance
with label directions and good agricultural practices. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of CPPA.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 12, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 11, 2022 and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0632, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Due to the public health
concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and
Reading Room is open to visitors by appointment only. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services and access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0632 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 11, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0632, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of November 23, 2021 (86 FR 66512) (FRL-
8792-05-OCSPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section
408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of two pesticide
tolerance petitions (PP 1F8918 and 1F8928) by FBSciences, Inc., 153 N.
Main St. Ste 100, Collierville, TN 38017. The petitions requested that
the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance at 40 CFR
180.1321 for residues of complex polymeric polyhydroxy acids (CPPA) be
amended by adding uses as a fungicide and insecticide in accordance
with label directions and good agricultural practices. Those documents
referenced summaries of the petitions prepared by the petitioner,
FBSciences, Inc, which are available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will

result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
. .'' Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency
consider ``available information concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide's residues'' and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. If EPA is
able to determine that a tolerance is not necessary to ensure that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for CPPA including exposure
resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with CPPA follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    Complex Polymeric Polyhydroxy Acids (CPPA) is derived from
naturally occurring organic matter (NOM) in soils and ground and
surface waters. NOM is ubiquitous in soil and water. It is formed as a
result of the decomposition of plants, animal, and microbial materials
in soil and water, and is comprised of a variety of humic substances
such as tannins, humic acids and fulvic acids. CPPA contains a complex
mixture of these naturally occurring organic substances.
    EPA has previously assessed CPPA toxicity and concluded that, with
regard to the overall toxicological profile, CPPA is of minimal
toxicity. Specifically, based on acute studies, CPPA is of low acute
oral toxicity, acute inhalation toxicity and acute dermal and is non-
irritating to the skin and eye. The chemical is not a skin sensitizer.
All human health toxicity subchronic data requirements were satisfied
by a combination of guideline studies and studies obtained from the
open scientific literature for (90-day oral, developmental toxicity,
reproductive toxicity and mutagenicity data). (See ``Biopesticides
Registration Action Document, Complex Polymeric Polyhydroxy Acids
(CPPA),'' which can be found on https://regulations.gov in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0917; the document identification number is EPA-
HQ-OPP-2009-0917-0011.)
    There were no adverse subchronic effects for any route of exposure.
The active ingredient was determined to be non-mutagenic, and no
adverse effects were identified relative to either developmental
toxicity or reproductive toxicity. Moreover, there are no known effects
on endocrine systems via oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure. Based on
this toxicological profile, EPA did not identify any toxicological
endpoints of concern for CPPA.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    No toxicological endpoint of concern has been identified for CPPA.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food, feed uses, and drinking water. As
part of its previous qualitative risk assessment for CPPA, the Agency
considered the potential for dietary (food and drinking water) exposure
to residues of this substance. CPPA is derived from naturally occurring
organic matter (NOM) in soils and ground and surface waters, which is
already present as an undesirable component of drinking water due to
organoleptic effects. No significant exposure via drinking water or
food beyond what is already present is expected when CPPA is used
according to the product label directions. The active ingredient has a
half-life of 25.7 days in the environment, is applied at extremely low
application rates and is not directly applied to water; therefore,
residues of CPPA are unlikely to accumulate in drinking water or exceed
the levels at which NOM is already present. In the unlikely event that
exposure to the active ingredient via drinking water does occur, the
health risk(s) would be expected to be minimal based on the lack of
acute oral toxicity (and overall lack of toxicity for all routes of
exposure) of CPPA and the fact that CPPA (humic acids, fulvic acids and
tannins) are substances that are ubiquitous in soil and water.
    2. From non-occupational exposure. Based on the Agency's current
practices, a quantitative post-application inhalation exposure and risk
assessment has not been performed for CPPA. Currently, there are no
proposed residential uses for this active ingredient. However, even if
non-occupational (residential) exposures were to occur, CPPA is
presumed to have negligible risk in these scenarios due to low acute
inhalation toxicity (Toxicity Category IV)) and minimal irritation to
the eye or skin (Toxicity Category IV). Additionally, no adverse
effects have been identified in repeat-dose toxicology studies.
    3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found that CPPA
shares a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and
they do not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA
has assumed CPPA does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    FFDCA Section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall retain an
additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor (SF). In
applying this

provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a
different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA
support the choice of a different factor. An FQPA safety factor is not
required at this time for CPPA because EPA has conducted a qualitative
dietary assessment based on low toxicity and anticipated negligible
exposure to the active ingredient.

E. Aggregate Risk

    Based on the available data and information, EPA has previously
concluded that a qualitative aggregate risk assessment is appropriate
to support the pesticidal uses (plant growth regulator and nematicide)
of CPPA, and that risks of concern are not anticipated from aggregate
exposure to the substance. This conclusion is based on the low toxicity
of the active ingredient and expected degradation of CPPA in the
environment. For the new uses (as an insecticide and fungicide), EPA
similarly concludes that the use of CPPA will be safe, i.e., that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposures to CPPA. In fact, EPA concludes that how CPPA is used as a
pesticide (i.e., plant growth regulator, fungicide, etc.) is immaterial
and that any use as a pesticide will be safe due to the lack of
toxicity of CPPA. This lack of toxicity negates the need to compare
exposure across use patterns and, therefore, supports all pesticidal
uses of CPPA.
    A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk
assessment based on those data can be found within the document
entitled ``Revised Science Review in Support of Adding a New Use as a
Fungicide and Insecticide for the End-Use Product (EP) FBS Defense 500
with 0.9% Complex Polymeric Polyhydroxy Acid (CPPA) as its Active
Ingredient'' available in the docket for this action as described under
ADDRESSES.

IV. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    Based on the Agency's assessment, EPA concludes that there is
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population,
including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of
CPPA.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

B. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The petitioner requested that the exemption for CPPA be amended by
adding the additional use patterns for CPPA of ``insecticide'' and
``fungicide'', so that the exemption would apply to residues resulting
from those additional uses. EPA has considered the available toxicity
data and environmental fate information and concludes that the use
restriction is unnecessary. Due to the lack of toxicity for this
pesticide, EPA concludes that exposures will be safe regardless of the
pesticidal use pattern and is modifying the regulatory text to reflect
any pesticidal use, including, but not limited to, plant growth
regulatory, nematocide, fungicide, and insecticide.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, EPA is amending the currently established exemption for
residues of complex polymeric polyhydroxy acids (CPPA) when used on all
food commodities in accordance with label directions and good
agricultural practices.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action amends an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these
types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order
12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This
action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 3, 2022.
Charles Smith,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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

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

0
2. Revise Sec.  180.1321 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1321  Complex Polymeric Polyhydroxy Acids (CPPA); exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of the pesticide complex polymeric polyhydroxy acids (CPPA) in
or on all food commodities, when used in accordance with label
directions and good agricultural practices.

[FR Doc. 2022-10162 Filed 5-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P