[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71488]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29474]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2010-0160]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and
49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance
or modification of the signal system, as detailed below.
    Applicant: CSX Transportation, Mr. Joseph Ivanyo, Chief Engineer,
Communications and Signals, 500 Water Street, SC J-350, Jacksonville,
FL 32202.
    The CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) seeks relief from the
requirements of 49 CFR Section 235.5 to expedite successful
installation of the Positive Train Control (PTC) mandated by the Rail
Safety Improvement Act of 2008. CSXT will be updating first generation,
non-microprocessor based coded track circuitry, eliminating certain
searchlight signal mechanisms, relocating signals to more advantageous
locations and other desired modifications not previously addressed,
which may otherwise require the submission of an application.
    In requesting this waiver, CSXT proposes to perform minimal
modifications to existing signal systems, while maintaining compliance
with Part 236 in the same manner and process as provided for under 49
CFR 235.7(c)(24)(vi). Providing identification of the proposed changes
to FRA's regional office having jurisdiction in the affected area would
expedite desired modification of existing signal systems in preparation
for the installation of PTC, while reducing the administrative workload
for both FRA and CSXT. Additionally, this relief would reduce the
approval delay, while still providing FRA review and oversight of the
proposed changes in the same manner as pole line elimination projects.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. 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 (Docket No. FRA-2010-0160) 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 within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    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 comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 17, 2010.
Michael Logue,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Compliance and Program
Implementation.
[FR Doc. 2010-29474 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


                                 Introduction

Whether you are a host employer or a staffing agency, the success of your business is often linked to that of your partner.  Host employers need temporary staff to provide specialized skills, additional labor or coverage for regular employees.  Staffing agencies rely on host employers to fulfill their business model of providing talent to meet the temporary needs of companies.  The significance of this partnership becomes compelling when one considers the health and safety of temporary workers.  When handled well, all benefit from the contribution of the temporary worker  -  the host employer gets the work done; the temporary worker earns wages, gains valuable experience, and is afforded a path to possible regular employment with the host employer; and the staffing agency fulfills its business mission.  When we fail to protect the health and safety of temporary workers, everyone suffers  -  the worker is injured or killed, the staffing agency loses an employee and may incur increased Workers Compensation costs and the host employer is at risk of a wide range of consequences such as reduced productivity, poor product quality, low worker morale, property damage, business interruption, legal liability and negative public image.

Protecting temporary workers is a joint responsibility of the host employer and staffing agency driven by three overarching principles  -  (1) Everyone is entitled to a safe workplace regardless of how they are paid, (2) Staffing agency employees must be protected to the same extent as the host employer's regular employees, and (3) Staffing agencies have the responsibility to place their employees in a safe workplace.  Fulfilling this joint responsibility hinges on two key factors  -  communication and collaboration.  Frequent, aligned and transparent interactions between the host employer and staffing agency are the hallmark of an excellent communications plan.  Strong interpersonal relationships based on trust and a shared commitment to the health and safety of all workers is evidence of a highly collaborative partnership between the host employer and the staffing agency.  So, how does one achieve this vision?  While nothing can guarantee success, odds are in your favor when there is a common language and common operating platform among the partners.  For worker protection, this is found in a health and safety management system.  Typical elements include management leadership and worker participation, planning, implementation, evaluation & corrective action and management review.  In the pages that follow, you will learn how to apply the principles of a health and safety management system to assure a protective environment for temporary workers.  Health and safety management systems should be developed individually by the host employer and staffing agency for their separate operations and then merged into a hybrid that facilitates protection of the temporary worker at the host employer worksite.  While the approach may appear to be exclusively for larger companies, the principles are universal and can be applied to small businesses as well.

It is important to note that some state programs have already been incorporated these principles of joint responsibility into their health and safety regulations.  Staffing agencies and host employers should review all applicable regulations to assure full compliance.

Communication, collaboration and common management systems all combine to protect temporary workers at host employers and help assure that everyone returns home safely to their family and friends at the end of each workday.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 140 (Wednesday, July 22, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43323-43329]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17999]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0354; FRL-9930-84]

Sedaxane; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
sedaxane as a seed treatment for cotton, undelinted seed; cotton, gin
byproducts; and beet, sugar. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective July 22, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 21, 2015,
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-2014-0354, 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>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 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
Printing 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, 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-2014-0354 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
September 21, 2015. 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-2014-0354, 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 1, 2014 (79 FR 44729) (FRL-9911-
67), 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
4F8263) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box
18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR part
180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide
sedaxane, N-[2-[1,1'-bicyclopropyl]-2-ylphenyl]-3-(difluoromethyl)-1-
methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, as a seed treatment for cotton,
undelinted seed at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); cotton, gin byproducts
at 0.01 ppm; and beet, sugar at 0.01 ppm. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
altered the commodity name from ``beet, sugar'' to ``beet, sugar,
roots''. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D.

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 sedaxane including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with sedaxane follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. The toxicological effects reported in the submitted animal
studies such as mitochondrial disintegration and glycogen depletion in
the liver are consistent with the pesticidal mode of action also being
the mode of toxic action in mammals. The rat is the most sensitive
species tested, and the main target tissue for sedaxane is the liver.
Sedaxane also caused thyroid hypertrophy/hyperplasia. In the acute
neurotoxicity (ACN) and sub-chronic neurotoxicity (SCN) studies,
sedaxane caused decreased activity, decreased muscle tone, decreased
rearing, and decreased grip strength. There are indications of
reproductive toxicity in rats such as decreased follicle counts, but
these effects did not result in reduced fertility. Offspring effects in
the reproduction study occurred at the same doses causing parental
effects, and do not indicate any quantitative or qualitative increase
in sensitivity in rat pups. In the rat, no adverse effects in fetuses
were seen in developmental toxicity studies at maternally toxic

doses. In the rabbit, fetal toxicity (increased unossified sternebrae
and 13th rudimentary ribs, decrease in fetal weights, increased numbers
of abortions) was observed at the same doses that produced toxicity in
the dams (abortions, decreased body weight gain/body weight loss,
reduced food consumption, defecation), and therefore does not indicate
any increased susceptibility. Sedaxane is tumorigenic in the liver in
the rat and mouse, and led to tumors in the thyroid and uterus in the
rat and was classified as ``likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''
Sedaxane was negative in the mutagenicity studies. The 28-day dermal
study did not show systemic toxicity at the limit dose of 1,000
milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). Sedaxane has low acute toxicity by
the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes. It is not a dermal sensitizer,
causes no skin irritation and only slight eye irritation.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by sedaxane as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Sedaxane. Human Health Risk
Assessment to Support New Seed Treatment Uses on Cotton and Sugar
Beet'' on pages 13-20 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0354.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors (U/SF) are used in conjunction
with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to
as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a
safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency
assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk.
Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an
occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for sedaxane used for
human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.

    Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Sedaxane for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/Scenario            and  uncertainty/    RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety  factors      risk  assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations,    NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day  Acute RfD = 0.30 mg/ Rat ACN Study.
 including children and women 13-  UFA = 10x...........   kg/day.             LOAEL = 250 mg/kg based on reduced
 49 years of age).                 UFH = 10x...........  aPAD = 0.30 mg/kg/    activity, decreased rearing,
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 initial inactivity, piloerection,
                                                                               ruffled fur and recumbency,
                                                                               decreased BW, decreased BWG and
                                                                               food consumption (males). In
                                                                               females, weakened condition,
                                                                               swaying gait, and decreased
                                                                               activity, reduced muscle tone,
                                                                               decreased locomotor activity and
                                                                               rearing. The weakened condition,
                                                                               swaying gait and decreased
                                                                               activity were observed on days 2-
                                                                               7, while the other effects were
                                                                               on day 1.
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 11 mg/kg/day.  Chronic RfD = 0.11   Chronic Rat Study.
                                   UFA = 10x...........   mg/kg/day.          NOAEL= 11/14 mg/kg bw/day (male/
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.11 mg/kg/    female).
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                LOAEL = 67/86 mg/kg bw/day (male/
                                                                               female) based on decreased hind
                                                                               limb grip strength increased
                                                                               liver weight, increased
                                                                               incidences of hepatocyte
                                                                               hypertrophy and eosinophilic
                                                                               foci, and thyroid follicular cell
                                                                               hypertrophy, basophilic colloid,
                                                                               epithelial desquamation and
                                                                               increased phosphate levels
                                                                               (males). In females it was based
                                                                               on decreased body weight and body
                                                                               weight gain, increased liver
                                                                               weight and the same
                                                                               histopathology noted above for
                                                                               males.
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)   ``Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' based on significant tumor increases
                                     in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies. Q1* = 4.64 x 10 - 3 (mg/kg/
                                                    day)-1 (linear low-dose extrapolation model).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. mg/kg/day =
  milligram/kilogram/day. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c
  = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human
  (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
  Q1* = Linear cancer slope factor

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to sedaxane, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing sedaxane tolerances in 40 CFR
180.665. EPA assessed dietary exposures from sedaxane in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for sedaxane. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA) conducted
from 2003-2008. As to residue levels in

food, EPA conducted a highly conservative acute dietary assessment
using tolerance-level residues and 100% crop treated assumptions for
all commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/
WWEIA conducted from 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA
conducted a partially refined chronic dietary assessment using
anticipated residue levels for all commodities and percent crop treated
data.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that sedaxane should be classified as ``Likely to be
Carcinogenic to Humans'' and a linear approach has been used to
quantify cancer risk. Cancer risk was quantified using the same
estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., Chronic exposure. A linear
low-dose extrapolation model (Q1*) = 4.64 x 10-3
(mg/kg/day)-1 was used to estimate cancer risk.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
    Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data
and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues
in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT. The Agency estimated the PCT for
existing uses as follows: For chronic and cancer dietary exposure
assessment, 100 PCT was assumed for all commodities except for soybeans
(51%), wheat (32%) and potato (67%), which incorporated average PCT
estimates.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7
years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining
available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging
across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for
those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those
cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum
PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey
data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which sedaxane may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for sedaxane in drinking water. These simulation models take
into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of sedaxane. Drinking water accounted for 95% of the
total dietary exposure to sedaxane. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of sedaxane for acute exposures
are estimated to be 4.1 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and
22.0 ppb for ground water, for chronic exposures and cancer assessments
are estimated to be 1.2 ppb for surface water and 19.3 ppb for ground
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 22.0 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic and cancer
dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 19.3 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Sedaxane is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found sedaxane
to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and
sedaxane does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore,
EPA has assumed that sedaxane does not have a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances. For information regarding

EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

 D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA SF. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X,
or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence for
increased susceptibility following prenatal and/or postnatal exposures
to sedaxane based on effects seen in developmental toxicity studies in
rabbits or rats. In range finding and definitive developmental toxicity
studies in rats, neither quantitative nor qualitative evidence of
increased susceptibility of fetuses to in utero exposure to sedaxane
was observed. In these studies, there were no single-dose effects.
There was no evidence of increased susceptibility in a 2-generation
reproduction study in rats following prenatal or postnatal exposure to
sedaxane. Clear NOAELs/LOAELs were established for the developmental
effects seen in rats and rabbits as well as for the offspring effects
seen in the 2-generation reproduction study. The dose-response
relationship for the effects of concern is well characterized. The
NOAEL used for the acute dietary risk assessment (30 mg/kg/day), based
on effects observed in the ACN study, is protective of the
developmental and offspring effects seen in rabbits and rats (NOAELs of
100-200 mg/kg/day). In addition, there is no evidence of neuropathology
or abnormalities in the development of the fetal nervous system from
the available toxicity studies conducted with sedaxane.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for sedaxane is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that sedaxane is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. Although sedaxane caused
changes in apical endpoints such as decreased activity, decreased
muscle tone, decreased rearing and decreased grip strength in the ACN
and SCN studies, EPA believes these effects do not support a finding
that sedaxane is a neurotoxicant. The observed effects in the ACN and
SCN studies were likely secondary to inhibition of mitochondrial energy
production caused by sedaxane. Furthermore, there was no corroborative
neuro-histopathology demonstrated in any study, even at the highest
doses tested (i.e., 2,000 mg/kg/day). Therefore, based on its chemical
structure, its pesticidal mode of action, and lack of evidence of
neuro-histopathology in any acute and repeated-dose toxicity study,
sedaxane does not demonstrate potential for neurotoxicity. Since
sedaxane did not demonstrate increased susceptibility to the young or
specific neurotoxicity, a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study is
not required.
    iii. As discussed in Unit III.D.2., there is no evidence that
sedaxane results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or
rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the
2-generation reproduction study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments are highly
conservative (acute) or only partially refined (chronic), resulting in
high-end estimates of dietary food exposure. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to sedaxane in drinking water. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by sedaxane.

E. 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). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. 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.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to sedaxane will occupy 1.3% of the aPAD for all infants (<1 year old),
the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
sedaxane from food and water will utilize 1% of the cPAD for all
infants (<1 year old), the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for sedaxane.
    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure
plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background
exposure level).
    A short- and intermediate-term adverse effect was identified;
however, sedaxane is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and
intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and intermediate-
term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there
is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic
dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately
protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to
assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short- and
intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term
risk for sedaxane.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has
classified sedaxane as ``Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' based on
significant tumor increases in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies. A cancer dietary risk assessment was conducted using a linear
low-dose extrapolation model (Q1*) = 4.64 x 10-3
(mg/kg/day)-1 which indicated a risk estimate to the U.S.
population as 2 x 10-6. EPA generally considers cancer risks
in the range of 10-6 or less to be negligible. The precision
that can be assumed for cancer risk estimates is best described by
rounding to the nearest integral order of magnitude on the log scale;
for example, risks falling between 3 x 10-7 and 3 x
10-6 are expressed as risks in the range of 10-6.
Considering the precision with which cancer hazard can be estimated,
the conservativeness of low-dose linear extrapolation, and the rounding
procedure described above in this unit, cancer risk should generally
not be assumed to exceed the

benchmark level of concern of the range of 10-6 until the
calculated risk exceeds approximately 3 x 10-6. This is
particularly the case where some conservatism is maintained in the
exposure assessment. Based on this approach, EPA considers the risks of
cancer from exposure to sedaxane to be negligible.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to sedaxane residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography/tandem mass
spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. A modification of the Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective,
Rugged, and Safe (QuEChERS) method was developed for the determination
of residues of sedaxane (as its isomers SYN508210 and SYN508211) in/on
various crops. The sedaxane isomers (SYN508210 and SYN508211) are
quantitatively determined by LC/MS/MS. The validated limit of
quantitation (LOQ) reported in the method is 0.005 ppm for both
sedaxane isomers. A successful independent laboratory validation (ILV)
study was also conducted on the modified QuEChERS method using samples
of wheat green forage and wheat straw fortified with SYN508210 and
SYN508211 at 0.005 and 0.05 ppm. The analytical standard for sedaxane,
with an expiration date of February 28, 2018, is currently available in
the EPA National Pesticide Standards Repository.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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). The Codex Alimentarius 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. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established MRLs for sedaxane.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Although the petitioner sought a tolerance for the commodity name
``beet, sugar'', EPA is establishing a tolerance for ``beet, sugar,
roots'' to be consistent with the general food and feed commodity
vocabulary EPA uses for tolerances and exemptions.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of sedaxane, N-
[2-[1,1'-bicyclopropyl]-2-ylphenyl]-3-(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-1H-
pyrazole-4-carboxamide, as a seed treatment for cotton, undelinted seed
at 0.01 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts at 0.01 ppm; and beet, sugar, roots
at 0.01 ppm.

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). 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 tolerances 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: July 16, 2015.
G. Jeffrey Herndon,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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.  180.665, add alphabetically the following commodities to
the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.665  Sedaxane; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Parts
                          Commodity                               per
                                                                million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Beet, sugar, roots...........................................       0.01

                                * * * * *
Cotton, undelinted seed......................................       0.01
Cotton, gin byproducts.......................................       0.01

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-17999 Filed 7-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31912-31913]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12506]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14295-001]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County; Notice of
Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document
(PAD), Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for
Comments on the PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues
and Associated Study Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
an Original License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.
    b. Project No.: 14295-001.
    c. Dated Filed: March 21, 2013.
    d. Submitted By: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County
(Snohomish PUD).
    e. Name of Project: Sunset Fish Passage and Energy Project.
    f. Location: On the South Fork Skykomish River, one mile south of
the town of Index in Snohomish County, Washington. The project would
not occupy federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR Part 5 of the Commission's Regulations
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Kim D. Moore, Assistant General
Manager of Generation, Water and Corporate Services, Public Utility
District No. 1 of Snohomish County, 2320 California Street, PO Box
1107, Everett, WA 98206.
    i. FERC Contact: John Baummer at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under
section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c)
the State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106,
National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations
of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Snohomish PUD as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Snohomish PUD filed with the Commission a Pre-Application
Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule),
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD
and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and
all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits
of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
Documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
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. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, send documents to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    All filings with the Commission must include on the first page, the
project name (Sunset Falls Fish Passage and Energy Project) and number
(P-14295-001), and bear the appropriate heading: ``Comments on Pre-
Application Document,'' ``Study Requests,'' ``Comments on Scoping
Document 1,'' ``Request for Cooperating Agency Status,'' or
``Communications to and from Commission Staff.'' Any individual or
entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD
or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by July
19, 2013.
    p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental
assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this meeting will
satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or
EIS is issued by the Commission.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will
focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental
organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for
receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and
to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the
scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental
document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Evening Scoping Meeting

Date: Wednesday, June 12, 2013.
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Location: Town of Index Fire Department, 512 Avenue A, Index, WA 98256
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Daytime Scoping Meeting

Date: Thursday, June 13, 2013
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Washington Department of Ecology Headquarters, 300 Desmond
Drive SE., Lacey, WA 98503
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
    Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be
addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals
and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be
available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at
http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow the directions
for accessing information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written
comments, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a
revised process plan and schedule, as well as a list of issues,
identified through the scoping process.

Environmental Site Review

    Snohomish PUD will conduct an environmental site review of the
project on Wednesday, June 12, 2013, starting at 2:00 p.m. All
participants should meet at the Gold Bar Park and Ride, located at
Intersection State Road 2 and 2nd Street, Gold Bar, WA 98251. All
participants are responsible for their own transportation. Anyone with
questions about the site visit should contact Ms. Dawn Pressler of
Snohomish PUD at<PHONE_NUMBER> on or before June 6, 2013.

Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the
issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource
management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and
identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and
discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that
incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's
regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of
federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and
(5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or
Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an
environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are
included in item n. of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed
in the public records of the project.

    Dated: May 20, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12506 Filed 5-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33969-33970]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15290]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83624; File No. SR-BOX-2018-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt IM-7130-1 to Rule
7130

July 12, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On May 16, 2018, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``BOX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt IM-7130-1 to BOX Rule 7130 to provide
certain BOX Book \3\ information to Participants \4\ upon request. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on May 31, 2018.\5\ The Commission received no comments on the proposed
rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The term ``BOX Book'' means the electronic book of orders on
each single option series maintained by the BOX Trading Host. See
BOX Rule 100(a)(10).
    \4\ The term ``Participant'' means a firm, or organization that
is registered with the Exchange pursuant to the BOX Rule 2000 Series
for purposes of participating in options trading on BOX as an
``Order Flow Provider'' or ``Market Maker.'' See BOX Rule
100(a)(41).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83318 (May 24,
2018), 83 FR 25079 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    BOX proposes to adopt new IM-7130-1 to Rule 7130 to provide that,
upon request, the Exchange may make available to a Participant the
amount of any priority interest on the BOX Book. For purposes of the
proposed new rule, the term ``priority interest'' means the number of
Public Customer contracts and Non-Public Customer contracts that are
ranked ahead of such Public Customer contracts at a given price for a
specific option class.\6\ The information would be verbally provided to
Participants for no fee, on a best efforts basis, and would be for
advisory purposes only.\7\ All BOX Book information would be provided
on an anonymous basis.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See proposed BOX Rule IM-7130-1. ``Public Customer'' means a
person that is not a broker or dealer in securities. See BOX Rule
100(a)(52).
    \7\ See proposed BOX Rule IM-7130-1.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule, Floor Brokers would inquire with an
Options Exchange Official or his or her designee, and all other
Participants would inquire with BOX's Market Operations Center.\9\
Participants would be required to request this information each time
and the Exchange would not provide continuous updated information.\10\
The Exchange represents that an Options Exchange Official will provide
the requested information when doing so does not interfere with their
regulatory responsibilities.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id. The term ``Market Operations Center'' or ``MOC''
means the BOX Market Operations Center, which provides market
support for Options Participants during the trading day. See BOX
Rule 100(a)(32).
    \10\ See proposed BOX Rule IM-7130-1.
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 25080 n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide
Participants greater clarity on the composition and availability of
liquidity on the BOX Book.\12\ With respect to the BOX Trading Floor,
the Exchange believes that the availability of this information will
lead to increased interaction with the BOX Book, because Floor Brokers
will be aware of the liquidity available on the BOX Book that could
interact with their Qualified Open Outcry Order (``QOO Order'') \13\
and may choose to use such liquidity when executing orders from the
Trading Floor or using a separate order to sweep that interest.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 25080.
    \13\ A QOO Order has two sides; the initiating side and the
contra-side. The initiating side is the order which must be filled
in its entirety. The contra-side must guarantee the full size of the
initiating side of the QOO Order and may provide a book sweep size
as provided in BOX Rule 7600(h). See BOX Rule 7600(a)(1). The
initiating side of a QOO Order will execute against Public Customer
Orders on the BOX Book and any other orders or quotes ranked ahead
of such Public Customer Orders at the execution price first. See BOX
Rule 7600(d)(2).
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 25080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national

securities exchange.\15\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\
which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In approving this proposed rule change the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposed rule change, which would
make priority interest information available upon request for all
Participants, will provide increased transparency to Participants,
which the Exchange believes has the potential to result in more
liquidity on the Exchange and increased interaction with the BOX Book.
The Commission also notes that the proposed rule change, with respect
to floor trading, is similar to the procedures of another options
exchange that operates a trading floor.\17\ For the foregoing reasons,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \18\ and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See NYSE Arca Regulatory Bulletin RB-16-04 (February 19,
2016) (stating that Floor Brokers on NYSE Arca may inquire with the
Trading Official at the post to the amount of any priority interest
on NYSE Arca's electronic book). In addition, the Commission notes
that some other options exchanges provide similar information on a
real-time basis to data feed subscribers. See, e.g., Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 74759 (April 17, 2018), 82 FR 22749 (April
23, 2015) (SR-MIAX-2015-28) (describing MIAX Order Feed which
provides the origin of orders on the MIAX order book).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\19\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BOX-2018-18) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15290 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 136)]
[Notices]
[Page 39104-39105]
[DOCID:fr17jy07-79]

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

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 the following meeting during the week
of July 16, 2007:

A Closed Meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 2 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 may also be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of
the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session, and determined that no
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
July 17, 2007 will be:

Formal orders of investigations;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
Resolution of litigation claims;
Regulatory matter regarding financial institution;
An adjudicatory matter; and
Other matters related 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: July 11, 2007.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-13811 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41012]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18239]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2100-180--California]

 California Department of Water Resources; Notice of Availability
of Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC's)
regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations Part 380, the Office of
Energy Projects has reviewed an application filed by the California
Department of Water Resources on May 17, 2017, and supplemented June 16
and June 20, 2017, to permanently reroute three existing primary
transmission lines at the Feather River Project No. 2100 between the
Hyatt Pumping-Generating Plant and the Table Mountain Substation. The
proposal would allow California Department of Water Resources to
continuously deliver electricity along a different route away from
repair activities at the project's damaged main spillway and emergency
spillway area. The Feather River Project is located on the Feather
River in Butte County, California.
    Staff prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the application
which analyzes the potential environmental effects of approving the
requested transmission line modification. In the EA, staff concludes
that such an approval, with specified environmental protection
measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission's Public
Reference Room or it may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number P-2100-
180 in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free
at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For further information, contact Mr. John Aedo at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 23, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18239 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P