[Federal Register: June 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 34344-34345]
[DOCID:fr14jn06-81]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0503; FRL-8072-7]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions for Establishment of
Regulations for Residues of Pendimethalin in or on Onion, Green; Leek;
Onion, Welsh; Shallot, Fresh Leaves; and Strawberry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide
petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of
pendimethalin in or on onion, green; leek; onion, welsh; shallot, fresh
leaves; and strawberry.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 14, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0503 and pesticide petition numbers (PP)
5E6927 and 5E6928, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0503. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
     Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket
index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, 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 telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja Brothers, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of the pesticide petitions received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment of regulations in 40 CFR part
180 for residues of pendimethalin in or on onion, green; leek; onion,
welsh; shallot, fresh leaves; and strawberry. EPA has determined that
the pesticide petitions contain data or information regarding the
elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not
fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or
whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on these pesticide
petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petitions included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of
pendimethalin residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov. To locate this information on the home page

of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the OPP
docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking on
the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the docket
for the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerances

     PP 5E6927 and 5E6928. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-
4), 681 U.S. Highway 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390,proposes
to establish tolerances for residues of the herbicide [N-(1-
ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6dinitrobenzenamine, (pendimethalin) and
its 3, 5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol metabolite (CL 202347)] in or on the
following food commodities:
     1. PP 5E6927 proposes to establish tolerances for onion, green;
leek; onion, welsh; and shallot, fresh leaves at 0.1 parts per million
(ppm).
     2. PP 5E6928 proposes to establish a tolerance for strawberry at
0.05 ppm.
     Section 408 (b)(3) of the amended FDCA requires EPA to determine
that there is a practical method for detecting and measuring levels of
the pesticide chemical residue in or on food and the tolerance be set
at a level at or above of the limit of detection of the designated
method. In plants the method is aqueous organic solvent extraction,
column clean up, and quantitation by GC. The method has a limit of
quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm for pendimethalin and the alcohol
metabolite.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: June 5, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-9211 Filed 6-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


Phone call with Chris Surak, CPA Director of Certification

703-724-1128 ext. 231

1/21/2011, Contacted by Dave Mancinelli, Abt Associates Inc.

Call Notes:

Three fees necessary to become certified:

Administrative Fees

$1,500/quarter = $6,000/year

Testing Costs

Initial Testing Costs

Minimum of 5 test results required to make the correlation, for each
product type and production line

$400/test

To ship PB, 3 panels @ 48” x 55.5”, assume 0.75” thickness on a
palette wrapped with protective boards on top and bottom might weigh
around 500 lbs

Cost $100-$200 for shipping via third-party commercial shipping carrier
– they don’t generally see companies shipping the boards themselves
(ex: White Trucking)

Recurring Testing Costs

Quarterly tests for each product type @ $400/test

Panels to be tested are selected during on-site audit and shipped to TPC
for testing

Audits

Quarterly Audit Costs

On-site audit conducted quarterly for each product type

$450/audit

Monthly Audit Costs

“Desk audit” performed over the phone

$200/audit

Other Costs

Training Costs

Generally rolled into certification costs

If someone wanted to, they would be able to go to the CPA lab, and CPA
would set an hourly rate

Sometimes the resin manufacturer will help the mill train employees

QC employees are checked during the initial audit

Recordkeeping & Labeling

They deal with board manufacturers and fabricators

Most often these companies already have recordkeeping and labeling
systems – it is not a major task to adjust these things

Setting Up In-house Testing

Most small operations do not already have QC systems in place

They need to determine if it is cheaper to build a small chamber lab or
outsource daily testing

$135/test + shipping to outsource

Most, if not all, PB/MDF manufacturers test in-house

For HWPW mills where CARB exemption is the ultimate goal, they may
decide to outsource testing

testing is only needed 1-4/week for each product type and product line
(based on volume)

ULEF exemption requires testing for 6 months

NAF exemption requires testing for 3 months

They see a lot of HWPW mills decide to outsource testing


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 5506]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01942]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday,
February 4, 2016 at 12 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit
consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Adjudicatory matters;
    Opinion; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 28, 2016.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01942 Filed 1-29-16; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76994-76995]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29947]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2829-005]

City of Loveland, Colorado; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Types of Application: Surrender of License.
    b. Project No.: 2829-005.
    c. Date Filed: November 12, 2014.
    d. Applicants: City of Loveland, Colorado.
    e. Name of Projects: Loveland Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Big Thompson River, in Larimer County, Colorado.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Steve Adams, Loveland Light and Power,
200 North Wilson St., Building 1, Loveland, CO 80537,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Jennifer Ambler,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests,
and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by
the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or
recommendations 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 at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. Please include the project number (P-2829-005) on any comments,
motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to surrender the
license for the Loveland Hydroelectric Project due to severe damage to
the powerhouse, Idylwilde Dam, and other project features as a result
of flooding in September 2013. As part of the Surrender, the applicant
intends to remove certain project facilities and abandon in place other
features.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in
the docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the license surrender.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: December 16, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29947 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 241 (Monday, December 18, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 87341-87343]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27757]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2023-0935]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Illinois River MM 165-166, Peoria, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters in the Illinois River between Mile Marker (MM)
165.2 to 166.3. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from all potential hazards
associated with the McClugage Bridge arch installation. Entry of
vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Upper Mississippi
River or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from December 18, 2023, through December
25, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0935 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MSTC Nathaniel Dibley, Sector Upper Mississippi River
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-
2560, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because a temporary safety zone must be
established immediately to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards created by the bridge arch
installation. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must
establish this safety zone by December 18, 2023.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because action is needed to respond to
the potential safety hazards associated with the installation of the
arch on the McClugage bridge beginning December 18, 2023.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The COTP of Sector Upper Mississippi River has determined that
potential hazards associated with the installation of the arch on the
McClugage Bridge will be a safety concern for anyone operating or
transiting within the Illinois River from MM 165.2 through 166.3. This
rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the
installation of the arch.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The installation of the arch will be occurring on the McClugage
Bridge located on MM 165.7 and scheduled for 48 hours beginning
December 19 through December 21, 2023. The installation has an
operational window from December 18 through December 25, 2023 in the
event of inclement weather delaying the installation. The safety zone
is designed to protect waterway users until work is complete.
    No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under
the operational control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River. To seek
permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated representative
via VHF-FM channel 16, or through USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River
at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone
must comply with all lawful orders or directions issued by the COTP or
designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will
inform the public of the effective period for the safety zone as well
as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement, as well as
reductions in the size of the safety zone through Local Notice to
Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), or Safety Marine
Information Broadcast (SMIB), as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. The safety zone would impact
a small designated area located on the Illinois River at MM 165.2
through 166.3, near Peoria, IL. The safety zone is expected to be
active only during the installation of the arch for the McClugage
Bridge, scheduled for a 48 hour period between December 19 and 21,
2023, or until December 25, 2023. Vessel traffic will be able to safely
transit through this safety zone when the safety zone is not enforced.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on

small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small entities'' comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator because the zone will be enforced only when
work is being conducted.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    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.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone encompassing the width of the Illinois River at MM 165.2
through 166.3. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0935 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0935   Safety Zone; Illinois River, Mile Markers 165.2-
166.3, Peoria, IL.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable
waters within Illinois River, Mile Marker 165.2 through 166.3, Peoria,
IL.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be subject to enforcement
from December 18, 2023, through December 25, 2023.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general safety zone
regulations in Sec.  165.23, entry of persons or vessels into this
safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or a designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under
the operational control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated
representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through USCG Sector Upper
Mississippi River at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons and vessels permitted to
enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions
issued by the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the enforcement period for the
safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of
enforcement, as well as reductions in size or scope of the safety zone
through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners
(BNMs), or Safety Marine Information Broadcast (SMIB) as appropriate.

    Dated: December 12, 2023.
A.R. Bender,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi
River.
[FR Doc. 2023-27757 Filed 12-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Chemical Name: Cyromazine (PC Code Number: 121301)

Screening-level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: December 5, 2006

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active
ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

What does it contain?

Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used
on.

Available pesticide usage information (i.e., does not include all of the
United States).

Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural
crop.

Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural
crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by
merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging by year,
averaging across all years, & then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated
value is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated
values between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.
Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant
digits.)

Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data
sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, &
rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is
less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.

Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value
reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5,
then the value is labeled <2.5.

What are the data sources used?

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service) – pesticide usage data from 1999 to
2005.

Private Pesticide Market Research – pesticide usage data from 1999 to
2005.

NCFAP 97 (National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy), and NPUD
2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) – insecticide usage data from
NCFAP 97, and fungicide and herbicide usage data from NPUD 02, of the
CropLife Foundation,  are used only if data are not available from the
other sources.

California DPR data can be requested separately.

What are the data limitations?

Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because either
the available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops) or
these uses are not covered in the available surveys.

Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply
zero usage.

Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not
quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the
SLUA.

Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control,
etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to
receive these estimates.

Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This
usage could be due to Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the
chemical, data collection errors, experimental use permit (EUP), and/or
because of an illegal use.

Who do I contact for further information and/or questions on this SLUA?

BEAD Analyst: Jihad Alsadek (Phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>)

Reviewer: Alan Halvorson (Phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>)

1

                    Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of
cyromazine

                                         Sorted Alphabetically

	  	 	Pounds of	Percent      Maximum

	  	 	Active	of Crop     Percent of

		Crop	Ingredient	Treated    Crop Treated

	1 	Beans, Green	<500	<1           <2.5

	2 	Cantaloupes	<500	<1              5

	3 	Celery	3,000	35             60

	4 	Chicory *	<500

	5 	Lettuce	4,000	5             20

	6 	Onions	<500	<1           <2.5

	7 	Peppers	<500	5              5

	8 	Spinach	1,000	20             35

	9 	Tomatoes	2,000	5             15

	10	Watermelons	<500	<1           <2.5

______________________________________

All numbers rounded.

'<500' indicates less than 500 pounds of active ingredient.

'<2.5' indicates less than 2.5 percent of crop is treated.

'<1'	indicates less than 1	percent of crop is treated.

* CA data only, but 95% or more of U.S. acres are in California

( data years 2000 to 2005 )	( Tuesday, December 5, 2006	9:30 cyromazine
)

Last revised on 11/17/2005


Date: April 19, 2003 ( draft) October 19, 2004 ( final)

From: Thomas Holloway Subject: Exclusions from Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Facility Inventory To: Project Files Based on information provided by Dave Reeves in July/ August 2002, the following facilities on our preliminary inventory are not magnetic tape manufacturing facilities, or they have shut down:

Facility name Address City State Digital Equipment Corp. 1901 W. 14th Street Tempe AZ Imation Corp. 8500 S. Rita Road Tucson AZ Imation Corp. 300 S. Lewis Road Camarillo CA HMT Technology Corp. 1055 Page Avenue Fremont CA Komag Inc. Building 1 591 Yosemite Drive Milpitas CA Komag Inc. Buildings 2 & 4 487 S. Hillview Drive Milpitas CA Seagate Tech. LLC 311 Turquoise Street Milpitas CA Ampex Corp. 401 Broadway Street Redwood City CA Akashic Memories Corp. 305 W. Tasman Drive San Jose CA Hoya Corp. USA 960 Rincon Circle San Jose CA Kaitek Media Inc. 150 Charcot Avenue San Jose CA Komag Building 9 1705 Automation Parkway San Jose CA Komag Inc. Building 10 1710 Automation Parkway San Jose CA Komag Inc. Building 6 1735 Lundy Avenue San Jose CA Storagetek Media Corp. 575 Dado Street San Jose CA Akashic Memories Corp. 3570 Ryder Street Santa Clara CA Facility name Address City State 2 Memorex Technologies Inc., Tape Plant 1200 Memorex Drive Santa Clara CA Tandy Magnetic Media 1600 Memorex Drive Santa Clara CA Xidex Corp. 5440 Patrick Henry Drive Santa Clara CA Komag Material Tech. Inc. 93 Stony Circle Santa Rosa CA Disksystems Inc. 309 N. Pastoria Avenue Sunnyvale CA Verbatim Corp. 360 N. Pastoria Avenue Sunnyvale CA Nashua Precision Technologies 1401 Interstate Drive Champaign IL IBM 3605 Highway 52 N. Rochester MN 3M St. Paul East Side Site 900 Bush Avenue St. Paul MN Anacomp Magnetics 11616 " I" Street Omaha NE Seagate Tech. Inc., Omaha 11615 " I" Street Omaha NE Komag Inc. 3590 W. 3rd Avenue Eugene OR Fuji Photo Film Inc. 211 Pucketts Ferry Road Greenwood SC Fuji Photo Film Inc., Magnetic Products Division 215 Pucketts Ferry Road Greenwood SC NCR Corp. MPD Systemedia Group 5512 E. Tennessee Boulevard Morristown TN


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38581-38583]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62384; File No. SR-DTC-2010-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Revise Its Procedures
Regarding Securities Delivered To or From Participant Accounts Through
the Automated Customer Account Transfer Service of National Securities
Clearing Corporation

June 25, 2010.
    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 June 4, 2010, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') 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 substantially prepared by DTC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise DTC's
Procedures regarding securities delivered to or from Participant
accounts through the Automated Customer Account Transfer Service
(``ACATS'') of National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'').

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

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

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

    DTC proposes modifying certain provisions of its Settlement
Services Guide (``Guide'') in connection with

concurrent rule changes proposed by NSCC concerning ACATS transfers
through NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement (``CNS'') system.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NSCC is proposing these concurrent changes in filing SR-
NSCC-2010-05 with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC's ACATS enables members to effect automated transfers of
customer accounts among themselves.\4\ For ACATS transfers processed
through NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement (``CNS'') system,\5\ long and
short positions are passed against Members' positions at The Depository
Trust Company (``DTC''). Available securities are delivered from short
Members' accounts at DTC and allocated to long Members' accounts by
book-entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ACATS complements a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') rule requiring FINRA members to use automated clearing
agency customer account transfer services and to effect customer
account transfers within specified time frames.
    \5\ CNS is an ongoing accounting system which nets today's
Settling Trades with yesterday's Closing Positions to produce a net
short or long position for a particular security for a particular
Member. NSCC is the contra party for all positions. The positions
are then passed against the Member's Designated Depository positions
and available securities are allocated by book-entry. This
allocation of securities is accomplished through an evening cycle
followed by a day cycle. Positions which remain open after the
evening cycle may be changed as a result of trades accepted for
settlement that day. CNS allocates deliveries in both the night and
day cycles using an algorithm based on priority groups in descending
order, age of position within a priority group, and random numbers
within age groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An NSCC Member to which a customer's securities account is to be
transferred through ACATS (``Receiving Member'') may initiate the
transfer process by submitting a Transfer Initiation Request (``TIF'')
to NSCC. For the transfer to be processed, the TIF must be accepted by
the NSCC Member from which the customer's securities account is being
transferred (``Delivering Member''). After a Delivering Member accepts
a customer account transfer and all other preconditions of NSCC's rules
for processing ACATS transfer are met, all CNS-eligible items in the
account will be entered into NSCC's CNS accounting operation on the day
before settlement date unless the Receiving Member notifies NSCC that
certain items should be withheld.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NSCC Rule 50 (Automated Customer Account Transfer Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC proposes modifying the Guide in several ways to clarify that
securities moving through NSCC's ACATS system are not subject to a lien
by DTC when they are debited from a delivering Participant's DTC
account or when they are credited to a receiving Participant's DTC
account.\7\ DTC believes its proposed clarifications would help NSCC
Members and DTC Participants meet their legal obligations to maintain
securities possession or control of certain customer securities \8\ and
would concurrently protect the interests of NSCC and DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As part of NSCC's companion rule filing, NSCC proposes
amending its Rules to provide that any deliveries and receives in a
particular security processed through CNS would be designated by
NSCC to satisfy a Member's ACATS receive or deliver obligation prior
to satisfaction of other CNS-related obligations for that Member in
the same security. This would allow NSCC to track the completion
status of CNS ACATS deliveries and would facilitate NSCC's ability
to notify DTC of which CNS deliveries are ACATS transfers.
    \8\ Commission Rule 15c3-3 provides that a broker dealer shall
promptly obtain and shall thereafter maintain the physical
possession or control of all fully-paid securities and excess margin
securities, in each case, carried by a broker or dealer for the
account of customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC proposes modifying the CNS section of the Guide to clarify that
when a Participant holds securities in its DTC account in a no-lien
location \9\ and those securities are part of an ACATS transfer through
CNS, then DTC would not have any lien on such securities to satisfy the
Participant's CNS ACATS delivery obligation. DTC also proposes
clarifying within the Guide that ACAT deliveries from CNS would be
deemed to be designated by the receiving Participant as ``Minimum
Amount Securities'' when they are credited to the receiving
Participant's account.\10\ Minimum Amount Securities are not considered
collateral under DTC's rules.\11\ Additional clarification would be
included to explain that an ACATS transfer would be deemed null and
void and the underlying securities could be used to satisfy settlement
obligations to NSCC if NSCC determines that a Delivering Member and a
Receiving Member defaulted on their settlement obligations to NSCC and
the Delivering Member also fails to meet its ACATS delivery obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, when the securities are designated as ``Minimum
Amount Securities'' and not as Net Additions.
    \10\ As ``Minimum Amount Securities'', DTC would not have any
lien on such securities transferred through ACATS and received from
CNS. Such securities would not constitute collateral to which DTC
could assert a claim, and accordingly they would not be counted as
part of the Participant's Collateral Monitor unless the receiving
Participant designates such securities as ``Net Additions'' in
accordance with DTC Rules and Procedures.
    \11\ DTC Rule 1 and DTC Rule 4(A) respectively for the
definition of Minimum Amount Securities and for the implications of
this designation in protecting such securities from any lien or
other claim of DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC proposes implementing the proposed changes in this filing
during the third quarter of 2010 and advising Members of the specific
implementation date through issuance of DTC Important Notices.
    DTC believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \12\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder because the proposed changes would facilitate
DTC's prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions by clarifying when securities involved in ACATS transfers
through CNS are subject to a lien by DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by DTC.

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

    Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice
in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the
Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commissions Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-DTC-2010-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission,

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2010-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the DTC
and on DTC's Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2010/dtc/2010-09.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-DTC-2010-09 and should be submitted on or before July
23, 2010.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16107 Filed 7-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: November 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 61339-61340]
[DOCID:fr24no09-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13583-000]

Crane & Company; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

November 17, 2009.
    On September 3, 2009, Crane & Company filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of the Byron Weston Dam No. 2 Hydroelectric Generation
Project No. 13583, to be located on the East Branch of the Housatonic
River, in Berkshire County, Massachusetts.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing 30-foot-
high, 75-foot-long Byron Weston Dam No. 2; (2) an existing 1.2-acre
impoundment with a normal water surface elevation of 1,112 feet mean
sea level; (3) a new turbine and generator with a capacity of 175
kilowatts; (4) a new trash rack; (5) a refurbished 6-foot-diameter
penstock and a new 15-foot-long, 4-foot-diameter penstock; (6) an
existing 27-by-29-foot, four-story powerhouse; (7) an existing

25-foot-long, 8-foot-wide tailrace; (8) and appurtenant facilities. The
project would have an estimated annual generation of 837 megawatt-
hours.
    Applicant Contact: James Noel, Crane & Company, 30 South Street,
Dalton, MA 01226,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Brandon Cherry,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing application: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``eFiling'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at: http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp.
    More information about this project can be viewed or printed on the
``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-13583) in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-
866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-28115 Filed 11-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Organ weights of control and dosed males and females were similar at 28 weeks.  At 12 months, slightly but significantly (p<0.05) decreased absolute and relative pituitary weights were found in males receiving 250 ppm.  Females receiving 1000 ppm had significantly increase (p<0.05) absolute and relative pituitary weights.  Absolute brain weights were significantly (p<0.01) increased in males receiving 1000 ppm at 24 months; absolute and relative brain weights were slightly but significantly (p<0.05) increased in females receiving 250 ppm at this time period. Absolute kidney weights were slightly but significantly (p<0.05, p< 0.01) increased at 12 months in males receiving 250 ppm; absolute and relative kidney weights were significantly (p<0.05, p<0.01) increased in males receiving 1000 ppm and in females receiving 250 and 1000 ppm.  The incidence of kidney discoloration was increased in males receiving 10 and 1000 ppm and in females receiving 250 ppm.  Hematomas of the pituitary were not found in control females but were found in one, four, and five females receiving 10, 50 and 1000 ppm, respectively; this finding was not exhibited in treated males.  At 24 months, the incidence of liver nodules was found to be increased in 50 and 1000 ppm males and females at 1000 ppm when compared to concurrent controls; liver masses were found in 8 control males and 17, 14, 11 and 13 males receiving 10, 50, 250, and 1000 ppm, respectively.

Histological examination found that, at 24 months, the incidences of lymphomas were higher in females, and incidence of adenomas and adenocarcinomas of the liver and lung were higher in males. However, these findings were similar in dosed and control mice with the exception of adenomas of the liver which were increased in males treated with 10 ppm (9/50), 50 ppm (11/50) and 1000 ppm (9/50) when compared to concurrent controls (5/50).  Non-neoplastic lesions such as lymphocytic infiltration of the kidneys were increased in dosed males when compared to controls, and pyelonephritis of the kidneys was increased in females receiving 10000 ppm when compared to controls.  Hemorrhage of the lymph nodes were found in 2 control males and 10, 4, 3, and 7 males receiving 10, 50, 250 and 1000 ppm, respectively; the incidence at 10 ppm was significantly (p<0.05) increased.  Fibrosis of the tongue was reported in 4 control females and 8, 8, 5, and 12 females receiving 10, 50, 250 and 1000 ppm, respectively; the incidence at 1000 ppm was significantly (p<0.05) increased.  However, since there was no descriptive narrative in histologic lesions, it was unable to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions (could not determined if adenocarcinomas of the liver were actually hepatocellular carcinomas and if lung tumors were alveolar bronchiolar pulmonary lesions).

Based on decreased serum, erythrocyte, and brain cholinesterase activities, MTD of 1000 ppm (highest dose tested) for this study was obtained.  The systemic LOEL is 250 ppm and the systemic NOEL is 50 ppm S-3349, based on decreased serum, erythrocyte, and brain cholinesterase activities.  The LOEL and NOEL for histopathology cannot be definitively determined.

Deficiencies:
Stability and homogeneity analyses of the test diet were not reported. Data from the pilot study were not reported. The study authors reported that the first two analyses of the test diet concentration revealed that the control diet was contaminated with 1.8 to 3.0ug/g of S3349; the study authors indicated that these results may not be accurate.

A large amount of the individual data was handwritten and illegible; therefore, validation of many parameters (body weights, hematology, clinical chemistry, urinalyses, and organ weights) was not possible.

Individual data were not reported for, clinical observations or palpable mass observation.

The report's section on conclusions (page#48 of the study report) indicated that ChE activities increased in males and females receiving 1000 ppm, when these parameters, in fact decreased.

One animal death was incorrectly identified in Table 43-3 of the study report (animal no. 1324 was reported with adenocarcinoma of liver when animal no.1334, a male receiving 50 ppm, was reported to have died with this finding in Table 47-3-1 of the study report).

The numbers of organs with pathology reported in this study were compared to the number of animals sacrificed rather than the number of organs examined (which is appropriate to do).  Also there was no descriptive narrative in histologic lesions and was unable to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions; as such, histopathology results could not be conclusively determined. The LOEL and NOEL for histopathology cannot be definitively determined.

Based on the number of deficiencies this study is classified as Unacceptable/Non-guideline. This study does not satisfy a guideline requirement for tolclofos-methyl.

Neurotoxicity Rat
	Time to Peak
In a time to peak effect study (MRID 48341941), tolclofos-methyl (technical grade 97.5% a.i., Lot no. #080712G) in corn oil (vehicle) was administered orally by gavage as a single dose (2000 mg/kg) to one group of adult (approximately 7 weeks old) Sprague-Dawley (Crl:CD(SD)) rats. A concurrent control group received the vehicle on a comparable regimen. The dose volume was 5 ml/kg for all groups. Each group consisted of 20 rats/sex.  For analysis of plasma, red blood cell (RBC) and whole brain cholinesterase activity, 5 animals/sex/group were euthanized by carbon dioxide at approximately 1, 2, 4, and 8 hours following dose administration.  Blood samples were collected from the inferior vena cava, the whole brains were collected and weighed and plasma, red blood cell, and brain homogenates were analyzed for cholinesterase activity.

All animals survived to the scheduled euthanasia, there were no test substance-related clinical findings noted.  Cholinesterase activity (RBC, plasma, whole brain) was unaffected for males and females in the 2000 mg/kg group at approximately 1, 2, 4 and 8 hours (no different from the control group across all time points observed).  The absence of consistent inhibition of cholinesterase through 8 hours following dose administration precluded the determination of a time of peak effect of cholinesterase inhibition.

This study is classified as Acceptable/Non-guideline. This study does not satisfy a guideline requirement for tolclofos-methyl.

ACN
In an acute neurotoxicity study (MRID # 48341940), groups of non-fasted, six weeks-old, Crl:CD(SD) rats, 12/sex/dose were given a single oral dose of tolclofos-Methyl (97.5% a.i., lot #080712G) in corn oil at doses of 0, 200, 700, or 2000 mg/kg bw and observed for 14 days.  Neurobehavioral assessment (functional observational battery and motor activity testing) was performed in 12 animals/sex/group prior to the initiation of dose administration (study day -8), at the time of peak effect on study day 0 (considered to be approximately 4 hours after dose administration), and on study days 7 and 14.  Cholinesterase activity was not measured. At study termination, 12 animals/sex/group were euthanized and perfused in situ for neuropathological examination.  Of the perfused animals, 6 animals/sex from the control group and the 2000 mg/kg group were selected randomly and subjected to histopathological evaluation of brain and peripheral nervous system tissues.

There were no test substance-related clinical findings observed during the study. All animals survived to the scheduled euthanasia (study day 15). Mean body weights and body weight gains were unaffected by treatment. Mean overall locomotor activity (total and ambulatory counts) was decreased for males and females in the 700 and 2000 mg/kg groups at the time of peak effect on study day 0, but was similar to the control group on study days 7 and 14. Locomotor activity was
unaffected by test substance administration at a dose level of 200 mg/kg. There were no test substance-related macroscopic or microscopic changes. Brain weights and measurements were unaffected by administration of the test compound at any dose level.

Based on the effects seen in this study, the LOAEL is 700 mg/kg bw/day based on decreases in overall locomotor activity (total and ambulatory counts) in males and females in the 700 and 2000 mg/kg groups at the time of peak effect on study day 0.  The NOAEL is 200 mg/kg bw/day.

Plasma, erythrocyte, and brain cholinesterase levels were not measured in this study.

This neurotoxicity study is classified as acceptable, guideline, and satisfies the guideline requirement for an acute neurotoxicity study in rats (870.6200; OECD 424).

	SCN
In a subchronic neurotoxicity study (MRID 48341952) tolclofos-methyl (Technical grade) (96.8% w/w, batch # 041128G)  was administered continuously in the diet for 90 days to male and female Alpk:APfSD (Wistar-derived) rats 12/sex/group at dose levels of 0, 300, 1800, or 10,000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 20.6, 122.3, 735.7 mg/kg bw/day for males; 0, 23.1, 135.8, and 762.7 mg/kg/day for females).  Neurobehavioral assessment (functional observational battery and motor activity testing) was performed in all main study animals 12 rats/sex/group in week -1, and in weeks 2, 5, 9 and 14.  Cholinesterase (ChE) activity was determined at the Central Toxicology Laboratory (Clinical Pathology) in 5 rats/sex/dose, in brain and erythrocytes (RBC) at weeks 2, 5 and 9 (satellite phase) and week 14 (main study).  Plasma ChE was not evaluated.   At study termination (14 weeks), 5 animals/sex/group were euthanized and perfused with formol saline for neuropathological examination.  Brain was weighed from all of the perfused animals as was a histopathological evaluation of brain and peripheral nervous system tissues.

There were no treatment-related clinical abnormalities recorded during the functional observation battery and on motor activity.  Body weight was statistically significantly lower than control for both sexes fed 10,000 ppm throughout the study (maximum difference of 17% in males and 11% in females, starting from week 2).  Body weight gain was also statistically significantly lower than the controls throughout the study in both sexes fed 10,000 ppm [range 4-82%].  Food utilization for both males and females at 10,000 ppm was lower than control in weeks 1 to 4 (80-98% of control) and for males over all (weeks 1-13; maximum 84% of controls).  There were no effects on brain weights in the main study animals. There were no treatment-related neuropathology and microscopic findings in the tissues examined.

A BMD analysis of the ChE data revealed a lack of dose response such that a reliable fit was not obtained for adult male RBC and whole brain ChE data.  For females, the whole brain ChE data were fit to the exponential model, with a BMD10 of 956.4 mg/kg/day and BMDL10 of 659.2 mg/kg/day.  However, female RBC did not provide a reliable fit.

Brain ChE
Adult Female Brain ChE BMD10 = 956.4 mg/kg/day
Adult Female Brain ChE BML10 = 659.2 mg/kg/day
The adult male Brain ChE data failed to produce a dose-response and therefore did not provide a reliable fit for BMD analysis.

RBC ChE
The RBC ChE data in both males and females failed to provide a dose response and therefore did not provide a reliable fit for BMD analysis.

The NOAEL is 122.3 M/135.8 F mg/kg/day. The LOAEL is 735.7M /762.7F mg/kg/day, based on decreased bodyweight and bodyweight gain, and food utilization.

The study is classified as Acceptable/Non-Guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement for a subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats (870.6200b).

Immunotoxicity
In an immunotoxicity study (MRID 48341954), tolclofos-methyl (97.5% a.i., lot number: 080712G) was administered to female Crl:CD1(ICR) mice (10/dose) via diet at dose levels of 0, 500, 1500, or 4500 ppm (0, 91, 273, or 811 mg/kg/day, respectively) for 28 days. The positive control consisted of 8 female mice which were administered 20 mg/kg/day cyclophosphamide via gavage on days 22-26. On Day 25, all animals were immunized with a 0.5 mL intravenous injection of sheep red blood cells (SRBCs) at a concentration of 4x10[8] cells/mL. On Day 29, all animals were sacrificed by carbon dioxide asphyxiation. The necropsy included the examinations of all major organs, tissues and body cavities. Spleens from all animals were harvested for evaluation of spleen anti-SRBC antibody response with a plaque-forming cell (PFC) assay. Other parameters evaluated were: clinical observation, mortality, body weight, body weight gain, food consumption, spleen and thymus weights.

There were no unscheduled deaths or treatment-related clinical signs. The mean final body weight (Day 29) for animals receiving 4500 ppm was lower (-11.2%) than controls. Overall mean body weight gains (Days 1 to 29) for animals receiving 4500 ppm were lower (-40%) than the controls. Food consumption for females receiving 4500 ppm was lower (-11%) than the control. There was no treatment-related effect on water consumption, organ weights and macropathology.

The systemic toxicity NOAEL is 1500 ppm (273 mg/kg/day); the LOAEL was 4500 ppm (811 mg/kg/day) based on decreased body weights, body weight gains and food consumption.

For immunotoxicity, there were no statistically significant changes in the numbers of cells/spleen, PFC/106 viable cells or PFC/spleen in any of the tolclofos-methyl treated groups when compared to the control. The positive control with Cyclophosphamide resulted in a significant reduction of the PFC response. The numbers of PFC/106 viable cells and PFC/spleen (both p < 0.001) were significantly reduced when compared to the control. A high inter-individual variability was noted in all the treatment groups as well as in the control group. Evaluation of individual animal data of this study did not show any trend or distribution that would demonstrate significant suppression of anti-SRBC plaque-forming-cell response. The positive control group demonstrated a statistical decrease in PFC response as compared to the vehicle controls.

The Natural Killer (NK) cells activity was not evaluated in this study. The toxicology database for tolclofos-methyl does not show any evidence of treatment-related effects on the immune system. The overall weight of evidence suggests that this chemical does not directly target the immune system. Under the HED guidance, a NK cells activity assay is not required at this time.

Under conditions of this study, the immunotoxicity NOAEL for anti-SRBC PFC response is 4500 ppm (811 mg/kg/day); the LOAEL was not established.

This immunotoxicity study is classified acceptable/guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement for an immunotoxicity study (OPPTS 870.7800).
Appendix B:	Review of Human Research

This risk assessment relies in part on data from studies in which adult human subjects were intentionally exposed to a pesticide to determine their dermal and inhalation exposure.  These studies, which have been utilized in the HED Seed Treatment SOPs 14 and 15, have been determined to require a review of their ethical conduct, have received that review, and have been determined to be ethical.


[Federal Register: January 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 3)]
[Notices]
[Page 899-900]
[DOCID:fr04ja08-55]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57054; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-149]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Extend the Duration of CBOE Rule 6.45A(b) Pertaining to
Orders Represented in Open Outcry

 December 27, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 19, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the CBOE. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission.\5\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \5\ The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-
day operative delay required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 17 CFR
240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). See discussion infra Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CBOE proposes to extend the duration of CBOE Rule 6.45A(b) (the
``Rule''), relating to the allocation of orders represented in open
outcry in equity option classes designated by the Exchange to be traded
on the CBOE Hybrid Trading System (``Hybrid'') through June 30, 2008.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at CBOE, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and (http://www.cboe.org/Legal).

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

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

1. Purpose
    In March 2005, the Commission approved revisions to CBOE Rule 6.45A
related to the introduction of Remote Market-Makers.\6\ Among other
things, the Rule, pertaining to the allocation of orders represented in
open outcry in equity options classes traded on Hybrid, was amended to
clarify that only in-crowd market participants would be eligible to
participate in open outcry trade allocations. In addition, the Rule was
amended to limit the duration of the Rule until September 14, 2005. The
duration of the Rule was thereafter extended through December 31,
2007.\7\ As the duration period expires on December 31, 2007, the
Exchange proposes to extend the effectiveness of the Rule through June
30, 2008.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51366 (March 14,
2005), 70 FR 13217 (March 18, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2004-75).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52423 (September
14, 2005), 70 FR 55194 (September 20, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-76)
(extending the duration of the Rule through December 14, 2005);
52957 (December 15, 2005), 70 FR 76085 (December 22, 2005) (SR-CBOE-
2005-102) (extending the Rule through March 14, 2006); 53524 (March
21, 2006), 71 FR 15235 (March 27, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-22) (extending
the duration of the Rule through July 14, 2006); 54164 (July 17,
2006), 71 FR 42143 (July 25, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-60) (extending the
duration of the Rule through October 31, 2006); 54680 (November 1,
2006), 71 FR 65554 (November 8, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-86) (extending
the duration of the Rule through January 31, 2007); 55219 (February
1, 2007), 72 FR 6305 (February 9, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-10) (extending
the duration of the Rule through April 30, 2007); 55676 (April 27,
2007), 72 FR 25348 (May 4, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-40) (extending the
duration of the Rule through July 31, 2007) and 56177 (August 1,
2007), 72 FR 44194 (August 7, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-89) (extending the
duration of the Rule through December 31, 2007).
    \8\ In order to effect proprietary transactions on the floor of
the Exchange, in addition to complying with the requirements of the
Rule, members are also required to comply with the requirements of
Section 11(a)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1), or qualify for an
exemption. Section 11(a)(1) restricts securities transactions of a
member of any national securities exchange effected on that exchange
for (i) the member's own account, (ii) the account of a person
associated with the member, or (iii) an account over which the
member or a person associated with the member exercises discretion,
unless a specific exemption is available. The Exchange has issued
regulatory circulars to members informing them of the applicability
of these Section 11(a)(1) requirements each time the duration of the
Rule was extended. See CBOE Regulatory Circulars RG05-103 (November
2, 2005), RG06-001 (January 3, 2006), RG06-34 (April 7, 2006), RG06-
79 (July 31, 2006), RG06-115 (November 8, 2006), RG07-21 (February
8, 2007), RG07-53 (May 17, 2007) and RG07-88 (August 15, 2007). The
Exchange represents that it expects to issue a similar regulatory
circular to members reminding them of the applicability of the
Section 11(a)(1) requirements with respect to the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Extension of the duration of the Rule will allow the Exchange to
continue to operate under the existing allocation parameters for orders
represented in open outcry in Hybrid on an uninterrupted basis.
Accordingly, CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act \9\ and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\10\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \11\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78a, et seq.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3)
become operative for thirty days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ The Exchange has given the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date on which the Exchange filed the
proposed rule change. See 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Commission Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\
normally does not become operative prior to thirty days after the date
of filing. The CBOE requests that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), and designate
the proposed rule change to become operative immediately to allow the
Exchange to continue to operate under the existing allocation
parameters for orders represented in open outcry in Hybrid on an
uninterrupted basis. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because such waiver will allow the CBOE to continue to
operate under the Rule without interruption. For this reason, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon
filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 the 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-CBOE-2007-149 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-149. 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, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such 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-CBOE-2007-149 and
should be submitted on or before January 25, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-25621 Filed 1-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P