[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 19 (Monday, February 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7757-7759]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02010]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90995; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-069]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Exclude Special Purpose Acquisition Companies From the Requirement That
at Least 50% of a Company's Round Lot Holders Each Hold Unrestricted
Securities With a Market Value of at Least $2,500

January 26, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On October 8, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to exclude special purpose acquisition companies
from the requirement that at least 50% of a company's round lot holders
each hold unrestricted securities with a market value of at least
$2,500. On October 21, 2020, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change, which amended and replaced the proposed rule
change in its entirety. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on
October 28, 2020.\3\ On December 11, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which
to approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether
to disapprove, the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.
1.\5\ This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90245 (October 22,
2020), 85 FR 68400 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90644, 85 FR 82005
(December 17, 2020). The Commission designated January 26, 2021, as
the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has proposed to exclude companies listed pursuant to
Nasdaq Rule IM-5101-2 whose business plan is to engage in a merger or
acquisition with one or more unidentified companies within a specified
period of time (``SPACs''), prior to the completion of any such merger
or acquisition, from the requirement that at least 50% of the company's
required minimum number of round lot holders must each hold
unrestricted securities with a market value of at least $2,500 at the
time of initial listing (``Required Minimum Amount'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Nasdaq defines ``round lot holder'' as a holder of a normal
unit of trading of unrestricted securities. The number of beneficial
holders will be considered in addition to holders of record. See
Nasdaq Rule 5005(a)(40). Nasdaq defines ``normal unit of trading''
to mean 100 shares of a security unless, with respect to a
particular security, Nasdaq determines that a normal unit of trading
shall constitute other than 100 shares. See Nasdaq Rule 5005(a)(39).
Nasdaq defines ``unrestricted securities'' to mean securities that
are not restricted securities. See Nasdaq Rule 5005(a)(46). Nasdaq
defines ``restricted securities'' to mean securities that are
subject to resale restrictions for any reason, including, but not
limited to, securities: (1) Acquired directly or indirectly from the
issuer or an affiliate of the issuer in unregistered offerings such
as private placements or Regulation D offerings; (2) acquired
through an employee stock benefit plan or as compensation for
professional services; (3) acquired in reliance on Regulation S,
which cannot be resold within the United States; (4) subject to a
lockup agreement or a similar contractual restriction; or (5)
considered ``restricted securities'' under Rule 144. See Nasdaq Rule
5005(a)(37). The number of required minimum number of round lot
holders is 450 holders for the Nasdaq Global Select Market; 400
holders for the Nasdaq Global Market; and 300 holders for the Nasdaq
Capital Market. See Nasdaq Rules 5315(f)(1)(C), 5405(a)(3), and
5505(a)(3). Nasdaq defines ``market value'' as the consolidated
closing bid price multiplied by the measure to be valued. See Nasdaq
Rule 5005(a)(23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states in its proposal that it imposed the Required
Minimum Amount to help ensure that at least 50% of the required minimum
number of shareholders hold a meaningful value of unrestricted
securities and that a company has sufficient investor interest to
support an exchange listing.\7\ The Exchange asserts that, prior to
adopting the Required Minimum Amount, it had noticed problems with
companies listing where a large number of round lot holders held
exactly 100 shares, which would be worth only $400 in the case of a
stock that is trading at the minimum bid price of $4 per share, or as
little as $200 in the case of a stock listing under alternative price
criteria.\8\ The Exchange further states that such holders held shares
in the company prior to its IPO and that such amount was not a
representation of genuine investor interest in the company sufficient
to support an exchange listing.\9\ In proposing to adopt the standard,
the Exchange stated that it believed the Required Minimum Amount was a
more appropriate representation of genuine investor interest in the
company and would make it more difficult to circumvent the round lot
holder requirement through share transfers for no value.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 68401; Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 86314 (July 5, 2019), 84 FR 33102, 33107 (July 11, 2019)
(order approving SR-NASDAQ-2019-009) (``Required Minimum Amount
Approval Order''). In the Required Minimum Amount Approval Order,
the Commission also approved Nasdaq's proposal to exclude restricted
securities (see supra note 6) from the calculation of publicly held
shares, market value of publicly held shares, and round lot holders
for initial listing purposes. According to Nasdaq, these changes
were designed to help ensure adequate distribution, shareholder
interest, and a liquid trading market for a security. See Notice,
supra note 3, at 68401; Required Minimum Amount Approval Order,
supra, at 33103, 33108-09.
    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 68401. See also Required
Minimum Amount Approval Order, supra note 7, at 33109.
    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 68401-02.
    \10\ See id. at 68401; Required Minimum Amount Approval Order,
supra note 7, at 33109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that it does not believe the Required Minimum
Amount is as relevant to the listing of SPACs.\11\

In contrast to its observations regarding operating companies,\12\ the
Exchange states that typically the only investors holding shares in a
SPAC prior to an IPO are its founders and that all other round lot
holders generally represent new investors in the SPAC's IPO.\13\ The
Exchange therefore does not believe that SPACs present a similar risk
as operating companies of circumventing the round lot holder
requirement through share transfers for no value and represents that it
has not observed this problem with SPACs.\14\ Further, the Exchange
states that shareholders of SPACs are afforded the opportunity to
redeem or tender their shares for a pro rata portion of the value of
the IPO proceeds maintained in a trust account in connection with the
SPAC's business combination, which must occur within 36 months of the
IPO, and therefore, the SPAC structure provides an alternative
liquidity mechanism that operating companies do not offer.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 68401. Nasdaq Rule IM-5101-2
sets forth requirements applicable to SPACs and requires, among
other things, that at least 90% of the gross proceeds raised in the
IPO and any concurrent sale by the SPAC of equity securities must be
deposited in a trust account. See Nasdaq Rule IM-5101-2(a). Until a
SPAC has completed business combinations meeting the requirements of
IM-5101-2(b), each shareholder has the right to redeem their shares
into a pro rata share of the aggregate amount in the deposit account
if: (i) The shareholder votes against a business combination; or
(ii) a shareholder vote on the business combination is not held for
which the company must file and furnish a proxy or information
statement subject to Regulation 14A or 14C under the Act. See Nasdaq
Rules IM-5101-2(d) and (e).
    \12\ See supra notes 8-9 and accompanying text.
    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 68401.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See id. at 68401-02. The Exchange also states that it
believes the value of a SPAC prior to a business combination, unlike
the value of an operating company, is not based solely on investor
demand for the security but, in the Exchange's view, is based
primarily on the value of the cash held in the trust account. See
id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange accordingly believes that SPACs should be excluded
from the Required Minimum Amount and proposes to revise Nasdaq Rules
5315(f)(1)(C) (for the Nasdaq Global Select Market), 5405(a)(3) (for
the Nasdaq Global Market), and 5505(a)(3) (for the Nasdaq Capital
Market) to exclude SPACs from the requirement to meet the Required
Minimum Amount at the time of initial listing.\16\ The Exchange notes,
however, that SPACs must continue to satisfy the Exchange's other
initial listing requirements at the time of listing,\17\ including the
SPAC listing rules, which, among other things, provide shareholders the
right to redeem or convert their shares for a pro rata share of the
trust account in conjunction with the business combination.\18\
Moreover, following a business combination, in order to remain listed,
the combined company must meet Nasdaq's initial listing requirements,
which include the Required Minimum Amount, at the time of the IPO.\19\
The Exchange states in its proposal that it believes that, although
SPACs will be excluded from the Required Minimum Amount at the time of
initial listing, requiring SPACs to satisfy Nasdaq's other initial
listing standards \20\ would continue to help ensure that SPACs have
sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest likely to
generate depth and liquidity to support exchange listing and trading,
which should help to protect investors and the public interest.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id. at 68402.
    \17\ See id. These initial listing requirements currently
include, among other things, a minimum number of unrestricted
publicly held shares, minimum market value of unrestricted publicly
held shares, minimum number of round lot holders of unrestricted
shares, and minimum bid price. See id. at 68402 n.9. The Commission
notes, as an example, that a SPAC listed on the Nasdaq Capital
Market under the Market Value of Listed Securities Standard must
have at least one million unrestricted publicly held shares and a
market value of unrestricted publicly held shares of at least $15
million. See Nasdaq Rules 5505(a)(2) and 5505(b)(2)(C). See also
Nasdaq Rule 5300 Series (The Nasdaq Global Select Market) and 5400
Series (The Nasdaq Global Market).
    \18\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 68402-03. See also supra notes
11, 15, and accompanying text.
    \19\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 68402.
    \20\ See supra note 17.
    \21\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 68402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\22\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\23\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest, and are not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). In approving this proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, the Commission has considered the
proposed rule change's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has consistently recognized that the development and
enforcement of meaningful listing standards for an exchange is of
critical importance to financial markets and the investing public.\24\
Among other things, the Commission has stated that listing standards
provide the means for an exchange to screen issuers that seek to become
listed, and to provide listed status only to those that are bona fide
companies that have or will have sufficient public float, investor
base, and trading interest likely to generate depth and liquidity
sufficient to promote fair and orderly markets.\25\ Meaningful listing
standards are also important given investor expectations regarding the
nature of securities that have achieved an exchange listing, and the
role of an exchange in overseeing its market and assuring compliance
with its listing standards.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See infra notes 25-26.
    \25\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 81856
(October 11, 2017), 82 FR 48296, 48298 (October 17, 2017) (``SR-
NYSE-2017-31 Approval Order''); 81079 (July 5, 2017), 82 FR 32022,
32023 (July 11, 2017) (``SR-NYSE-2017-11 Approval Order''); 65708
(November 8, 2011), 76 FR 70799, 70802 (November 15, 2011) (``SR-
NASDAQ-2011-073 Approval Order''); 63607 (December 23, 2010), 75 FR
82420, 82422 (December 30, 2010) (``SR-NASDAQ-2010-137 Approval
Order''); 57785 (May 6, 2008), 73 FR 27597, 27599 (May 13, 2008)
(``SR-NYSE-2008-17 Approval Order''); and 58228 (July 25, 2008), 73
FR 44794, 44796 (July 31, 2008) (``SR-NASDAQ-2008-013 Approval
Order''). In addition, once a security has been approved for initial
listing, maintenance criteria allow an exchange to monitor the
status and trading characteristics of that issue to ensure that it
continues to meet the exchange's standards for market depth and
liquidity so that fair and orderly markets can be maintained. See,
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82627 (February 2, 2018),
83 FR 5650, 5653 n.53 (February 8, 2018) (``SR-NYSE-2017-30 Approval
Order''); SR-NYSE-2017-31 Approval Order, 82 FR at 48298; SR-NYSE-
2017-11 Approval Order, 82 FR at 32023; SR-NASDAQ-2010-137 Approval
Order, 75 FR at 82422; and SR-NYSE-2008-17 Approval Order, 73 FR at
27599. The Commission has stated that adequate listing standards, by
promoting fair and orderly markets, are consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act, in that they are, among other things, designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote
just and equitable principles of trade, and protect investors and
the public interest. See, e.g., SR-NYSE-2017-30 Approval Order, 83
FR at 5653 n.53; Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 87648
(December 3, 2019), 84 FR 67308, 67314 n.42 (December 9, 2019) (SR-
NASDAQ-2019-059); and 88716 (April 21, 2020), 85 FR 23393, 23395
n.22 (April 27, 2020) (SR-NASDAQ-2020-001).
    \26\ See, e.g., SR-NASDAQ-2011-073 Approval Order, supra note
25, 76 FR at 70802; SR-NASDAQ-2010-137 Approval Order, supra note
25, 75 FR at 82422; SR-NYSE-2008-17 Approval Order, supra note 25,
73 FR at 27599; and SR-NASDAQ-2008-013 Approval Order, supra note
25, 73 FR at 44796.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed to exclude SPACs, prior to the completion
of a business combination, from the requirement to meet the Required
Minimum Amount at the time of initial listing on the Nasdaq Global
Select Market, Nasdaq Global Market, and Nasdaq Capital Market. As
described above, the Exchange states that, unlike with operating
companies where the

Required Minimum Amount is necessary to demonstrate genuine investor
interest in the operating company to support an exchange listing, SPACs
do not present a similar risk of circumventing the round lot holder
requirement through share transfers for no value and that removing this
requirement will not impact the protection of investors.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 14 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the differences between SPACs and operating companies,
including in their structure, and the rights of SPAC shareholders to
convert or redeem their shares upon a business combination for a pro
rata portion of the IPO proceeds maintained in a trust account, the
Commission believes that it is reasonable and not unfairly
discriminatory for the Exchange to exclude SPACs from the requirement
to meet the Required Minimum Amount at the time of initial listing of
the SPAC. Specifically, the Commission believes the Exchange has
provided a reasonable basis for its proposal to differentiate SPACs
from operating companies in terms of the requirement to comply with the
Required Minimum Amount upon initial listing given that, in the
Exchange's experience, SPACs do not appear to present a similar risk of
circumventing the round lot holder requirement through share transfers
for no value. As the Exchange states in its proposal, typically the
only investors holding shares in a SPAC prior to an IPO are its
founders, whereas other round lot holders generally represent new
investors, in contrast to the Exchange's experience with operating
companies.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra notes 12-13 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange's other initial listing requirements will
remain applicable to SPACs at the time of their initial listing
including, among other things, that round lot holders hold unrestricted
shares and that SPACs will continue to meet the minimum number and
market value of unrestricted publicly held shares requirements as well
as the other listing requirements on the applicable market tier, in
addition to the specific listing criteria applicable to SPACs.\29\ As
the Commission stated when approving the Exchange's amendments to
exclude restricted securities from its calculation of a company's
publicly held shares, market value of publicly held shares, and round
lot holders for purposes of qualifying the company's securities for
initial listing, the amendments ``should allow the Exchange to more
accurately determine whether a security has adequate distribution and
liquidity and is thus suitable for listing and trading on the
Exchange.'' \30\ In addition, all initial listing requirements apply to
the combined company upon consummation of a business combination, which
would include the Required Minimum Amount. The Commission therefore
believes the Exchange's current listing rules will continue to provide
appropriate listing standards for SPAC securities, both prior to and
after the completion of any business combination. Moreover, investors
in SPACs will continue to have the ability to convert or redeem their
shares for cash into a pro rata share of the amount in the trust
account, pursuant to the provisions of Nasdaq Rules IM-5101-2(d) and
(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ For example, SPACs listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market
under the Market Value of Listed Securities Standard would be
required to have at least 1,000,000 unrestricted publicly held
shares, at least 300 round lot holders that hold unrestricted
shares, a minimum market value of listed securities of $50 million,
a minimum market value of unrestricted publicly held shares of at
least $15 million, and at least three registered and active market
makers. See Nasdaq Rules 5505(a)-(b). See also Nasdaq Rules 5315(e)-
(f) (Nasdaq Global Select Market) and 5405(a)-(b) (Nasdaq Global
Market). The Commission understands that, although Nasdaq's rules
provide alternative standards to satisfy in lieu of the market value
standards, SPACs typically list under the market value standard
given that they have no prior operating history.
    \30\ Required Minimum Amount Approval Order, supra note 7, at
33111. See also supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These other listing requirements, taken together, should continue
to help ensure that SPACs are listed only if there will be a sufficient
market, with adequate depth and liquidity and with sufficient investor
interest to support an exchange listing, and will continue to provide
investors the redemption feature. The Commission also notes that the
Exchange's proposal is consistent with SPAC listing standards on other
listing exchanges that do not require round lot holders to hold
unrestricted securities of a minimum market value amount.\31\ For the
reasons discussed above, the Commission believes the Exchange's
proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act and with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See, e.g., New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') Listed
Company Manual Section 102.06. The Commission notes that NYSE's
initial listing standards for SPACs, which require an aggregate
market value of $100 million and market value of publicly-held
shares of $80 million, are generally higher than those on Nasdaq.
See supra notes 17 and 29. See also NYSE American LLC Company Guide
Sections 102 and 119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\32\ that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1
(SR-NASDAQ-2020-069), be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02010 Filed 1-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 44263-44264]
[DOCID:fr30jy08-74]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0340; FRL-8375-7]

Disulfoton; Amendment to Terminate Certain Uses of Disulfoton
Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's order for the amendments to
terminate certain uses, voluntarily requested by the registrant and
accepted by the Agency, of products containing the pesticide
disulfoton, pursuant to section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. This termination
order follows a May 21, 2008 Federal Register Notice of Receipt of
Requests from the disulfoton technical registrant to voluntarily amend
to terminate certain uses of their disulfoton product registrations.
The request included termination of all disulfoton use on barley and
wheat. Additionally, the use of the granular formulation of disulfoton,
Di-Syston 15G (EPA Reg. No. 264-723), on broccoli and commercial
ornamentals is being terminated. This order also terminates the use of
Di-Syston 15G and the emulsifiable concentrate formulation of
disulfoton, Di-Syston 8 EC, (EPA Reg. No. 264-734) on potatoes. This
order also amends the disulfoton technical product registration (EPA
Reg. No. 264-734) to terminate potato, barley, and wheat uses. These
are not the last disulfoton uses or products registered in the United
States. In the May 21, 2008 notice, EPA indicated that it would issue
an order implementing the amendments to terminate uses, unless the
Agency received substantive comments within the 30 day comment period
that would merit its further review of these requests, or unless the
registrant withdrew their requests within this period. The Agency
received comments on the notice but none merited its further review of
the requests. The comments received by the Agency are described in Unit
III. of this notice. Further, the registrant did not withdraw their
requests. Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this notice a cancellation
order granting the requested amendments to terminate uses. Any
distribution, sale, or use of the disulfoton products subject to this
cancellation order is permitted only in accordance with the terms of
this order, including any existing stocks provisions.

DATES: The cancellations are effective July 30, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Miederhoff, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0340. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This notice announces the amendments to terminate certain uses, as
requested by the technical registrant, of several disulfoton products
registered under section 3 of FIFRA. The affected registrations are
listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.

  Table 1--Disulfoton Product Registration Amendments to Terminate Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     EPA Registration Number         Product Name      Delete from Label
------------------------------------------------------------------------
264-723                           Di-Syston 15G       Broccoli, Potato,
                                                       Wheat, Barley,
                                                      Ornamentals
                                                       (commercial uses)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
264-725                           Di-Syston           Potato, Wheat,
                                   Technical           Barley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
264-734                           Di-Syston 8 EC      Potato, Wheat,
                                                       Barley
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by
EPA company number.

           Table 2--Registrants of Amended Disulfoton Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            EPA Company Number                Company Name and Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
264                                         Bayer CropSciences,
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive,
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to
Comments

    Two comments were received during the 30 day comment period
established by the May 21, 2008 notice (73 FR 29507; FRL-8364-7). One
comment noted the importance of rotating chemicals with different modes
of action to help reduce the development of chemical resistance in pest
populations. However, this comment did not articulate a specific
concern with the actions proposed by the notice. The other comment
requested the retention of disulfoton use for control of leafminers in
buxus, a family of evergreen shrubs and small trees, often grown for
ornamental purposes. The 2002 disulfoton Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED) examined the risks and benefits of continued use of the
granular formulation of disulfoton on commercial ornamentals. Exposure

risk to agricultural workers for this scenario was very high and
overall documented usage was very low. Additionally, there are several
viable leafminer control alternatives to disulfoton. In addition to
numerous chemical alternatives, non-chemical pest control options
include the employment of leafminer resistant cultivars. Due to the
high exposure risk inherent with disulfoton use on commercial
ornamentals and the availability of alternative control methods, the
Agency maintains the decision described in the 2002 RED, which is that
this use is ineligible for reregistration. For these reasons, the
Agency does not believe that the comments submitted during the comment
period merit further review or a denial of the requests for voluntary
use termination.

IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA hereby approves the requested
amendments to terminate certain uses of disulfoton product
registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency
orders that the disulfoton product registrations identified in Table 1
of Unit II. are hereby amended to terminate the affected uses. Any
distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products
identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of
the Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks set forth in Unit VI.
will be considered a violation of FIFRA.

V. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further
provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice
of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter,
following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such
a request.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. The cancellation order issued in this notice
includes the following existing stocks provisions.
    The registrant may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks
of products with previously approved labeling that includes the uses
terminated by this order, for six months from the effective date of
this cancellation order. Persons other than the registrant may continue
to sell and/or use existing stocks of products with previously approved
labeling that includes the discontinued uses, until such stocks are
exhausted, provided that such use is consistent with the terms of the
previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the associated
products.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: July 23, 2008.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-17334 Filed 7-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33273-33274]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14194]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2006-0074; FRL-9316-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the
Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (New)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request for two new
collections. The ICRs, which are abstracted below, describe the nature
of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-
2006-0074 to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, OEI Docket, Mailcode:
28221T,1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Mandolia, Office of Policy
[Mail Code 1807T], Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICRs to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On December 22, 2010 (75 FR 80542), EPA sought comments on
this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during
the comment period. Any additional comments on these ICRs should be
submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OA-2006-0074, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the OEI Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in
the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified
above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public
viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without
change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose public disclosure
is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback
on Agency Service Delivery (New).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR Nos. 2434.01 and 2435.01, OMB Control Nos.
2010-NEW.
    ICR Status: These are new ICRs. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR,
after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40
CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register
or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The information collection activity will garner
qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely
manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving
service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that
provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not
statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be
generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide
insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and
expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus
attention on areas where communication, training or changes in
operations might improve delivery of products or services. These
collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable
communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders.
It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement
of program management.
    Feedback collected under these generic clearances will provide
useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized
to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for
qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information
collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results,
such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5.3
minutes per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Individuals and Households,
Businesses

and Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents (for each ICR): 15,720.
    Frequency of Response: Once, On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden (for each ICR): 1,386.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0, includes $0 annualized capital or
O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: These are new ICRs.

    Dated: May 31, 2011.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-14194 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 72533-72534]
[DOCID:fr28no08-125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58989; File No. SR-BATS-2008-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Fees of Other Market Centers Related to Clearly Erroneous Rulings

November 20, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 19, 2008, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. BATS has
designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a
member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to implement the proposed rule change
immediately. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    BATS Rule 11.17, which covers the breaking of trades determined to
be clearly erroneous, includes a provision, paragraph (c)(2)(E), that
assesses a fee of $500.00 for unsuccessful appeals of clearly erroneous
adjudications by the Exchange. The Exchange is now adding a sentence to
the rule to provide that in instances where the Exchange, on behalf of
a Member, requests a determination by another market center that a
transaction is clearly erroneous, the Exchange will pass any resulting

charges through to the relevant Member. The proposed change reflects
the fact that other market centers impose a similar $500 appellate fee
to that charged by the Exchange.
    If a Member enters an order into the Exchange that is routed to
another market center and executed there, the Member may not have
standing to file under that market center's rules to seek a
determination that the execution was clearly erroneous if it is not a
member of that market center. Accordingly, BATS Trading, Inc., the
Exchange's routing broker-dealer, which is a member of various market
centers, including the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') and NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), may file a petition under that market
center's rules upon request of a Member. If an appeal is unsuccessful,
the Exchange or its affiliated routing broker-dealer may be charged
under the applicable market center's rules.\5\ Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to pass the charge through, on a dollar-for-dollar
basis, to the Member that requested the appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For instance, both NASDAQ and NYSE Arca currently charge
$500.00 for unsuccessful appeals of clearly erroneous
determinations. See NASDAQ Rule 11890(e)(3) and NYSE Arca Rule
7.10(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the rule change proposed in this
submission is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of section 6 of the
Act.\6\ Specifically, the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in that it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and
other persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates
or controls. The Exchange believes that the change will appropriately
allocate charges for adjudications under the clearly erroneous rules of
other market centers to the Members that initiate such adjudications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

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.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\9\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee or
other charge imposed on members by the Exchange. Accordingly, the
proposal is effective upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-BATS-2008-010 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-BATS-2008-010. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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; 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-
BATS-2008-010 and should be submitted on or before December 19, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-28222 Filed 11-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7584-7585]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02405]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1466; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-36]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and E Airspace and Revocation of Class E
Airspace; Alton/St. Louis, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class D and Class E airspace and
revokes Class E airspace at Alton/St. Louis, IL. This is action due to
an airspace review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the
Civic Memorial non-directional beacon (NDB).

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 20, 2023. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (87 FR 74053; December 2, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-1466
to amend the Class D and Class E airspace and revoke Class E airspace
at Alton/St. Louis, IL. Interested parties were invited to participate
in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the
proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs
5000, 6004, and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022,
and effective September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:
    Amends the Class D airspace at St. Louis Regional Airport, Alton/
St. Louis, IL, by replacing the outdated term ``Notice to Airmen'' with
``Notice to Air Missions'':
    Removes the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D
airspace at St. Louis Regional Airport as it is no longer required;
    And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at St. Louis Regional Airport by removing the Civic
Memorial NDB and associated extension from the airspace legal
description.
    This action is due to an airspace review conducted as part of the
decommissioning of the Civic Memorial NDB which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at this airport.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL IL D Alton/St. Louis, IL [Amended]

St. Louis Regional Airport, IL
    (Lat. 38[deg]53'24'' N, long. 90[deg]02'46'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,000 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of the St. Louis Regional
Airport, excluding that airspace within the St. Louis, MO, Class B
airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Air
Missions. The effective dates and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

AGL IL E4 Alton/St. Louis, IL [Remove]

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

* * * * *

AGL IL E5 Alton/St. Louis, IL [Amended]

St. Louis Regional Airport, IL
    (Lat. 38[deg]53'24'' N, long. 90[deg]02'46'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.9-mile radius of St. Louis Regional Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 1, 2023.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-02405 Filed 2-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 44907]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16271]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78227; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-061]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the First Trust Equity
Market Neutral ETF of the First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund VIII

July 5, 2016.
    On May 4, 2016, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and
trade shares of the First Trust Equity Market Neutral ETF of the First
Trust Exchange-Traded Fund VIII. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on May 25, 2016.\3\ The Commission
received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77854 (May 19,
2016), 81 FR 33307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is July 9, 2016. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates August 23, 2016, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File Number
SR-NASDAQ-2016-061).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16271 Filed 7-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2010  0032 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c.

Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a.

Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes

No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a.

Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: National Environmental Performance Track Program 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR Number 1949.02 9. Keywords: Environmental Performance, Environmental Management Systems, Environmental Compliance, Incentives 10. Abstract EPA announced the National Environmental Performance Track Program on June 26, 2000. The program is designed to recognize and encourage facilities that consistently meet their legal requirements, that have implemented management systems to monitor and improve performance, that have voluntarily achieved environmental improvements beyond compliance, and that publicly commit to specific environmental improvements and report on progress. Applications submitted by facilities are used by EPA and participating regulatory entities to determine whether the applicant qualifies for the program. A total of 304 facilities are current members of this voluntary program. Environmental Performance Track members are also required to submit an annual performance report documenting their environmental performance relative to the commitments they made upon entry into the program. This information is important to determine whether participants are meeting their commitments, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The public reporting element of the program also provides information to the local community.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Voluntary b. X Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 513 b. Total annual responses 513 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 75 % c. Total hours requested 109,445 d. Current OMB inventory 50,450 e. Difference 58,995 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 58,995 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 0 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 0 d. Current OMB inventory $ 0 e. Difference $ 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change $ 0 2. Adjustment $ 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X_ Application for benefits e. X Program planning or management b. P_ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. __ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c.

Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6.

Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes

No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Robert D. Sachs Phone: 202 566 2884 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


11401 in the Sister Chromatid Exchange Assay with Chinese Hamster Ovary ( CHO) Cells: LBI Project No. 20990. Prepared by Litton Bionetics, Inc. 7 p.

93089016 Story, D. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Summary of MRID 40479601. in vivo/ in vitro UDS Study: Study No. 4/ 86/ TX.

Prepared by Robens Institute of Industrial and Health Safety. 7 p.

93089017 McManus, J. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Summary of MRID 41323301. Metabolism of ( Carbon 14) Dimethipin ( Harvade)

in the Rat: Project 85125. Prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co. 6 p.

93089018 McManus, J. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Summary of MRID 41323302 and Related MRIDs 41612401. Analysis of Urine Samples from Dimethipin ( Harvade) Rat Pharmacokinetic Study: Project No. 8671 Part B with Additional Study; and a ( Carbon 14) radiolabeled Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism Study in the Rat Using Harvade:

Project No. 8732 Part A. Prepared by Southwest Bio Labs, Inc. 15 p.

93089024 Putterman, G. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 58 Summary of MRID 00028831. Fate of Harvade [ carbon 14] on Cotton: Project 7864. Prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co. Inc. 8 p.

93089025 Mertz, J. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Summary of MRID 00136860 and Related MRIDs 00085669. Determination of N252 Residues in Cottonseed: Project No. 7524. Prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co. Inc. 11 p.

93089026 Gaydosh, K. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Summary of MRID 00080098 and Related MRIDs 00085666.

Harvade Residues in Cottonseed Fractions and Harvade Residues in Processed Cottonseed. Prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co. Inc. 9 p.

93089028 Story, D. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Summary of MRID 00127918 and Related MRIDs 00085653, 00086324, 00145225.

104 Week Chronic Toxicity Study in Rats/ N252 ( Harvade) Technical:

Laboratory Study No. 798 177. Prepared by Hazleton Labs. America,

Inc. 12 p.

93089029 Story, D. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Summary of MRID 00080003. Mutagenicity Evaluation of Harvade ( N252) in the Mouse Lymphoma Forward Mutation Assay: LBI Project No. 20989.

Prepared by Litton Bionetics, Inc. 7 p.

93089030 Homan, S. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Reformat of MRID 00079500. 1 Year Dietary Toxicity Study in Dogs with N252: IRDC Project No. 399 019. Prepared by International Research and Devel. Corp.

300 p.

93089031 Serota, D.; Alsaker, R.; Banas, D. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc.

Phase 3 Reformat of MRID 00079998 and Related MRIDs 00127918. 18 Month Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study in Mice / N252 Technical: Project No. 798 180. Prepared by Hazleton Raltech, Inc. 773 p.

93089032 Knickerbocker, M.; Re, T.; Babish, J. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Reformat of MRID 00086316 and Related MRIDs 00127918. Teratologic Evaluation of N252 ( Harvade) Technical in 59 Sprague Dawley Rats: Laboratory Study No. 5584. Prepared by Food and Drug Research Laboratories, Inc. 462 p.

93089033 McMeekin, S. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Reformat of MRID 00079502. Teratology Study in Rabbits/ Test Article N252 ( Harvade) Technical: IRDC Project No. 399 028. Prepared by International Research and Devl. Corp. 69 p.

93089034 MacKenzie, K. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Reformat of MRID 00079996 and Related MRIDs 00094792. Two

Generation Rat Reproduction Study with N252: Study No. 79033.

Prepared by Hazleton Raltech, Inc. 791 p.

93089035 Jagannath, D. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Reformat of MRID 00080002. Mutagenicity Evaluation of Harvade ( N252) 98%

D 11401 in the Ames Salmonella/ Microsome Plate Test: LBI Project No.

20998. Prepared by Litton Bionetics, Inc. 19 p.

93089037 Curtiss, K. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Reformat of MRID 00028831. Fate of Harvade[ carbon 14] on Cotton: Project No. 7864. Prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co. Inc. 16 p.

93089038 Womer, J.; Sisken, H. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Reformat of MRID 00136860 and Related MRIDs 00085669.

Determination of N252 Residues in Cottonseed: Project No. 7524.

Prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co. 48 p.

93089039 Ball, J.; Ames, R. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Reformat of MRID 00080098 and Related MRIDs 00085666.

Harvade Residues in Cottonseed Fractions and Harvade Residues in Processed Cottonseed. Prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Company. 75 p.

93089040 Serota, D.; Alsaken, R.; Dawkins, K. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Reformat of MRID 00127918 and Related MRIDs 00085653, 00086324, 00145225. 104 Week Chronic Toxicity Study in 60 Rats/ N252 ( Harvade) Technical: Laboratory Study No. 798 177.

Prepared by Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc. 2081 p.

93089041 Myhr, B. ( 1990) Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc. Phase 3 Reformat of MRID 00080003. Mutagenicity Evaluation of ( Harvade) ( N252) in the Mouse Lymphoma Forward Mutation Assay: LBI Project No. 20989.

Prepared by Litton Bionetics, Inc. 21 p. 61 Appendix E. Generic Data Call In The Agency intends to issue a Generic Data Call In at a later date. See Chapter V of the Dimethipin RED for a list of studies that the Agency plans to require. 62 Appendix F. Product Specific Data Call In The Agency intends to issue a Product Specific Data Call In at a later date. 63 Appendix G. EPA'S BATCHING OF DIMETHIPIN PRODUCTS FOR MEETING ACUTE TOXICITY DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR REREGISTRATION In an effort to reduce the time, resources and number of animals needed to fulfill the acute toxicity data requirements for reregistration of products containing dimethipin as the active ingredient, the Agency has batched products which can be considered similar for purposes of acute toxicity. Factors considered in the sorting process include each product's active and inert ingredients ( identity, percent composition and biological activity), type of formulation ( e. g., emulsifiable concentrate, aerosol, wettable powder, granular, etc.), and labeling ( e. g., signal word, use classification, precautionary labeling, etc.). Note that the Agency is not describing batched products as " substantially similar" since some products within a batch may not be considered chemically similar or have identical use patterns.

Using available information, batching has been accomplished by the process described in the preceding paragraph. Notwithstanding the batching process, the Agency reserves the right to require, at any time, acute toxicity data for an individual product should the need arise.

Registrants of products within a batch may choose to cooperatively generate, submit or cite a single battery of six acute toxicological studies to represent all the products within that batch. It is the registrants' option to participate in the process with all other registrants, only some of the other registrants, or only their own products within a batch, or to generate all the required acute toxicological studies for each of their own products. If a registrant chooses to generate the data for a batch, he/ she must use one of the products within the batch as the test material. If a registrant chooses to rely upon previously submitted acute toxicity data, he/ she may do so provided that the data base is complete and valid by today's standards ( see acceptance criteria attached), the formulation tested is considered by EPA to be similar for acute toxicity, and the formulation has not been significantly altered since submission and acceptance of the acute toxicity data. Regardless of whether new data is generated or existing data is referenced, registrants must clearly identify the test material by EPA Registration Number.

If more than one confidential statement of formula ( CSF) exists for a product, the registrant must indicate the formulation actually tested by identifying the corresponding CSF.

In deciding how to meet the product specific data requirements, registrants must follow the directions given in the Data Call In Notice and its attachments appended to the RED. The DCI Notice contains two response forms which are to be completed and submitted to the Agency within 90 days of receipt. The first form, " Data Call In Response," asks whether the registrant will meet the data requirements for each product. The second form, " Requirements Status and Registrant's Response," lists the product specific data required for each product, including the standard six acute toxicity tests. A registrant who wishes to participate in a batch must decide whether he/ she will provide the data or depend on someone else to do so. If a registrant supplies the data to support a batch of products, he/ she must select one of the following options: Developing Data ( Option 1), Submitting an Existing Study ( Option 4), Upgrading an Existing Study ( Option 5) or Citing an Existing Study ( Option 6). If a registrant depends on another's data, he/ she must choose among: Cost Sharing ( Option 2), Offers to Cost Share ( Option 3) or Citing an Existing Study ( Option 6). If a registrant does not want to participate in a batch, the choices are Options 64 1, 4, 5 or 6. However, a registrant should know that choosing not to participate in a batch does not preclude other registrants in the batch from citing his/ her studies and offering to cost share ( Option 3) those studies.

Four products were found which contain dimethipin as the active ingredient. These products have not been placed into batch group based on the active and inert ingredients and type of formulation.

Batching Instructions:

No Batch: Each product in this batch should generate their own data.

NOTE: The technical acute toxicity values included in this document are for informational purposes only. The data supporting these values may or may not meet the current acceptance criteria.

No Batch EPA Reg. No. Percent Active Ingredient 400 432 90.0 400 155 48.0 400 505 32.7 400 398 22.4 65 Appendix H. List of Registrants Sent this Data Call In Company Number: 400 Company Name: Crompton Manufacturing Company Inc.

Address: 74 Amity Road, Bethany, CT 06524 3402 Contact: Dr. Allen Blem 66 Appendix I. LIST OF AVAILABLE RELATED DOCUMENTS AND ELECTRONICALLY AVAILABLE FORMS Pesticide Registration Forms are available at the following EPA internet site:

http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/

Pesticide Registration Forms ( These forms are in PDF format and require the Acrobat reader)

Instructions 1. Print out and complete the forms. ( Note: Form numbers that are bolded can be filled out on your computer then printed.)

2. The completed form( s) should be submitted in hardcopy in accord with the existing policy.

3. Mail the forms, along with any additional documents necessary to comply with EPA regulations covering your request, to the address below for the Document Processing Desk.

DO NOT fax or e mail any form containing ' Confidential Business Information' or ' Sensitive Information.'

If you have any problems accessing these forms, please contact Nicole Williams at ( 703) 308 5551 or by e mail at williams. nicole@ epa. gov.

The following Agency Pesticide Registration Forms are currently available via the internet:

at the following locations:

8570 1 Application for Pesticide Registration/ Amendment http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 1. pdf 8570 4 Confidential Statement of Formula http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 4. pdf 67 8570 5 Notice of Supplemental Registration of Distribution of a Registered Pesticide Product http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 5. pdf 8570 17 Application for an Experimental Use Permit http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 17. pdf 8570 25 Application for/ Notification of State Registration of a Pesticide To Meet a Special Local Need http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 25. pdf 8570 27 Formulator's Exemption Statement http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 27. pdf 8570 28 Certification of Compliance with Data Gap Procedures http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 28. pdf 8570 30 Pesticide Registration Maintenance Fee Filing http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 30. pdf 8570 32 Certification of Attempt to Enter into an Agreement with other Registrants for Development of Data http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 32. pdf 8570 34 Certification with Respect to Citations of Data ( PR Notice 98 5) http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ Notices/ pr98 5. pdf 8570 35 Data Matrix ( PR Notice 98 5) http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ Notices/ pr98 5. pdf 8570 36 Summary of the Physical/ Chemical Properties ( PR Notice 98 1) http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ Notices/ pr98 1. pdf 8570 37 Self Certification Statement for the Physical/ Chemical Properties ( PR Notice 98 1) http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ Notices/ pr98 1. pdf Pesticide Registration Kit www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ registrationkit/

Dear Registrant:

For your convenience, we have assembled an online registration kit which contains the following pertinent forms and information needed to register a pesticide product with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP):

1. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA)

as Amended by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) of 1996. 68 2. Pesticide Registration ( PR) Notices a. 83 3 Label Improvement Program Storage and Disposal Statements b. 84 1 Clarification of Label Improvement Program c. 86 5 Standard Format for Data Submitted under FIFRA d. 87 1 Label Improvement Program for Pesticides Applied through Irrigation Systems ( Chemigation)

e. 87 6 Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Products Policy Statement f. 90 1 Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Products; Revised Policy Statement g. 95 2 Notifications, Non notifications, and Minor Formulation Amendments h. 98 1 Self Certification of Product Chemistry Data with Attachments ( This document is in PDF format and requires the Acrobat reader.)

Other PR Notices can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ Notices 3. Pesticide Product Registration Application Forms ( These forms are in PDF format and will require the Acrobat reader).

a. EPA Form No. 8570 1, Application for Pesticide Registration/ Amendment b. EPA Form No. 8570 4, Confidential Statement of Formula c. EPA Form No. 8570 27, Formulator's Exemption Statement d. EPA Form No. 8570 34, Certification with Respect to Citations of Data e. EPA Form No. 8570 35, Data Matrix 4. General Pesticide Information ( Some of these forms are in PDF format and will require the Acrobat reader).

a. Registration Division Personnel Contact List j. Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( BPPD) Contacts j. Antimicrobials Division Organizational Structure/ Contact List d. 53 F. R. 15952, Pesticide Registration Procedures; Pesticide Data Requirements ( PDF format) 69 e. 40 CFR Part 156, Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices ( PDF format)

f. 40 CFR Part 158, Data Requirements for Registration ( PDF format)

g.. 50 F. R. 48833, Disclosure of Reviews of Pesticide Data ( November 27, 1985)

Before submitting your application for registration, you may wish to consult some additional sources of information. These include:

1. The Office of Pesticide Programs' website.

2. The booklet " General Information on Applying for Registration of Pesticides in the United States", PB92 221811, available through the National Technical Information Service ( NTIS) at the following address:

National Technical Information Service ( NTIS)

5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 The telephone number for NTIS is ( 703) 605 6000.

3. The National Pesticide Information Retrieval System ( NPIRS) of Purdue University's Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems. This service does charge a fee for subscriptions and custom searches. You can contact NPIRS by telephone at ( 765) 494 6614 or through their website.

4. The National Pesticide Telecommunications Network ( NPTN) can provide information on active ingredients, uses,

toxicology, and chemistry of pesticides. You can contact NPTN by telephone at ( 800) 858 7378 or through their website:

ace. orst. edu/ info/ nptn. 70 The Agency will return a notice of receipt of an application for registration or amended registration, experimental use permit,

or amendment to a petition if the applicant or petitioner encloses with his submission a stamped, self addressed postcard.

The postcard must contain the following entries to be completed by OPP:

1. Date of receipt;

2. EPA identifying number; and 3. Product Manager assignment.

Other identifying information may be included by the applicant to link the acknowledgment of receipt to the specific application submitted. EPA will stamp the date of receipt and provide the EPA identifying file symbol or petition number for the new submission. The identifying number should be used whenever you contact the Agency concerning an application for registration, experimental use permit, or tolerance petition.

To assist us in ensuring that all data you have submitted for the chemical are properly coded and assigned to your company,

please include a list of all synonyms, common and trade names, company experimental codes, and other names which identify the chemical ( including " blind" codes used when a sample was submitted for testing by commercial or academic facilities). Please provide a chemical abstract system ( CAS) number if one has been assigned.


MEMORANDUM  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

TO:		Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

FROM:	Bradley Nelson, EC/R, Inc.

DATE:		January 15, 2010

SUBJECT:	Summary of the October 20, 2009 Teleconference with Exterran
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to discuss the Proposed
NESHAP for Existing Stationary Spark Ignition Reciprocating Internal
Engines

1.0	INTRODUCTION

Exterran requested this teleconference with EPA to discuss the proposed
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for
existing stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE).
The main focus of the discussion was on the proposed emission standards
for two-stroke lean burn (2SLB) engines.  This meeting summary will be
available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708).  The proposed NESHAP for existing stationary RICE
was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2009 (74 FR 9698).

2.0	ATTENDEES

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Melanie King, OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

Michael Horowitz, OGC

Exterran

Mike Wasson

Bill Bowes

James Harrison

Kyle Jantzen

Bracewell & Giuliani

Jeff Holmstead

Rebecca Rentz

JW Power Co.

John Dutton

Compressor Systems Inc.

David O’Leary

EC/R Incorporated

Bradley Nelson

3.0	SUMMARY OF MEETING

Exterran stated that it has approximately 1,000 stationary 2SLB engines
operating in the field.  Nearly all of these 2SLB engines are
manufactured by Ajax, and none are equipped with oxidation catalyst.
Exterran believes that the emission standard for 2SLB engines should not
be based on the use of an oxidation catalyst because it is not cost
effective.  In addition, Exterran believes that there are technical and
reliability issues with retrofitting an existing 2SLB engine with an
oxidation catalyst in the field.  Exterran estimated the cost per ton of
using an oxidation catalyst on a 2SLB engine to be $120,000 per ton of
HAP removed.  This value was calculated using vendor cost data and
assuming 90 percent reduction of hazardous air pollutants (HAP).
Exterran stated that oxidation catalysts typically only achieve 60-70
percent HAP reduction.  EPA asked if Exterran could provide the vendor
costs.  Exterran responded that they would provide the cost information
to EPA.

Exterran stated that Cooper, Clark, and Ingersoll-Rand engines in the
range of 1,500-2,000 horsepower (HP) used for compression would need
manifold work and new ignition systems for the oxidation catalyst to
operate properly.  Exterran believes even with these modifications, 90
percent reduction of HAP is not guaranteed.  Exterran also stated that
many of these compressor systems are integrated units (e.g.,
engine/compressor) and therefore, would in many cases need to replace
the whole unit.  Exterran added that older engines are not fuel injected
and the combustion system would need to be upgraded before an oxidation
catalyst could be retrofitted.

Another issue raised by Exterran was whether 90 percent HAP reduction
could be achieved using an oxidation catalyst.  Exterran believes that
2SLB engines have insufficient exhaust temperatures to oxidize 90
percent of the HAP in the exhaust stream.  Exterran stated that exhaust
temperatures of 600-650 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) are needed for
effective operation of the oxidation catalyst, and a 360 HP Ajax 2SLB
engine has an exhaust temperature of 350-400 °F.  In addition, Exterran
noted that the oxidation catalysts create backpressure in the engine
exhaust.  EPA responded that the information that it has reviewed shows
that an oxidation catalyst can be effective at exhaust temperatures as
low as 450 °F.  Exterran stated that it would like to receive the data
that shows the catalyst in operation.  Exterran noted that has not seen
any data that shows that oxidation catalyst will achieve effective HAP
reductions from stationary 2SLB engines.

The Exterran group asked EPA if they have received any information on
the proposed extension for SI engines.  EPA responded that they have not
received any new information regarding the extension for SI engines.

E C/R Incorporated	Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  3


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 4894]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1719]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice Announcing Preliminary Permit Drawing

January 20, 2011.

Lock Hydro Friends Fund XLI...............  Project No. 13736-000
Allegheny 7 Hydro, LLC....................  Project No. 13777-000

    On May 18, 2010, at 8:30 a.m., the Commission received two
preliminary permit applications for proposed projects to be located at
the Allegheny River Lock & Dam No. 7 located on the Allegheny River in
Armstrong County, Pennsylvania.\1\ The applications were filed by Lock
Hydro Friends Fund XLI, for Project No. 13736-000, and Allegheny 7
Hydro, LLC, for Project No. 13777-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission is open each day from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
except Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. 18 CFR 375.101(c) (2010).
The applications were filed between 5 p.m. on Monday May 17, 2010,
and 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday May 18, 2010. Under the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure, any document received after regular
business hours is considered filed at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular
business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2) (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where all permit applicants are municipalities or all permit
applicants are non-municipalities, and no applicant's plans are better
adapted than the others' to develop, conserve, and utilize in the
public interest the water resources of a region, the Commission issues
a permit to the applicant who filed first in time.\2\ In this case,
because two applications from entities not claiming municipal
preference are deemed filed at the same time, the Commission will
conduct a random tie breaker to determine priority. In the event that
the Commission concludes that neither applicant's plans are better
adapted than the other, priority will be determined accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 4.37 (2010). See, e.g., BPUS Generation Development,
LLC, 126 FERC ] 61,132 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 27, 2011, at 10 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of
the Commission, or her designee, will, by random drawing, determine the
filing priority for the two applicants identified in this notice. The
drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the
Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC
20426. The results of the drawing will be recorded by the Secretary or
her designee. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary
announcing the results of the drawing.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-1719 Filed 1-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P