[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7602-7604]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2927]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63836; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 4758 To Add a New Routing Option, LIST

February 3, 2011.
    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 January 24, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``NASDAQ'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as
constituting a non-controversial rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change to amend NASDAQ
Rule 4758 to add a new routing option, LIST. The text of the proposed
rule change is available at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at
the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to add a routing strategy, LIST, that will
provide firms flexibility to participate in the opening and closing
processes of the primary listing markets and also take advantage of the
Exchange's liquidity during the remainder of the trading day. LIST is a
variation on a currently existing routing strategy, SKIP, but offers
increased sensitivity to the opening and closing crosses on securities'
primary listing markets.
    Under LIST, an order received before the security's primary listing
market opening will participate in the primary listing market's opening
cross, after which any unexecuted shares will check the NASDAQ book.
The security's primary listing market is considered ``open'' after the
first of the following occurs: (1) The primary listing market returns
the order; (2) NASDAQ receives the first regular way print from the
primary; or (3) the time is 9:45 a.m.
    Remaining shares will then be routed to Reg-NMS protected market
centers in accordance with the LIST System routing table,\4\ and then
return to be posted on the NASDAQ book.\5\ Similarly, LIST orders
entered after the primary listing market's opening process but prior to
3:58 p.m. will check the NASDAQ book, route in accordance

with the LIST System routing table, and then post to the NASDAQ book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As provided, in Rule 4758(a)(1)(A), the term ``System
routing table'' refers to the proprietary process for determining
the specific trading venues to which the System routes orders and
the order in which it routes them. NASDAQ reserves the right to
maintain a different System routing table for different routing
options and to modify the System routing table at any time without
notice.
    \5\ Pursuant to NASDAQ Rule 4758(a)(1)(B), if a routed order is
returned, in whole or in part, that order will receive a new time
stamp reflecting the time of its return to the System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At 3:58 p.m., all LIST orders on the book will be sent to their
primary listing market, as ``day'' orders, to participate in the
closing cross. LIST orders entered at or after 3:58 p.m. but before 4
p.m. will also be sent to their primary listing market for the closing
cross, after first checking the NASDAQ book and routing in accordance
with the LIST System routing table.\6\ Shares unexecuted in the closing
process will be posted to the NASDAQ book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Due to the possibility that orders received very near the
4:00 p.m. deadline (e.g. 3:59:59:999) will be routed to the primary
listing market but arrive after the security has closed, customers
are encouraged to submit their LIST orders prior to 3:58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LIST orders received after 4 p.m. will be posted to the NASDAQ
book. Where NASDAQ is the primary listing market for a LIST order
security, the order will be routed as described above, although rather
than route out for the open and/or close, it will participate in
NASDAQ's open and/or closing cross.
    If trading in the security is stopped across all markets, LIST
orders will be sent to the primary listing market to participate in the
re-opening process. When normal trading resumes, the orders will be
cancelled off of the primary and posted on the NASDAQ book.
    NASDAQ has designed LIST to be Reg-NMS compliant, and believes that
LIST, like all NASDAQ routing strategies, conforms to Reg-NMS
requirements. LIST orders may not be designated as MGTC or SGTC.
    The proposed LIST option is similar to two order types utilized by
NYSE Arca, as established by SR-NYSEArca 2009-56: \7\ The ``Primary
Until 9:45 Order'' and the ``Primary After 3:45 Order.'' NASDAQ's LIST
order type combines these two separate NYSE Arca routing options into a
single order type. In addition, under a LIST routing strategy, unlike
under its NYSE Arca counterparts, orders will be removed from the
primary listing market upon the primary listing market's open rather
than at the 9:45 cutoff time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60256 (July 7, 2009), 74
FR 33489 (July 13, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule change also introduces fees for the new LIST routing
strategy. The fees for LIST orders that participate in the open or
closing process at the securities' primary listing market are the fees
charged to Nasdaq by those venues, passed through to the member.
Specifically, the fee for LIST orders that participate in the NYSE
closing process is $0.00085 per share executed, while the fee for
orders participating in the opening process or the re-opening process
after trading is halted across all markets is $0.0005 per share
executed. The fee for LIST orders and DOT orders \8\ participating in
the NYSE opening process is subject to a $10,000 per month per member
cap. The fee for LIST orders that participate in the NYSEAmex closing
process is $0.00085 per share executed, while the fee for orders
participating in the opening process or the re-opening process after
trading is halted across all markets is $0.0005 per share executed. The
fee for LIST orders that participate in the NYSEArca closing process or
the re-opening process after trading is halted across all markets is
$0.0010 per share executed, while the fee for orders participating in
the opening process is $0.0005 per share executed. The fee for LIST
orders participating in the NYSEArca opening process is subject to a
$10,000 per month per member cap. LIST orders that participate in
NASDAQ's opening, closing, and halt re-opening processes are charged
NASDAQ's usual fees for those processes, as provided in Rule 7018(d)
and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ DOT orders are an existing order type that is also eligible
to participate in the NYSE opening process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LIST orders that execute at venues other than NASDAQ, but not in
the opening or closing processes, are charged $0.0030 per share
executed, and orders that execute in NASDAQ outside of its opening and
closing processes are charged NASDAQ's regular execution fee, which is
also $0.0030 per share executed. Because LIST orders have the potential
to post at NYSEArca or NYSEAmex and then be routed to other venues by
those exchanges, NASDAQ is also adding language stipulating that it
will pass on to its member any routing fees charged to it by NYSEArca
or NYSEAmex. Similar language is already in Rule 7018 with respect to
routing charges assessed by NYSE.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that the proposed routing option will accomplish those ends by
providing more flexible options, insomuch as it offers a means for
NASDAQ members to route to the opening and closing processes of U.S.
listing venues, while also allowing unexecuted shares to route to other
trading venues and post on the NASDAQ book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The rule change is also consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\11\ in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other
persons using any facility or system which NASDAQ operates or controls.
The fees assessed for a LIST order to participate in the open and
closing of the security's primary listing market are based on the fees
and rebates that are charged and offered to NASDAQ by the exchanges to
which it routes. As such, a member will pay the same fees for
participation in the opening and closing of the security's primary
listing market when using LIST as it would if it went to that venue
directly. A member will also pay the same fee for executing at venues
other than NASDAQ outside the open or close under LIST as it would
under alternative NASDAQ routing strategies, including STGY, SCAN,
SKNY, and SKIP. Finally, LIST orders that participate in NASDAQ's
opening and closing processes are charged NASDAQ's usual fees for those
processes, as provided in Rule 7018(d) and (e). In sum, the LIST order
fees are set to reflect NASDAQ's routing costs while offering members a
routing option they have requested. Use of the routing option is, of
course, entirely voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
NASDAQ has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\15\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange states that
it expects to have the technological changes in place to support the
proposed rule change by February 7, 2011, and believes that the
benefits to market participants expected from the rule change should
not be delayed. The Exchange believes that the rule change will reduce
the messaging traffic that is now required to achieve the same result,
and thus contribute to a more efficient public market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Commission notes that the proposed routing strategy is similar to
routing order types that were implemented by NYSE Arca.\16\ Therefore,
the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60256 (July 7, 2009),
74 FR 33489 (July 13, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-56).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for 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 the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-004 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-NASDAQ-2011-004. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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-
NASDAQ-2011-004 and should be submitted on or before March 3, 2011.

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

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2927 Filed 2-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


N Cl Cl O N O 10 01 01 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Linuron. List A Reregistration Case 0047. PC Code 035506. Product Chemistry Chapter for the Tolerance Renewal Eligibility Decision [TRED] Document. DP Barcode D273274.

FROM: K. Dockter, Chemist Reregistration Branch 2 Health Effects Division [7509C]

THRU: Alan Nielsen, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch 2 Health Effects Division [7509C]

TO: Carol Christensen, Risk Assessor Reregistration Branch 2 Health Effects Division [7509C]

Linuron [3( 3,4 dichlorophenyl) 1 methoxy 1 methylurea] is registered for selective weed control in many crops, and on roadsides, and fence rows.

Empirical formula: C9H10Cl2N2O2 Molecular weight: 249.1 CAS Registry No.: 330 55 2 PC Code: 035506 Chemical structure by J. Punzi The Reregistration Standard [RS] issued 6/ 30/ 82, the Guidance 6/ 29/ 84, & the Update [U] 6/ 20/ 90.

The Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document issued 3/ 96.

A search of REFS conducted 9/ 25/ 01 identified 26 active products, 5 of which are technicals [Ts] subject to a TRED. The Ts are identified in Table 1.

Table 1. Technical Linuron Active Products EPA Reg. No. Registrant Product Name % a. i. CSF Date 1812 270 Griffin Corp. Griffin Linuron Technical 96.25 9/ 28/ 90 1812 411 " L. L. C. DuPont Linuron Flake Technical 97.0 12/ 20/ 95 19713 158 Drexel Chml. Co. Drexel " " " 95 10/ 1/ 98 " 367 " " Linuron Technical I 95.0 1/ 4/ 99 " 368 " " " " II " 10/ 1/ 98 The product chemistry data base is complete. The Series 830 physical and chemical properties are given in the table below.

GLN MRID Data 6302 Color 460023 045 off white to light tan 6303 Physical state " solid 6304 Odor " odorless 7200 MP " 93  94 C 7300 Bulk density " 1.45 g/ cc 7840 Water solubility " 75 ppm @ 25 C 7950 vp " 1.5 x 10 5 mm Hg @ 24 C 7550 log Pow " 2.76 6313 Stability " stable up to MP; stable at concentrations of 5 & 5000 ppm in aqueous buffers [pH 5, 7, & 9] for 30 days @ 20 C.

cc: RF, Dockter, C. Christensen, J. Punzi, R. Fricke. RD\ I RRB2 Linuron TRED Team. 7509C: RRB2: Rm712N: 57886: KD/ kd Linuron. TRED [987] = D273274. mem.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 101 (Friday, May 26, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24266-24268]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10740]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9481; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-18]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Midland, TX and Proposed
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Odessa, TX and Midland, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Midland International Air and
Space Port Airport (formerly Midland International Airport), Midland,
TX, due to the closing of Mabee Ranch Airport, decommissioning of the
Mabee non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of NDB
approaches at Mabee Ranch Airport. Additionally, this proposal would
establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field, Odessa, TX, and Midland
Airpark, Midland, TX, to accommodate special instrument approach
procedures developed at these airports to enhance the safety and
management of standard instrument approach procedures for instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations. Also, this proposal would make an
editorial change to the legal descriptions by replacing Airport/
Facility Directory

with the term Chart Supplement, and would change the airport name to
Midland International Air and Space Port Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, telephone
(202) 366-9826 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-
2016-9481; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-18, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Central Service
Center, Operation Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class E airspace at Midland International Air Space
Port Airport by removing Mabee Ranch Airport, Midland, TX, because the
airport is closed, and establish Class E airspace at Odessa Airport-
Schlemeyer Field, Odessa, TX, and Midland Airpark, Midland, TX, to
ensure the efficient use of airspace within the National Airspace
System.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-9481/
Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-18.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Central Service Center, Operations Support Group,
10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective
September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:
    Modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface within a 7.1-mile radius (from a 17.4-mile radius) of Midland
International Air and Space Port Airport, Midland, TX. Airspace
reconfiguration is necessary due to the closing of Mabee Ranch Airport,
and decommissioning and cancellation of the Mabee NDB, and NDB
approaches;
    Establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of both Midland Airport, Midland,
TX, and Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer-Field, Odessa, TX, to accommodate
special instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these
airports;
    Updating the airport's name in the associated Class E airspace
areas; and making an editorial change in the legal description by
replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6002 and 6005,
respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will
be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current,
It,

therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the forgoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW TX E2 Midland International Air and Space Port Airport, TX
[Amended]

Midland International Air and Space Port Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]56'33'' N., long. 102[deg]12'07'' W.)

    Within a 5-mile radius of Midland International Air and Space
Port Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

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

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Midland, TX [Amended]

Midland International Air and Space Port Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]56'33'' N., long. 102[deg]12'07'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.1-mile radius of Midland International Air and Space Port
Airport.

ASW TX E5 Odessa, TX [New]

Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]55'17'' N., long. 102[deg]23'14'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field Airport.

ASW TX E5 Midland, TX [New]

Midland Airpark, TX
    (Lat. 32[deg]02'12'' N., long. 102[deg]06'05'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Midland Airpark.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 17, 2017.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-10740 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 71)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19268-19272]
[DOCID:fr14ap10-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0695; FRL-8808-7]

Kasugamycin; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for
residues of kasugamycin, 3-O-[2-amino-4-[(carboxyiminomethyl)amino]-
2,3,4,6-tetradeoxy-[alpha]-D-arabino-hexopyranosyl]-D-chiro-inositol in
or on apples. This action is in response to EPA's granting of an
emergency exemption under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the
agricultural bactericide on apples. This regulation establishes a
maximum permissible level for residues of kasugamycin in this food
commodity. The time-limited tolerance expires and is revoked on
December 31, 2012.

DATES: This regulation is effective April 14, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 14, 2010, 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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0695. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available in http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (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 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 Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Ertman, 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. How Can I Get Electronic Access to Other Related Information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the OPPTS harmonized test guidelines
referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://
www.epa.gov/oppts and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 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.
The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of
objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 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-
2008-0695 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All

requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the
Hearing Clerk on or before June 14, 2010.
    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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0695, 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
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility'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 Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is establishing a
time-limited tolerance for residues of the agricultural bactericide
kasugamycin,3-O-[2-amino-4-[(carboxyiminomethyl)amino]-2,3,4,6-
tetradeoxy-[alpha]-D-arabino-hexopyranosyl]-D-chiro-inositol in or on
apples at 0.05 parts per million (ppm). This time-limited tolerance
expires and is revoked on December 31, 2012. EPA will publish a
document in the Federal Register to remove the revoked tolerances from
the CFR.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18
of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding
precedents for the application of section 408 of FFDCA and the new
safety standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of
FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having
received any petition from an outside party.
    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. . .
.''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Kasugamycin on Apples and FFDCA Tolerances

    The State of Michigan requested the use of kasugamycin on apples to
control severe infestations of the bacteria responsible for the disease
fire blight. After having reviewed the submission, EPA determined that
emergency conditions exist for this State, and that the criteria for an
emergency exemption are met. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18
the use of kasugamycin on apples for control of fire blight in
Michigan.
    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application,
EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of kasugamycin
in or on apples. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in
section 408(b)(2) of FFDCA, and EPA decided that the necessary
tolerance under section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA would be consistent with the
safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to
move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent
non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and
lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance without notice and opportunity
for public comment as provided in section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA. Although
these time-limited tolerances expire and are revoked on December 31,
2012, under section 408(l)(5) of FFDCA, residues of the pesticide not
in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on
apples after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was
applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do
not exceed a level that was authorized by these time-limited tolerances
at the time of that application. EPA will take action to revoke these
time-limited tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data
on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the
residues are not safe.
    Because these time-limited tolerances are being approved under
emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether
kasugamycin meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on apples
or whether permanent tolerances for this use would be appropriate.
Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that this time-limited
tolerance decision serves as a basis for registration of kasugamycin by
a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor does
this tolerance serve as the basis for persons in any State other than
Michigan to use this pesticide on these crops under FIFRA section 18
absent the issuance of an emergency exemption applicable within that
State. For additional information regarding the emergency exemption for
kasugamycin, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address
provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. 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 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 expected as a result of this emergency exemption request and
the time-limited tolerances for residues of kasugamycin, 3-O-[2-amino-
4-[(carboxyiminomethyl)amino]-2,3,4,6-tetradeoxy-[alpha]-D-arabino-
hexopyranosyl]-D-chiro-inositol on apples at 0.05 ppm. EPA's assessment
of exposures and risks associated with establishing time-limited
tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a benchmark dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the level of concern (LOC).
    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
greater than that 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 kasugamycin used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
document ``Kasugamycin. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed
Food/Feed Use of the Fungicide (Associated with Section 18
Registration) on Apples in Michigan,'' page 8 in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2008-0695. On page 9 of that assessment there is also a
qualitative evaluation of the risks for development of resistant
pathogenic bacteria, in consideration of factors recommended by public
health experts to sustain the effectiveness of antibiotic materials.
Field use of this chemical under the section 18 involved measures and
requirements to limit, manage, and monitor for resistant bacteria. The
terms of use are included in this docket.

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to kasugamycin, EPA considered exposure under the time-limited
tolerances established by this action as well as all existing
kasugamycin tolerances in (40 CFR 180.614). EPA assessed dietary
exposures from kasugamycin in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. No such effects were identified in the
toxicological studies for kasugamycin; therefore, a quantitative acute
dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 percent
crop treated (PCT) and default processing factors were used. The
chronic dietary assessment is highly conservative, and therefore
provides an upper-bound estimate of dietary exposure and risk.
    iii. Cancer. Kasugamycin has been classified by the Agency as not
likely to be carcinogenic to humans and therefore, a cancer exposure
assessment was not conducted.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for kasugamycin. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed
for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for kasugamycin in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of kasugamycin. 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 First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of kasugamycin for
chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.0214
ppb for surface water and 0.278 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 0.278 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).
    Kasugamycin 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 kasugamycin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and kasugamycin does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
kasugamycin 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 the policy statements
released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common

mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from
substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

C. 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 SF when reliable data available to EPA
support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No increased quantitative or
qualitative susceptibility was observed in the developmental rat or
rabbit studies or in the 2-generation reproduction study. No offspring
toxicity was observed at any of the doses tested in these three
studies. Reproductive toxicity was noted in the F1 generation of the 2-
generation reproduction study. However, because parental toxicity
(decreased body weights and body weight gains) occurred at a lower dose
than that which resulted in effects on reproduction, there is no
increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of the offspring.
    3. Conclusion. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in any of the
studies available in the toxicology database, including the subchronic
feeding studies, the chronic feeding studies, the developmental
toxicity studies, and the 2-generation reproduction study. Therefore,
acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are not required. A
developmental neurotoxicity study is not required because:
    EPA has determined that reliable data show that 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 kasugamycin is considered adequate to
characterize potential toxic effects on infants and children.
    ii. There is no indication that kasugamycin is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that kasugamycin 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 were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to kasugamycin in drinking water. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by kasugamycin.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases 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 POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single-oral exposure
was identified, therefore, no acute dietary endpoint was selected.
Therefore, kasugamycin is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
kasugamycin from food and water will utilize 20% of the cPAD for all
infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for kasugamycin.
    3. Short-and intermediate term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure take into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level).
    Kasugamycin is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in residential exposure. Therefore, the short- and intermediate-
term aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from exposure to kasugamycin
through food and water and will not be greater than the chronic
aggregate risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Kasugamycin is
classified as a not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and therefore,
EPA does not expect kasugamycin to pose a cancer risk.
    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 kasugamycin residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. 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>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There are no established Canadian, Mexican, or Codex Maximum
Residue Limits (MRLs) for kasugamycin residues in apple commodities.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, a time-limited tolerance is established for residues of
kasugamycin, 3-O-[2-amino-4-[(carboxyiminomethyl)amino]-2,3,4,6-
tetradeoxy-[alpha]-D-arabino-hexopyranosyl]-D-chiro-inositol in or on
apples at 0.05 ppm. This tolerance expires and is revoked on December
31, 2012.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6) of FFDCA. 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 final rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this final rule 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 final rule 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 in accordance
with sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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 final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    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 of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 1, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
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. Section 180.614 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.614  Kasugamycin; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances
specified in the following table are established for residues of
kasugamycin, 3-O-[2-amino-4-[(carboxyiminomethyl)amino]-2,3,4,6-
tetradeoxy-[alpha]-D-arabino-hexopyranosyl]-D-chiro-inositol in or on
the specified agricultural commodities, resulting from use of the
pesticide pursuant to FFIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions. The
tolerances expire and are revoked on the date specified in the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Expiration/
            Commodity              Parts per million    revocation date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple                             0.05                12/31/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2010-8133 Filed 4-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 207 (Monday, October 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67724-67726]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23640]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-1-000]

Notice of Application and Establishing Intervention Deadline;
Golden Pass Pipeline LLC

    Take notice that on October 2, 2020, Golden Pass Pipeline LLC
(Golden Pass

Pipeline), 811 Louisiana Street, Suite 1400, Houston, Texas 77002,
filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA),
and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting an amendment to
the authorization granted in the Commission's December 21, 2016 Order
\1\ for the application filed in Docket No. CP14-518-000. The proposed
Compressor Relocation and Modification Project (Project) entails
relocation of and modifications to certain facilities approved in the
December 2016 Order to enable Golden Pass Pipeline to transport
domestically sourced natural gas to the export terminal facilities of
Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC (Golden Pass LNG), which are currently
under construction, for liquefaction and export.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Golden Pass Products LLC and Golden Pass Pipeline LLC, 157
FERC 61,222 (2016). The December 2016 Order authorized Golden Pass
Products, LLC (Golden Pass Products) to construct and operate the
Section 3 export facilities. Golden Pass LNG subsequently acquired
Golden Pass Products' authorization by merger. Golden Pass LNG
Terminal LLC and Golden Pass Products LLC, 165 FERC 61,261 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Compression Relocation and Modification Project consists of the
following: (1) Relocation of an authorized compressor station from
Milepost 66 to Milepost 69 on the Golden Pass Pipeline system; (2)
additional compression at the relocated compressor station; (3)
establishment of a new interconnection and associated meter station
near Milepost 69 to support an interconnect with the proposed
interstate pipeline to be constructed and operated by Enable Gulf Run
Transmission, LLC (Gulf Run), (4) removal of any bi-directional piping
modification to the Interconnect for Tennessee Gas Pipeline, (5)
elimination of the proposed and approved 24-inch diameter looping
facilities between MP 63 and MP 66 in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana
(Calcasieu Loop), to reflect the relocation of the MP 63 Compressor
Station and the elimination of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
(Tennessee Gas) Gas as an input source to Golden Pass Pipeline; and (6)
minor modifications to existing interconnections at Milepost 66 and
Milepost 68. Golden Pipeline Pass estimates the total cost of the
Project to be $361,345,000 and proposes a new incremental recourse rate
to apply to the Project capacity, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open for public
inspection.
    Golden Pass Pipeline's application states that a water quality
certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act is required for
the project from Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Water
Quality Division. The request for certification must be submitted to
the certifying agency and to the Commission concurrently. Proof of the
certifying agency's receipt date must be filed no later than five (5)
days after the request is submitted to the certifying agency.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to
Kevin M. Sweeney, Legal Counsel, Law Office of Kevin M. Sweeney, 1625 K
Street NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20006 by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\2\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: Complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project: You can file comments on the project, and you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for
filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to
intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 9, 2020.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments
may include statements of support or objections to the project as a
whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your
comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments
are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or
before November 9, 2020.
    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket
number CP21-1-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a
project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on eRegister. You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General and then select Comment on a Filing; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address below.\3\ Your written comments must reference
the Project docket number (CP21-1-000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1
and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected]

    Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project
will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will
receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are
issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated
with the Commission's environmental review process.
    The Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of
a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
For instructions on how to intervene, see below.

Interventions

    Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities,\4\ has the option to file a motion
to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to
request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to
subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit
Courts of Appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \5\ and the regulations under the NGA \6\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is November 9, 2020. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
the your interest in the proceeding. [For an individual, this could
include your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene.] For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \6\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both
instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-1-000 in
your submission.
    (1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's
eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website
(www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on eRegister. You will
be asked to select the type of filing you are making; first select
General and then select Intervention. The eFiling feature includes a
document-less intervention option; for more information, visit https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/document-less-intervention.pdf; or
    (2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along
with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below \7\.
Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP21-
1-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene
(option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected]
    Motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail
or email at: 1625 K Street NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20006 or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor
must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the
proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the
service list at the eService link on FERC Online. Service can be via
email with a link to the document.
    All timely, unopposed \8\ motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1).\9\ Motions to intervene that
are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely, and may be
denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for
being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived
and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule
214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations.\10\ A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or
electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The applicant has 15 days from the submittal of a motion to
intervene to file a written objection to the intervention.
    \9\ 18 CFR 385.214(c)(1).
    \10\ 18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
eLibrary link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Intervention Deadline: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 9, 2020.

    Dated: October 19, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23640 Filed 10-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 10, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1998-4222

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  HOTELES DINAMICOS, S.A.
                              Date Filed:  April 14, 2004

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and the
United States, and other passenger charters in accordance with 14 CFR
Part 212, using small equipment (see below).

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  April 21, 2003, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative:  Eugene E. Smith,<PHONE_NUMBER>
DOT analyst:  Allen Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved
                                            Action date:  May 10, 2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  May 10, 2004, through May 10,
2005

Basis for approval:  United States-Mexico Air Transport Services
Agreement (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Remarks:  In the conduct of these operations, the
carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the U.S.-Mexico
Agreement.  In the conduct of these operations, the carrier may only use
aircraft capable of carrying no more than 60 passengers and having a
maximum payload capacity of no more than 18,000 pounds (small
equipment).  The above grant includes authority to operate Third and
Fourth Freedom charters.  While we have subjected, consistent with the
provisions of the Agreement, Mexican carriers conducting charter
operations with large aircraft to prior approval or submission of notice
for their Third and Fourth Freedom charters, we determined that any such
requirement was not necessary on public interest grounds in this case of
this carrier, since the carrier will be conducting these operations
solely with small aircraft.  (Other charter operations to/from the
United States under this authority, however, are subject to prior
approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further, we are continuing to allow
Mexican carriers conducting passenger charters using small equipment to
make stopovers in the United States in the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
敗瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩
楴湯愮灳

6