[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 245 (Monday, December 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 73271]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28025]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1888-038]

York Haven Power Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for a temporary variance from flow
requirements for the York Haven Hydroelectric Project, located on the
Susquehanna River in Dauphin, Lancaster, and York counties,
Pennsylvania, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
project. The project does not occupy Federal lands.
    The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental
effects of the temporary variance and concludes that licensing the
variance would not constitute a major federal action that would
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    The EA may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``elibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (P-
1888) in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3372,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    All comments must be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please
file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu
of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-
1888-038.
    For further information, contact Alicia Burtner at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or [email protected].

    Dated: December 20, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-28025 Filed 12-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 176)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55479-55480]
[DOCID:fr13se10-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002; FRL-9199-5]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal Federal Facility

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces
the deletion of portions of the On-Post Operable Unit (OU3),
specifically the Central and Eastern Surface Areas including surface
media and structures (CES), and the surface media of the Off-Post
Operable Unit (OU4) (OPS) of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Federal
Facility (RMA) located in Commerce City, Colorado from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil
and

Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This partial
deletion pertains to the surface media (soil, surface water, sediment)
and structures (both former structures that have been demolished and
structures retained for future use) within the CES and the surface
media of the entire OPS. The rest of the On-Post OU, including
groundwater below RMA that is west of E Street, and the groundwater
that comprises the Off-Post OU will remain on the NPL and is not being
considered for deletion as part of this action. Response activities
will continue at those OUs. The EPA and the State of Colorado, through
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), have
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other
than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been
completed. However, the deletion of these parcels does not preclude
future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Effective Date: This action is effective September 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the site information repositories. Locations, contacts,
phone numbers and viewing hours are:

--EPA's Region 8 Superfund Records Center, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-2466. Hours: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. by appointment (call 303-
312-6473), Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays; and the
--Joint Administrative Records Facility, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, 5650
Havana Street, Building 129, Commerce City, Colorado 80022-1748. Hours:
12 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, or
by appointment (call<PHONE_NUMBER>).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Chergo, Community Involvement
Coordinator (8OC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 1-800-227-8917 or 303-312-
6601; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The portion of the site to be deleted from
the NPL is the surface media (soil, surface water, sediment) and
structures (both former structures that have been demolished and
structures retained for future use) within the CES and the surface
media of the entire OPS. A Notice of Intent for partial Deletion for
this Site was published in the Federal Register on June 17, 2010. The
RMA Site-Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) requested additional time to
adequately review the documentation. The public comment period for the
NOIDp was extended through August 16, 2010 (75 FR 42361).
    EPA received comment letters from seven organizations/individuals.
Authors of five of the letters voiced their support for proceeding with
the partial deletion based upon their confidence in the thoroughness of
the cleanup activities conducted by the U.S. Army and Shell Oil
Company; though one letter, from the Audubon Society of Greater Denver,
was received after the public comment period closed. Authors of the
remaining two letters were opposed to the proposed partial deletion of
the CES and OPS. All public comments and EPA's responses are included
in a Responsiveness Summary document available in both the docket, EPA-
HQ-SFUND-1987-0002, at http://www.regulations.gov and in the local
repositories listed above. Based on our responses to these comments,
and in consultation with the State of Colorado through CDPHE, EPA has
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other
than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed
and it is appropriate to proceed with deletion of the CES and the OPS.
    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude further remedial
action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted
from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without
application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of portions of a
site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability, in the
unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: September 2, 2010.
Stephen S. Tuber,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2010-22747 Filed 9-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 60576]
[DOCID:fr18oc05-125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension: Rule 17a-5(c); SEC File No. 270-199; OMB Control No.
3235-0199.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 17a-5(c) [17 CFR 240.17a-5(c)] under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 requires certain broker-dealers who carry customer accounts
to provide statements of the broker-dealer's financial condition to
their customers. Paragraph (5) of Rule 17a-5(c) provides a conditional
exemption from this requirement. It is estimated that approximately 375
broker-dealer respondents with approximately 109 million public
customer accounts incur an average burden of 130,000 hours per year to
comply with this rule.
    Rule 17a-5(c) does not contain record retention requirements.
Compliance with the rule is mandatory. Responses are not confidential.
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 control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

     Dated: October 7, 2005.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5727 Filed 10-17-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15146-15147]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06213]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2016-0018]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance and Statutory Exemption

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
received February 5, 2016, the Association of American Railroads (AAR),
on behalf of itself and its member railroads, has petitioned the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from
certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained
at 49 CFR part 232--Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other
Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices. FRA assigned
the petition Docket Number FRA-2016-0018.
    In its petition, AAR seeks a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR
232.213--Extended haul trains, 49 CFR 232.15--Movement of defective
equipment, and 49 CFR 232.103(f)--General requirements for all train
brake systems. The current rules state that extended haul trains are
permitted to move a train up to, but not exceeding, 1,500 miles between
brake tests and inspections [49 CFR 232.213(a)]. In addition, current
rules require that equipment with defective or insecure power brakes
only be moved from the place at which the defect or insecurity was
first discovered to the nearest available place at which the repairs
can be made (49 CFR 232.15 and 49 U.S.C. 20303), and each car in a
train must have the air brakes in effective operating conditions unless
the car is being moved for repairs in accordance with 49 CFR 232.15 [49
CFR 232.103(f)]. AAR presently petitions FRA for a 5-year waiver from
these requirements to permit a limited pilot program conducted on a
segment of the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) system to demonstrate that
the use of wheel temperature detectors (WTD) to determine brake
effectiveness will improve safety and eliminate unnecessary costs to
the industry. AAR previously submitted a waiver petition in this matter
on July 19, 2013. That waiver petition was denied by FRA in a letter
dated June 20, 2014 (see Docket Number FRA-2013-0080). AAR has revised
that waiver petition and accompanying Safety Assurance Plan (SAP) in
accordance with further technical considerations and an evaluation of
the similar exemption currently in effect in Canada.
    Through a limited pilot effort, AAR intends to demonstrate the
effectiveness of using wayside WTD data to ensure safe braking
performance. The focus of this pilot will be revenue service unit coal
trains running on the UP system between Wyoming's Powder River Basin
and an unloading facility in White Bluff, AR, a round trip of
approximately 2,600 miles. The WTD that monitors the system is located
at Sheep Creek, WY. Under current UP operating practices, the coal
trains running in this service are classified as extended haul trains
and operate intact up to 1,500 miles between brake tests required under
49 CFR part 232. The waiver requested would extend the distance between
required tests up to an additional potential 1,100 miles, bypassing
approximately one visual inspection. Each test train will receive a
Class 1 brake test in accordance with 49 CFR 232.205 and a predeparture
inspection in accordance with 49 CFR 215.13 at North Platte, NE. The
trains will then leave North Platte and travel to a coal loading
facility in the Powder River Basin. The train cars will be loaded with
coal and then return to North Platte, passing the WTD monitors at Sheep
Creek for recording of braking performance, continuing through North
Platte through Van Buren, AR, and then to an unloading facility in
White Bluff. The train cars will be unloaded in White Bluff, and then
the train will return to the terminus at North Platte via Van Buren.
    In its petition, AAR states preliminary tests conducted with the
WTD system indicate that the system identifies cars with ineffective
brakes at a significantly higher rate (about four times more) than
Intermediate Brake Tests. This is because the WTD system detects cars
with ineffective brakes, even though they might still meet the criteria
of a Class 1 or Intermediate Brake Test. Identification of such cars by
the WTD system will result in those cars being repaired earlier, with
the eventual result that a greater percentage of cars in any train
would have effective brakes. AAR expects this will result in improved
train safety.
    Finally, AAR also requests an exemption from the statutory
requirements at 49 U.S.C. 20303, which mandate that a rail vehicle with
defective or insecure equipment may be moved to make repairs only to
the nearest available place at which the repairs can be made. In
requesting this exemption, AAR invokes the process at 49 U.S.C. 20306,
which states that the U.S. Secretary of Transportation may provide such
an exemption when existing requirements preclude the development or
implementation of more efficient railroad transportation equipment or
other transportation innovations under existing law. As delineated in
the SAP, the WTD system is a superior method to manage brake health as
compared with the current process found in the Federal brake system
safety standards. AAR requests a hearing during which evidence can be
developed per 49 U.S.C. 20306 for a statutory exemption to 49 U.S.C.
20303.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA will in the future
schedule a public hearing in connection with these proceedings as
requested by AAR pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20306. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by May 5, 2016 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacy. Notice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-06213 Filed 3-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20524-20530]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8827]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1082]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising Anchorage Ground No. 19 located
east of the Weehawken-Edgewater Federal Channel on the Hudson River.
The revision is necessary to facilitate safe navigation and provide
safe and secure anchorages for vessels operating in the area. This
action is intended to increase the safety of life and property of both
the anchored vessels and those operating in the area as well as to
provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of commerce.

DATES: This rule is effective May 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-1082 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2008-1082 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Jeff Yunker, Coast Guard Sector New York, Waterways
Management Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On September 18, 2009, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York in the Federal
Register (74 FR 47906). We received one comment on the NPRM. No public
meeting was requested and none was held. On April 28, 2010, we
published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) entitled
Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York in the Federal Register (75 FR
22323). We received one comment on the SNPRM. A public meeting was
requested by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC
Parks) but the Coast Guard determined a public meeting was not
necessary in this case. Instead, a meeting with representatives from
the NYC Parks, Sandy Hook Pilots Association, and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers New York District was held on August 31, 2010, to discuss
their comment in relation to commercial

vessel operations in this area of the Hudson River. The results of the
meeting are discussed in the Discussion of Comments and Changes
section.

Basis and Purpose

    The Hudson River Pilots Association, through the Port of New York/
New Jersey Harbor Safety, Navigation and Operations Committee, has had
several discussions with the Coast Guard over the years examining the
possibility of relocating Anchorage Ground No. 19; two years ago they
requested that the Coast Guard formally revise the boundaries of
Anchorage Ground No. 19, which is located on the Hudson River, east of
the Weehawken-Edgewater Federal Channel and south of the George
Washington Bridge.
    Due to severe recurring shoaling within the Weehawken-Edgewater
Federal Channel, the Hudson River Pilots requested and received
authorization from the Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
to pilot vessels through the deeper and safer water located within the
boundaries of Anchorage Ground No. 19.

Background

    Due to shoaling, the March 2007 ACOE survey verified a controlling
depth of 27 feet in the right outside quarter of the Weehawken-
Edgewater Federal Channel where vessels bound for ports north of New
York City would have to transit. As published by the ACOE Institute for
Water Resources, vessels with drafts of up to 34 feet routinely transit
the Hudson River. In calendar year 2006, there were 6,562 transits on
the Hudson River between the mouth of the Harlem River and Waterford,
NY by vessels with a draft of 27 feet or greater. In 2007, the number
of transits was 4,120. In 2008, there were 120 transits. Vessels with a
draft of 27 feet or greater would be required to transit through the
deeper water which is within the current boundaries of Anchorage Ground
No. 19.
    Anchorage Ground No. 19 is the closest Anchorage Ground available
for use when there is no space for temporary anchoring within the Upper
New York Bay Anchorage Grounds. Hence, these vessels transit to
Anchorage Ground No. 19 to await a berth, or orders, to minimize fuel
consumption and provide an orderly flow of commerce within the harbor
and the New England region. Tug and barge traffic within the harbor has
increased 37% since 1991, concurrently increasing use of the anchorage.
    On October 14, 2008, the Coast Guard Captain of the Port New York
issued an Advisory Notice notifying the maritime community that, in
accordance with 33 CFR 110.155(c)(5)(i), vessels would only be allowed
to anchor on the western boundary of Anchorage Ground No. 19. This
temporary solution was necessary to facilitate deep draft vessel
transits through the eastern portion of Anchorage Ground No. 19.
    On September 18, 2009, the Coast Guard published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Anchorage Regulations; Port of New
York'' (Docket number USCG-2008-1082) in the Federal Register (74 FR
47906). The proposal sought to amend Anchorage Ground No. 19 by
dividing it into two separate anchorages (Anchorage Ground No. 19 East
and Anchorage Ground No. 19 West), thereby relocating the majority of
the anchorage area to the western side of the Hudson River.
    The relocation of the anchorage would allow deep draft vessels to
transit the deeper water without having to transit through the existing
Anchorage Ground No. 19.
    In that NPRM, it was stated that the ACOE would relocate the
Weehawken-Edgewater Federal Channel to the east of its current location
and the Coast Guard would relocate Anchorage Ground No. 19 to the west
of its current location.
    After the publication of the NPRM, the ACOE advised the Coast Guard
that it did not intend to seek Congressional action to de-authorize the
Weehawken-Edgewater Federal Channel. However, the ACOE also advised
that it does not object to the Coast Guard establishing an Anchorage
Ground in the existing Weehawken-Edgewater Federal Channel.
    Consequently, to facilitate safe navigation of deep draft vessels,
the Coast Guard published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(SNPRM) titled ``Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York'' in the
Federal Register on April 28, 2010 (75 FR 22323) revising its proposal
to disestablish Anchorage Ground No. 19 and establish two separate
anchorage grounds, Anchorage Ground No. 19 East and Anchorage Ground
No. 19 West. This would be accomplished by dividing Anchorage Ground
No. 19 into an east and a west portion and relocating the majority of
the anchorage area (new Anchorage Ground No. 19 West) from the eastern
half of the Hudson River to the western half closer to the New Jersey
shore (over the Weehawken-Edgewater Federal Channel). The following
graphics display the current boundary of Anchorage Ground No. 19 and
the revised boundaries of Anchorage Grounds No. 19 East and No. 19
West:
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13AP11.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13AP11.001

BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
    Disestablishing Anchorage Ground No. 19 and establishing Anchorage
Ground No. 19 East and Anchorage Ground No. 19 West creates a 400 yard
wide area of deeper water between the newly established anchorage
grounds. This change allows deep draft vessels to transit the deeper
water of the Hudson River without having to transit through an existing
anchorage ground.
    The Weehawken-Edgewater Federal Channel is authorized by Congress,
and constructed and maintained by the ACOE. The ACOE has advised the
Coast Guard that no portion of the Weehawken-Edgewater Federal Channel
will be relocated in conjunction with the reapportionment, relocation
and establishment of Anchorage Ground No. 19 East and West. The ACOE
has further advised that establishment of an anchorage ground in the
Weehawken-Edgewater Federal Channel is not expected to impede
navigation or result in a need to maintain channel depth because the
Weehawken-Edgewater Federal Channel currently supports no commercial
vessel traffic.
    According to the ACOE the Weehawken-Edgewater Federal Channel was
originally intended to support commercial vessel traffic on the New
Jersey waterfront in the vicinity of the Channel. However, due to
changes in shoreline usage from industrial to residential and
recreational, the original intent of the Channel no longer exists. As a
result there has not been a need to dredge the Weehawken-Edgewater
Federal Channel segment to its authorized depth since it was last
dredged in 1994.
    The ACOE further advised that it does not appear likely that a need
will arise in the foreseeable future to maintain the channel for
commercial vessel traffic intending to access New Jersey waterfront and
shore facilities. However, should a need recur in the future to
accommodate commercial traffic, the use of the areas as anchorage
grounds would be re-evaluated.
    In the interest of safe navigation and to minimize confusion, the
ACOE and the USCG will request that the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) remove the Weehawken-Edgewater
Federal Channel designation from NOAA charts. In addition, the Coast
Guard will request chart corrections removing the Anchorage Ground No.
19 boundary line designation and adding the boundary lines for the
revised Anchorage Ground No. 19 East and Anchorage Ground No. 19 West.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received one comment on the NPRM from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE). In that NPRM, the Coast Guard stated that
the ACOE would relocate the Weehawken-Edgewater Channel to the east of
its current location and the Coast Guard would relocate Anchorage

Ground No. 19 to the west of its current location.
    After the publication of the NPRM, the ACOE advised the Coast Guard
that it did not intend to seek Congressional action to de-authorize the
Weehawken-Edgewater Channel. However, the ACOE also advised that it did
not object to the Coast Guard establishing an Anchorage Ground in the
existing Weehawken-Edgewater Channel.
    Consequently, the Coast Guard revised its proposal and published a
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) seeking to
disestablish Anchorage Ground No. 19 and establish two separate
anchorage grounds, Anchorage Ground No. 19 East and Anchorage Ground
No. 19 West.
    The Coast Guard received one comment on the SNPRM from the New York
City Parks and Recreation Department (NYC Parks).
    NYC Parks requested clarification that this rulemaking would not
impact their recreational mooring fields along the Manhattan shoreline
north and south of the 79th Street Boat Basin. NYC Parks is still
authorized to administer the mooring fields along the Manhattan
shoreline; therefore, the use of these mooring fields will not be
affected by this rule. In addition, the Coast Guard will submit chart
corrections to be published to identify these mooring fields on
government navigation charts.
    NYC Parks further requested that the two mooring fields be
designated as special anchorage areas as part of the current rule. The
Coast Guard is currently reviewing NYC Parks' request to designate the
two mooring fields as special anchorage areas; however any designation
of the two mooring fields as special anchorage areas would be done as
part of a separate rulemaking process.
    NYC Parks requested clarification that this rulemaking would
potentially eliminate 452 acres of open vessel anchorage area and
eliminate the mooring fields north and south of the 79th Street Boat
Basin. As stated above the use of the NYC Parks mooring fields will not
be affected by this rule. The 452 acres of Anchorage Ground No. 19
being disestablished were intended for the use of commercial shipping
and not recreational vessels that use the 79th Street Boat Basin and
mooring fields along the Manhattan shoreline.
    NYC Parks commented that this rulemaking would potentially
jeopardize their ability to fund and service the marina due to the
removal of their mooring fields. This rulemaking will not potentially
jeopardize NYC Parks' ability to fund and service the marina due to the
removal of the mooring fields because the mooring fields are not being
removed or impacted in any way.
    NYC Parks commented that Riverside Park concessions would be
negatively impacted, and Riverside Park itself would lose one of its
engaging and popular features. Riverside Park will not be impacted by
this rulemaking as NYC Parks is still authorized to administer their
mooring fields. Marine events and recreational boating usage will
continue to be administered on a not to interfere basis with commercial
shipping and Tugs/Barges as stated below.
    NYC Parks requested that these rules be revised to protect the
right of recreational boaters to use these waters and that the mooring
fields be designated as Special Anchorage Areas for these purposes. NYC
Parks is still authorized to administer their two mooring fields along
the Manhattan shoreline, north and south of the 79th Street Boat Basin.
Chart corrections will be submitted by the Coast Guard to display these
mooring fields on the navigation charts. In addition, the USCG is
reviewing NYC Parks request to establish two Special Anchorage Areas
north and south of the 79th Street Boat Basin.
    NYC Parks commented that the transit of commercial tugs and barges
in closer proximity to the 70-year-old boat basin and mooring fields
would exacerbate the damages and impacts caused by large wakes of
passing vessels on the Hudson River. At the meeting held with NYC Parks
on August 13, 2010, the Sandy Hook Pilots representative stated that
they have been piloting vessels along the current route, east of the
Weehawken-Edgewater Federal Channel, through Anchorage Ground No. 19,
on a continual basis since before the 1970s. In addition, tugs and
barges have always been authorized to transit through Anchorage Ground
No. 19, whether to anchor in a position near the 79th Street Boat
Basin, or to continue their transit through the Hudson River. Since
under this rule tugs and barges will be anchoring further away from the
79th Street Boat Basin and deep draft transits through the area are
down from previous years, as noted by the ACOE Institute for Water
Resources, the Coast Guard believes that this rule will alleviate
impacts from wakes on the boat basin and mooring field.
    NYC Parks commented that this revision may seriously impact
established marine events and a growing number of recreational users in
the area. As previously stated the Sandy Hook Pilots have been using
this transit route through the current Anchorage Ground No. 19 since
before the 1970s. Additionally, the area was always available for use
as an Anchorage Ground by vessels not constrained by draft. Marine
Event permits have been issued for events held in the Anchorage Ground
as long as the participants abided by the Inland Navigation Rules and
did not interfere with commercial navigation within the Anchorage
Ground.
    As previously stated Anchorage Ground No. 19 was established over
20 years prior to the 79th Street Boat Basin and mooring fields. Due to
the fluctuation of commercial vessel traffic on the Hudson River, and
based upon changing economic conditions, demand for home heating oil,
etc, the USCG may not always be able to approve marine event
applications in this area of the Hudson River regardless of the
Anchorage Ground configuration.
    NYC Parks requested a public meeting be held. A public meeting was
not held since the written comments clearly expressed the views of the
commenter and oral presentations would not aid the rulemaking process.
    Finally, this rule intends to reflect and formalize past and
current vessel navigation practices through the waters within Anchorage
Ground No. 19.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it
under that Order.
    We expect minimal additional cost impacts to the industry because
this rule is not imposing fees, permits, or specialized requirements
for the maritime industry to utilize these anchorage areas. This rule
is revising the Anchorage Ground No. 19 in order to facilitate safe
navigation and provide safe and secure anchorages for vessels operating
in the area. This revision would allow deep draft vessels to transit
the deeper water without having to transit through an anchorage ground.
This would improve safety for small vessels using the anchorage grounds
and would facilitate the transit of deep draft vessels.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending
to transit through the Anchorage Grounds 19 East and 19 West. Vessels
intending to anchor in the current Anchorage Ground No. 19 will still
be able to anchor in the revised Anchorage Ground No. 19 East or No. 19
West. NYC Parks will still be authorized to administer recreational
mooring fields located along the Manhattan shoreline, north and south
of the 79th Street Boat Basin. The labeling of these mooring fields on
Government navigation charts will create a positive impact in the area
by increasing awareness of the location of smaller recreational
vessels. Additionally, the recreational vessels will no longer have to
maneuver around larger anchored vessels when entering, or departing,
the 79th Street Boat Basin or mooring fields.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) (2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of
the Instruction as this rule involves changing the size of an existing
anchorage ground and dividing it into two separate anchorage areas
resulting in a reduction in the overall size of the anchorage areas. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in

the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
amending 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  110.155, by revising paragraph (c)(5) to read as
follows:

Sec.  110.155  Port of New York.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) Anchorages No. 19 East and 19 West.
    (i) Anchorage No. 19 East. All waters of the Hudson River bound by
the following points: 40[deg]49'42.6'' N, 073[deg]57'14.7'' W; thence
to 40[deg]49'45.9'' N, 073[deg]57'22.0'' W; thence to 40[deg]49'52.0''
N, 073[deg]57'22.0'' W; thence to 40[deg]50'08.3'' N, 073[deg]57'10.8''
W; thence to 40[deg]50'55.4'' N, 073[deg]56'59.7'' W; thence to
40[deg]51'02.5'' N, 073[deg]56'57.4'' W; thence to 40[deg]51'00.8'' N,
073[deg]56'49.4'' W; thence along the shoreline to the point of origin.
    (ii) Anchorage No. 19 West. All waters of the Hudson River bound by
the following points: 40[deg]46'56.3'' N, 073[deg]59'42.2'' W; thence
to 40[deg]47'36.9'' N, 073[deg]59'11.7'' W; thence to 40[deg]49'31.3''
N, 073[deg]57'43.8'' W; thence to 40[deg]49'40.2'' N, 073[deg]57'37.6''
W; thence to 40[deg]49'52.4'' N, 073[deg]57'37.6'' W; thence to
40[deg]49'57.7'' N, 073[deg]57'47.3'' W; thence to 40[deg]49'32.2'' N,
073[deg]58'12.9'' W; thence to 40[deg]49'00.7'' N, 073[deg]58'33.1'' W;
thence to 40[deg]48'28.7'' N, 073[deg]58'53.8'' W; thence to
40[deg]47'38.2'' N, 073[deg]59'31.2'' W; thence to 40[deg]47'02.7'' N,
073[deg]59'57.4'' W; thence to the point of origin.
    (iii) The following regulations apply to 33 CFR 110.155(c)(5)(i)
and (ii):
    (A) No vessel may conduct lightering operations in these anchorage
grounds without permission from the Captain of the Port. When
lightering is authorized, the Captain of the Port New York must be
notified at least four hours in advance of a vessel conducting
lightering operations as required by 156.118 of this title.
    (B) Any vessel conducting lightering or bunkering operations shall
display by day a red flag (46 CFR 35.30-1; Pub 102; International Code
of Signals signaling instructions) at its mast head or at least 10 feet
above the upper deck if the vessel has no mast, and by night the flag
must be illuminated by spotlight. These signals shall be in addition to
day signals, lights and whistle signals as required by rules 30 (33
U.S.C 2030 and 33 CFR 83.30) and 35 (33 USC 2035 and 33 CFR 83.35) of
the Inland Navigation Rules when at anchor in a general anchorage area.
    (C) Within an anchorage, fishing and navigation are prohibited
within 500 yards of an anchored vessel displaying a red flag.
    (D) These anchorage grounds are only authorized for use by tugs
and/or barges.
    (E) No vessel may occupy this anchorage ground for a period of time
in excess of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the
Port.
    (F) No vessel may anchor in Anchorage No. 19 East or No. 19 West
without permission from the Captain of the Port.
    (G) Each vessel shall report its position within Anchorage No. 19
East or No. 19 West to the Captain of the Port immediately after
anchoring.
    (H) All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 83.
* * * * *

    Dated: March 28, 2011.
Daniel A. Neptun,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-8827 Filed 4-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 73 (Monday, April 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20290-20294]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07951]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0385; FRL-10018-60]

Metaflumizone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of the
insecticide metaflumizone in or on multiple commodities which are
identified and discussed later in this document. BASF Corporation
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 19, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 18, 2021, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0385, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Acting Director,
Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0385 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
June 18, 2021. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0385, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 30, 2019 (84 FR 45702) (FRL-9998-
15), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
8E8707) by BASF Corporation, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709. That document stated that BASF's petition (summarized by BASF
Corporation in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0385) requested that 40 CFR
180.657 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
insecticide metaflumizone (2-[2-(4-cyanophenyl)-1-[3-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethylidene]-N-[4-
(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]hydrazinecarboxamide; E and Z isomers), in or
on apple at 1.0 parts per million (ppm), apple, wet pomace at 3.0 ppm,
coffee at 0.15 ppm, fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwi
fruit, subgroup 13-07F at 5.0 ppm, grape, raisin at 10 ppm, lemon/lime
subgroup 10-10B at 3.0 ppm, lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B, oil at 42 ppm,
melon subgroup 9A at 1.0 ppm, orange subgroup 10-10A at 3.0 ppm, orange
subgroup 10-10A, oil at 42 ppm, cattle, fat at 0.05 ppm, goat, fat at
0.05 ppm, horse, fat at 0.05 ppm, sheep, fat at 0.05 ppm, and milk, fat
at 0.1 ppm. Although the petition summary did not request a tolerance
on apple, wet pomace, the petition itself requested a tolerance on
apple, wet pomace, so EPA included that commodity in the document
published in the Federal Register. There were no substantive comments
received in response to the notice of filing for this pesticide
petition.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the referenced petition,
and in accordance with its authority under FFDCA section
408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA has revised the tolerance levels and commodity
definitions for several of the proposed commodities, established
additional necessary tolerances, and deleted a number of established
tolerances superseded by the newly established import tolerances. The
reasons for these changes are explained in full detail in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for metaflumizone including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. A
summary of EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
metaflumizone follows.
    In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal
Register, EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been
previously published for tolerance rulemakings of the same pesticide
chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical
remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between
tolerance rulemakings and republishing the same sections is
unnecessary; EPA considers referral back to those sections as
sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA considered
in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.
    EPA has previously published a number of tolerance rulemakings for
metaflumizone, in which EPA concluded, based on the available
information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would
result from aggregate exposure to metaflumizone and established
tolerances for residues of that chemical. EPA is incorporating
previously published sections from those rulemakings as described
further in this rulemaking, as they remain unchanged.
    Toxicological Profile. For a discussion of the Toxicological
Profile of metaflumizone, see Unit III.A. of the

October 30, 2015 rulemaking (80 FR 66795) (FRL-9934-88).
    Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern. For a summary
of the Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern used for the
safety assessment, see Unit III.B. of the October 30, 2015 rulemaking.
    Exposure Assessment. Much of the exposure assessment remains
unchanged from the previous rulemaking, although some updates have
occurred to accommodate exposures from the petitioned-for tolerances.
The updates are discussed in this section; for a description of the
rest of the EPA approach to and assumptions for the exposure
assessment, see Unit III.C. of the October 30, 2015 rulemaking.
    EPA's exposure assessments have been updated to include the
additional exposure from imported apple, coffee, melon subgroup 9A,
orange subgroup 10-10A, lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B, small vine climbing
fruit subgroup 13-07F (except fuzzy kiwifruit), milk fat, and ruminant
fat for the combined residues of metaflumizone (E-Z isomer ratio of
>9:1). The acute and chronic dietary analyses for metaflumizone for
this action assumed tolerance-level residues, 100% crop treated, and
2018 default processing factors when necessary, except for citrus
juice, which used empirical processing factor for citrus juice. The
modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations and the Agency's
assessment of residential, or non-occupational exposure remain the same
as in the October 30, 2015 rulemaking, as the residues on imported
commodities do not impact the drinking water exposures or residential
exposures. The Agency's position regarding cumulative risk also remains
the same.
    Safety Factor for Infants and Children. EPA continues to retain the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor of 10x for inhalation
exposure scenarios, while continuing to conclude that there is reliable
data showing that the safety of infants and children would be
adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced from 10x to 3x for all
oral exposure scenarios and reduced to 1x for dermal exposures. The
reasons for that decision are articulated in Unit III.D. of the October
30, 2015 rulemaking.
    Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety. EPA determines whether
acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing
aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD
(cPAD). Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by
comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure
to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists. For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of
acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure.
    The acute and chronic dietary estimates for metaflumizone were
found not to be of concern for the U.S. general population and all
population subgroups and are below the Agency's level of concern (LOC)
(<100% of the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD), respectively). An acute endpoint of
concern was not identified in the toxicological database for the
general U.S. population including infants and children. Acute dietary
risks for metaflumizone are below the Agency's LOC: 5.3% of the aPAD at
the 95th percentile for females 13-49 years of age, the population
group with the highest exposure; and chronic risks are below the
Agency's LOC: 65% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the most
highly exposed population subgroup. Metaflumizone is classified as
``Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.'' Therefore, EPA does not
expect exposure to metaflumizone to pose a cancer risk.
    Since metaflumizone is registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, EPA evaluated the potential for short-
term risk by aggregating chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to metaflumizone. Since the LOC for
the various routes of exposure differ, the aggregate risk estimates
were calculated using the Aggregate Risk Index (ARI) approach (LOC for
ARI <1). The short-term aggregate assessment combined food + drinking
water exposure with the highest potential residential post-application
exposure (high-contact activity on turf). The aggregate ARIs are
greater than 1; therefore, EPA concludes there is no short-term risk of
concern. Although only short-term residential exposure is anticipated,
the short-term assessment is protective of intermediate-term exposure
since the short- and intermediate-term PODs/LOCs are identical.
    Determination of Safety. Based on the risk assessments and
information described above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. general population, or
to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to metaflumizone
residues. More detailed information on the subject action can be found
at http://www.regulations.gov in the documents entitled
``Metaflumizone: Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Section 3
Registrations for Application of Metaflumizone to Pome Fruit (crop
group (CG) 11-10) and Stone Fruit (CG 12-12); Updating the CG
Designation for Citrus to 10-10 and Tree Nuts to 14-12; and Permitting
Aerial Application to Citrus Fruits, Grapes, Tree Nuts, and Nurseries
Containing Field-/Container-Grown Nonbearing Stone and Pome Fruit
Trees,'' dated September 29, 2015 (docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0607), and
``Metaflumizone: Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Tolerances
Without a U.S. Registration in/on Apple, Coffee, Melon Subgroup 9A,
Orange Subgroup 10-10A, Lemon/Lime Subgroup 10-10B, Grape, Milk Fat,
and Ruminant Fat,'' dated December 7, 2020 (docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-
0385).

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method,
see Unit IV.A. of the October 30, 2015 rulemaking.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). Codex is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it
is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party.
Although EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex
MRL, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for
departing from the Codex level.
    While Codex has not yet established MRLs on the commodities
mentioned in this document, it has proposed MRLs in/on most of the
relevant commodities. EPA notes that the U.S. and Codex residue
definitions differ in that the U.S. tolerance expression includes
metaflumizone (E- and Z-isomers) and M320I04 while Codex includes only
metaflumizone (E- and Z-isomers). EPA is harmonizing its U.S.
tolerances with most of the proposed Codex MRLs for apple, coffee,
grape, melon subgroup 9A, orange subgroup 10-10A, orange oil, raisin,
milk fat, and fat (cattle, goat, horse, and sheep). EPA is not

harmonizing the U.S. tolerance on lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B with the
Codex MRL since the Codex MRL is less than that calculated by EPA using
the submitted residue data and the OECD tolerance calculation
procedure.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based upon review of data and supporting materials for this
petition, EPA is establishing tolerances for the following commodities
requested using the Agency's preferred commodity terminology: Instead
of establishing a tolerance for coffee, as requested, the Agency is
establishing a tolerance for coffee, green bean. In addition, based
upon supporting data and harmonization with proposed Codex MRLs, the
Agency is establishing a tolerance level lower than requested for Apple
at 0.9 ppm, and tolerance levels higher than requested for grape,
raisin at 13 ppm; lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B, oil at 100 ppm; and
orange subgroup 10-10A, oil at 100 ppm. Further, since importation of
ruminant commodities is also a probability and based on the livestock
dietary burdens, EPA is also establishing tolerances for milk fat and
ruminant fat tolerances in or on cattle, fat at 0.15 ppm; goat, fat at
0.15 ppm; horse, fat at 0.15 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.15 ppm; and milk, fat
at 0.6 ppm.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide metaflumizone (2-[2-(4-cyanophenyl)-1-[3-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethylidene]-N-[4-
(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]hydrazinecarboxamide; E and Z isomers), in or
on apple at 0.9 parts per million (ppm); apple, wet pomace at 3 ppm;
coffee, green bean at 0.15 ppm; grape, raisin at 13 ppm; grapefruit
subgroup 10-10C at 0.04 ppm; lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B at 3 ppm;
lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B, oil at 100 ppm; melon subgroup 9A at 1 ppm;
orange subgroup 10-10A at 3 ppm; orange subgroup 10-10A, oil at 100
ppm; cattle, fat at 0.15 ppm; goat, fat at 0.15 ppm; horse, fat at 0.15
ppm; milk, fat at 0.6 ppm; and sheep, fat at 0.15 ppm. In addition, the
existing tolerance for ``fruit, pome, group 11-10,'' is amended to
clarify that that entry now excludes apple, due to the establishment of
a separate apple tolerance in this rulemaking and the existing
tolerance for grape is amended to raise the tolerance level from 0.04
ppm to 5 ppm. Finally, EPA is removing the tolerance for ``fruit,
citrus, group 10-10'' because it is superseded by the newly established
tolerances for each of the fruit, citrus, group 10-10 subgroups.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or Executive Order 13771,
entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 8, 2021.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.657:
0
a. Designate paragraph (a) introductory text as paragraph (a)(1) and
revise newly designated paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
0
b. In the table in newly designated paragraph (a)(1):
0
i. Add a heading for the table;
0
ii. Add entries for ``Apple,'' ``Apple, wet pomace,'' and ``Coffee,
green bean'' in alphabetical order;
0
iii. Remove the entries for ``Fruit, citrus, group 10-10,'' ``Fruit,
pome, group 11-10,'' and ``Fruit, stone, group 12-12'';
0
iv. Add the entry ``Fruit, pome, group 11-10, except apple'' in
alphabetical order;
0
v. Revise the entry for ``Grape'';
0
vi. Add entries for ``Grape, raisin,'' ``Grapefruit subgroup 10-10C,''
``Lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B,''

``Lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B, oil,'' ``Melon subgroup 9A,'' ``Orange
subgroup 10-10A,'' and ``Orange subgroup 10-10A, oil'' in alphabetical
order; and
0
vii. Revise footnote 1; and
0
c. Add paragraph (a)(2).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  180.657  Metaflumizone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide metaflumizone, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the commodities listed in table 1 to this paragraph (a)(1).
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph (a)(1)
is to be determined by measuring only the sum of metaflumizone (E and Z
isomers; 2-[2-(4-cyanophenyl)-1-[3-(trifluoromethyl)
phenyl]ethylidene]-N-[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl] hydrazinecarboxamide)
and its metabolite 4-{2-oxo-2-[3-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethyl{time} -
benzonitrile, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
metaflumizone, in or on the following commodities:

                       Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Apple......................................................          0.9
Apple, wet pomace..........................................            3
Coffee, green bean 1.......................................         0.15

                                * * * * *
Fruit, pome, group 11-10, except apple.....................         0.04
Grape......................................................            5
Grape, raisin..............................................           13
Grapefruit subgroup 10-10C.................................         0.04
Lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B.................................            3
Lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B, oil............................          100
Melon subgroup 9A 1........................................            1

                                * * * * *
Orange subgroup 10-10A.....................................            3
Orange subgroup 10-10A, oil................................          100

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations for this commodity as of April 19,
  2021.

    (2) Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide
metaflumizone, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities listed in table 2 to this paragraph (a)(2). Compliance with
the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph (a)(2) is to be
determined by measuring only metaflumizone (E and Z isomers; 2-[2-(4-
cyanophenyl)-1-[3-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethylidene]-N-[4-
(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl] hydrazinecarboxamide) in or on the following
animal commodities:

                       Table 2 to Paragraph (a)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat................................................         0.15
Goat, fat..................................................         0.15
Horse, fat.................................................         0.15
Milk, fat..................................................          0.6
Sheep, fat.................................................         0.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-07951 Filed 4-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33610-33611]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13560]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72330; File No. SR-OCC-2014-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Correct an Inadvertent
Omission in a Prior Proposed Rule Change Concerning OCC's Clearing Fee
Schedule

June 5, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 28, 2014, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') 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 primarily by OCC. OCC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \4\
thereunder.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \5\ Notwithstanding its immediate effectiveness, implementation
of this rule change will be delayed until this rule change is deemed
certified under CFTC Regulation Sec.  40.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    OCC proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees in order to correct an
inadvertent omission in the Schedule of Fees that was the subject of a
prior rule change.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to correct an
inadvertent omission in the Schedule of Fees that was the subject of a
prior rule filing. In March 2014, OCC filed, for immediate
effectiveness, a proposal with the Commission to amend its Schedule of
Fees, effective April 1, 2014 (``Filing 2014-05'').\6\ Filing 2014-05
has since been published on the Commission's Web site and in the
Federal Register. However, through an inadvertent oversight, the
Schedule of Fees attached as Exhibit 5 to Filing 2014-05 did not
include a reference to the ``decentralized linkage'' fee.\7\ OCC is now
proposing to correct the Schedule of Fees set forth in Exhibit 5 in
order to properly reflect the decentralized linkage fee of two cents
($0.02) that has

been applied since its adoption.\8\ In addition, OCC proposes to add
language to its Schedule of Fees to clarify the trade volume number
(i.e., more than 2750 contracts) at which market maker/specialist
scratch trades and decentralized linkage trades are charged a flat fee
of $55 per trade, per side instead of a per trade, per side fee of two
cents ($0.02). Except for the aforementioned changes, the Schedule of
Fees set forth in Exhibit 5 to this proposed rule change is the same as
the Schedule of Fees contained in Exhibit 5 to Filing 2014-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 71769 (March 21,
2014), 79 FR 17214 (March 27, 2014) (SR-OCC-2014-05). This filing
reinstated the permanent reduced fee rates adopted, effective May 1,
2007, for securities options and securities futures.
    \7\ The decentralized linkage fee was added to OCC's Schedule of
Fees in 2012 so that OCC could, for the purposes of charging a
clearing fee, treat routing trades executed in accordance with the
Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan the same as
market maker/specialist scratch trades. See Securities and Exchange
Act Release No. 68025 (October 10, 2012), 77 FR 63398 (October 16,
2012) (SR-OCC-2012-18).
    \8\ OCC considers the decentralized linkage trade to be
substantially similar to a market maker/scratch trade. Id. Therefore
the decentralized linkage fee will be the same as the market maker/
scratch fee set forth in Filing 2014-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(D) \9\ of the Act because it corrects an inadvertent omission
in OCC's Schedule of Fees, thereby ensuring transparency regarding
fees. As there is no intentional change in the Fee Schedule, OCC will
continue to equitably allocate fees among its clearing members and
other market participants. The proposed rule change is not inconsistent
with the existing rules of the OCC including any other rules proposed
to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes to the rules of a clearing agency may have an impact on the
participants in a clearing agency, their customers, and the markets
that the clearing agency serves. This proposed rule change primarily
affects such users and OCC believes that the proposed modifications
would not disadvantage or favor any particular user in relationship to
another user because the discount is being eliminated for, and the
clearing fees apply equally to, all users of OCC's services.
    For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule
change is in the public interest, would be consistent with the
requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies, and would not
impose a burden on competition that is unnecessary or inappropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not
intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and
none have been received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \11\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \12\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2014-11 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-OCC-2014-11. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method of submission. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100
F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC
and on OCC's Web site at http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_14_11.pdf.
    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-OCC-2014-11
and should be submitted on or before July 2, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13560 Filed 6-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P