[Federal Register: April 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 23975-23977]
[DOCID:fr25ap06-130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53675; File No. SR-NASD-2006-049]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Regarding Brut's Routing Order Process

April 18, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 13, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc., through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(``Nasdaq''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II and III below, which items have been prepared by Nasdaq.
Nasdaq has designated the proposed rule change as a ``non-
controversial'' rule change pursuant to 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 text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *

4714. Routing--Nasdaq-Listed Securities

    (a)-(b)--No Change

    (c) In the event an order becomes non-marketable while it is in the
execution queue, or the order is not marketable upon return to Nasdaq,
the order shall be included in the Nasdaq Market Center book (if
consistent with the order's time in force condition) in accordance with
the time priority established by the time-stamp assigned to the order
when it was initially submitted to the Nasdaq Market Center. Once an
order is placed in the Nasdaq Market Center book it shall not be routed
outside the Nasdaq Market Center unless otherwise instructed.
    (d)-(f) No Change
* * * * *

4905. Order Processing

    (a) Brut Book Order Process--No Change
    (b) Brut Order Routing Process
    (1) No Change
    (2) With the exception of Thru Brut and Directed Cross Orders that
specifically direct to which market center an order is to be routed,
[orders routed out of the Brut System to other market centers for
potential execution are generally delivered to other market centers in
price/size priority. If the routed order is smaller in size than the
total combined displayed share amounts of accessible market centers at
the best price level, the Brut System delivers the routed order to the
available market centers in price/size priority. If the routed order is
larger than the total combined displayed share amounts of accessible
market centers at the best price level, the Brut System delivers over-
sized orders to each displayed market center's quote in proportion to
the individual market's center share of that total displayed share
amount.] if an order for a security is not executed in its entirety in
the Brut System and such order is designated for routing, the order (or
the unfilled portion thereof--referred to hereinafter as an ``order'')
shall be processed as follows:
    (A) The order shall be routed to other markets accessible through
the Brut System router at a price better than the Orders available in
the Brut System as a limit order. Routed orders shall be executed
pursuant to the rules and regulations of the destination market.
    (B) In the event an order routed from the Brut System to another
market is not executed in its entirety, the remaining portion of the
order shall be returned to the Brut System and shall be eligible for
execution, or re-routing, if marketable. A market order that is
converted to a limit order for routing will become a market order again
upon return to the Brut System.
    (C) In the event an order becomes non-marketable while it is in the
execution queue, or the order is not marketable upon return to the Brut
System, the order shall be included in the Brut System book (if
consistent with the order's time in force condition) in accordance with
the time priority established by the time-stamp assigned to the order
when it is returned to the Brut System. Once an order is placed in the
Brut System book it shall not be routed outside the Brut System unless
otherwise instructed.
    (D) An order that has been routed to another market shall have no
time standing in the Brut System execution queue relative to other
orders in the Brut System. A request from a Brut Participant to cancel
an order while it is outside the Brut System shall be processed subject
to the applicable rules of the market to which the order has been
routed.
    [(3) In the event an order routed to another market center is not
executed in its entirety, the remaining portion of the order shall be
returned to the System and, if upon return the order is marketable
against a System order then priced at the NBBO, it will be subjected to
Brut Book Process prior to any further routing.
    (4) An order that has been routed to another market shall have no
time standing in the System execution queue relative to other orders in
the System. A request from a Participant to cancel an order while it is
outside the System shall be processed subject to the applicable rules
of the market center to which the order has been routed.]
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq represents that the purpose of the proposed rule change is
to modify the rule language pertaining to routing to external venues
through the Brut service to conform more closely with the rule language
pertaining to routing to external venues through the Nasdaq Market
Center.\4\ The one corresponding change to Nasdaq's routing language is
necessary for clarification purposes so as to more accurately reflect
the current routing process and does not indicate an actual system
change.\5\ Currently, Brut's rules describe the algorithm used for
determining to which routing destination and for how many shares Brut
will send orders. Nasdaq believes that this limits Brut's ability to
adjust its routing algorithm to achieve optimal routing results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NASD Rule 4714.
    \5\ See NASD Rule 4706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By adopting language more consistent with Nasdaq's routing rules,
Nasdaq represents that Brut will have more flexibility to adjust its
routing algorithm based on a number of factors, including: speed,
certainty of execution, potential of reserve shares, and cost. As such,
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change would promote uniformity
between Nasdaq-operated trading systems and provide the capacity to
adopt the same routing logic in anticipation of the eventual
integration of these systems into a single trading platform.
    The rule differs slightly from Nasdaq's routing rules, however, in
that the Brut system uses the timestamp of an order when it is returned
to the Brut system for ranking the order on the book, whereas the
Nasdaq Market Center uses the order's original timestamp. Nasdaq
believes that this difference is not significant and that it would be
too costly to conform this feature in the Brut system in light of the
imminent integration of the systems.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 15A of the Act,\6\ in general and with
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed
to foster coordination and cooperation with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities. Nasdaq believes the
proposal is consistent with this obligation because it is designed to
improve the routing process by making it more efficient and offering
subscribers more routing options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(6).

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

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

    Nasdaq 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

    Nasdaq has designated the foregoing rule change as a ``non-
controversial'' rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder \9\ because the rule change does
not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; or (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the day on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2006-049 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-049. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NASD. 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-NASD-2006-049 and should be submitted on or before May 16, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6126 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6727-6728]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0764; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANE-12]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lincoln, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E Airspace at Lincoln, ME, as the
Lincoln Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned and new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures have been developed at Lincoln
Regional Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 2, 2013. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On August 2, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace at Lincoln, ME
(77 FR 45985) Docket No. FAA-2012-0764. Interested parties were invited
to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments
on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated
August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed
in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Lincoln, ME, to accommodate the new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures developed for Lincoln Regional Airport .
The Lincoln NDB has been decommissioned, and the NDB approach
cancelled. The existing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface is being modified for the safety and management of
IFR operations. The Class E radius is increased due to terrain in the
surrounding area.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Lincoln Regional Airport, Lincoln,
ME.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental

Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental
Impacts: Policies and Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace
action is not expected to cause any potentially significant
environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that
warrant preparation of an Environmental Assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANE ME E5 Lincoln, ME [Amended]

Lincoln Regional Airport, ME
    (Lat. 45[deg]21'44'' N., long. 68[deg]32'05'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 11.8-mile radius of Lincoln Regional Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 12, 2012.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-02036 Filed 1-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 61670]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24653]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87482; File No. 265-30]

Fixed Income Market Structure Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee renewal.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing this
notice to announce that the Chairman of the Commission, with the
concurrence of the other Commissioners, has approved the renewal of the
Securities and Exchange Commission Fixed Income Market Structure
Advisory Committee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dimitrious, Senior Special
Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Arisa Kettig, Special Counsel, at (202)
551-5676, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-7010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.--App, the Commission is
publishing this notice that the Chairman of the Commission, with the
concurrence of the other Commissioners, has approved the renewal of the
Securities and Exchange Commission Fixed Income Market Structure
Advisory Committee (the ``Committee''). The Chairman of the Commission
affirms that the renewal of the Committee is necessary and in the
public interest.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 41 CFR 102-3.30(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee's objective is to provide the Commission with diverse
perspectives on the structure and operations of the U.S. fixed income
markets, as well as advice and recommendations on matters related to
fixed income market structure.
    No more than 21 voting members will be appointed to the Committee.
Such members shall represent a cross-section of those directly affected
by, interested in, and/or qualified to provide advice to the Commission
on matters related to fixed income market structure. The Committee's
membership will continue to be balanced fairly in terms of points of
view represented. Non-voting members may also be named.
    The charter provides that the duties of the Committee are to be
solely advisory. The Commission alone will make any determinations of
actions to be taken and policies to be expressed with respect to
matters within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Committee will meet
at such intervals as are necessary to carry out its functions. The
charter contemplates that the full Committee will meet four times.
Meetings of subgroups or subcommittees of the full Committee may occur
more frequently.
    The Committee will operate for one year from the date it is renewed
or such earlier date as determined by the Commission unless, before the
expiration of that time period, it is renewed in accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. A copy of the charter for the Committee
has been filed with the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the United States Senate, the Committee on Financial
Services of the United States House of Representatives, and the
Committee Management Secretariat of the General Services
Administration. A copy of the charter as so filed also will be filed
with the Chairman of the Commission, furnished to the Library of
Congress, and posted on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: November 7, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-24653 Filed 11-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 11, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75262-75267]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29576]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0038; FRL-9902-07]

Flonicamid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
flonicamid in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. In two separate petitions,
Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) and ISK Biosciences
Corporation (ISK) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 11, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 10, 2014,
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-2013-0038, 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), EPA West 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 (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; 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-2013-0038 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
February 10, 2014. 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-2013-0038, 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 June 5, 2013 (78 FR 33785) (FRL-9386-2),
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 2E8137)
by IR-4, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W., Princeton, NJ 08540. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.613 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the insecticide flonicamid and its
metabolites and degradates determined by measuring flonicamid (N-
(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide) and its
metabolites TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM (4-
trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG (N-(4-
trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine), calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of flonicamid, in or on alfalfa, forage at 7.0 parts per
million (ppm); alfalfa, hay at 0.20 ppm; alfalfa, seed at 1.5 ppm;
clover, forage at 7.0 ppm; clover, hay at 4.0 ppm;

peppermint, tops at 7.0 ppm; spearmint, tops at 7.0 ppm; vegetable,
fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.40 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 1.5
ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.20 ppm; and fruit, stone, group 12-
12 at 0.60 ppm. The petition also requested, upon the approval of the
aforementioned tolerances, removal of the established tolerances for
residues of the flonicamid in or on the following crop groups:
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8; fruit, pome, group 11; fruit, stone,
group 12; cucumber; and vegetable, cucurbit, group 9, except cucumber.
That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK
Biosciences Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
    In addition, in the Federal Register of February 27, 2013 (78 FR
13295) (FRL-9380-2), 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 2F8088) by ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Rd.,
Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.613
be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide,
flonicamid (N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide)
and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethyl nicotinic acid), TFNA-AM
(4- trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG (N-(4-trifluoro
methylnicotinoyl)glycine), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent
of flonicamid, in or on tree, nuts, crop group 14-12 at 0.09 ppm;
almond at 0.09 ppm; pecan at 0.04 ppm; and almond, hulls at 10.0 ppm.
That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK
Biosciences Corporation, 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
modified the levels at which tolerances are being established for some
commodities and has determined not to establish tolerances for some of
the requested commodities. The reason for these changes is explained in
Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for flonicamid including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with flonicamid 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.
    In the 28-day dermal study with flonicamid technical, no dermal or
systemic toxicity was seen at the limit dose. In oral studies using
rats and dogs, the kidney and liver are the target organs for
flonicamid toxicity. Increased kidney weight and hyaline droplet
deposition were observed as well as liver centrilobular hypertrophy in
the rat 28-day oral range-finding, 90-day oral, developmental, and
reproductive studies. The 90-day dog study showed kidney tubular
vacuolation as well as increased adrenal weights, increased
reticulocytes and decreased thymus weights. Increased reticulocyte
count was noted in both the subchronic and chronic dog studies.
    In rats, developmental effects including increased incidence of
cervical ribs were observed at maternally toxic (liver and kidney gross
and histopathological effects) dose levels. In rabbits, developmental
effects were not observed at any dose level including maternally toxic
doses. Offspring effects (decreased body weight and delayed sexual
maturation) in the multi-generation study were seen only in the
presence of parental toxicity (kidney effects in males, blood effects
in females). Thus, there is no evidence that flonicamid results in
increased susceptibility (qualitative or quantitative) in in utero rats
or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in
the 2-generation reproduction study.
    There are no concerns for flonicamid neurotoxicity. Although
clinical signs suggesting potential neurotoxic effects (e.g., decreased
motor activity, tremors) were seen in the acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies; other effects in these studies (e.g., increased
mortality, and significant decreases in food consumption and body
weight) indicated that the clinical signs were a result of the animals
being in an extreme condition or otherwise compromised and in a state
of general malaise. Also, these types of effects were not observed in
the other subchronic or chronic studies in mice, rats or dogs. Thus,
there is not clear evidence of neurotoxicity. Lastly, clear no-
observed-adverse-effect-levels (NOAELs) and lowest-observed-adverse
effect-levels (LOAELs) were defined for the clinical signs, which are
above the levels currently used for risk assessment purposes.
    A 28-day oral (dietary) immunotoxicity study of technical
flonicamid in female CD-1 mice demonstrated that flonicamid is not an
immuno-suppressant, either structurally or functionally up to and
including dose levels exceeding the limit dose.
    Although there is some limited evidence suggesting that flonicamid
has a potential for carcinogenic effects, EPA determined that
quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (i.e., using a
chronic reference dose (cRfD)) adequately accounts for all chronic
toxicity, including carcinogenicity that could result from exposure to
flonicamid. The following considerations support that determination.
First, mutagenicity studies were negative for the parent chemical,
flonicamid, and its metabolites, TFNA, TFNA-AM, TFNG, TFNG-AM, and
TFNA-OH. Second, although flonicamid is carcinogenic in CD-1 mice,
based on increased incidences of lung tumors associated with Clara cell
activation, this tumor type is associated with species and strain
sensitivity and is not directly correlated with cancer risks in humans.
Third, nasal cavity tumors seen in male

Wistar rats were linked to incisor inflammation and not considered to
be treatment related. These tumor findings were confounded by the lack
of a dose response and the biological significance is questionable.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by flonicamid as well as the NOAEL and the LOAEL
from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
the document entitled ``Flonicamid--Human Health Risk Assessment for a
Section 3 Registration of New Uses on Alfalfa and Clover Grown for
Seed, Mint, Greenhouse Grown Tomatoes, and Tree Nuts,'' pp. 33-39 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0038.

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 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 flonicamid used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of November 14, 2012 (77 FR 67771)
(FRL-9368-7).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to flonicamid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing flonicamid tolerances in 40 CFR
180.613. EPA assessed dietary exposures from flonicamid 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. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for flonicamid; 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 U.S. Department
of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What
We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, the
chronic dietary exposure assessment was a conservative assessment,
conducted using tolerance-level residues and 100 percent crop treated
(PCT).
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk to flonicamid. Cancer risk was assessed using the same
exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/;or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for flonicamid. Tolerance level residues and 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 flonicamid in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/;transport
characteristics of flonicamid. 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.
    The drinking water assessment was conducted using a parent only and
total toxic residues of flonicamid (TTR) approach. Total toxic residues
include TFNA, TFNA-AM, TFNA-OH, TFNG, and TFNG-AM.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/;Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/;EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
total toxic residues of flonicamid for chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments are estimated to be 0.94 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 9.92 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 9.92 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). Flonicamid 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 flonicamid to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and flonicamid does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
flonicamid 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 Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (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. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicity database for flonicamid includes prenatal developmental
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and a multi-generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats. There is no evidence that
flonicamid results in increased susceptibility (qualitative or
quantitative) in rats or rabbits exposed in utero in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the multi-generation
reproduction study. No developmental effects were seen in rabbits. In
the multi-generation reproduction study, developmental delays in the
offspring (decreased body weights, delayed sexual maturation) were seen
only in the presence of parental toxicity (kidney and blood effects).
Also, there are clear NOAELs and LOAELs for all effects. The degree of
concern for prenatal and/;or post-natal susceptibility is, therefore,
low due to the lack of evidence of qualitative and quantitative
susceptibility.
    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 for chronic dietary and other exposures,
except as noted below. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for flonicamid is complete except for a
subchronic inhalation study. In the absence of a route specific
inhalation study, EPA has retained a 10X FQPA SF to assess risks for
inhalation exposure scenarios. However, residential inhalation
exposures are not expected.
    ii. The available data base includes acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies. As discussed in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded
that the clinical signs observed in those studies were not the result
of a neurotoxic mechanism and that therefore a developmental
neurotoxicity study is not required.
    iii. There was no evidence for quantitative or qualitative
susceptibility following oral exposures to rats in utero or oral
exposure to rabbits in utero.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. An unrefined conservative chronic dietary exposure
assessment for food and drinking water was conducted, assuming
tolerance level residues for all existing and proposed commodities and
100 PCT of registered and proposed crops. The drinking water assessment
utilized water concentration values generated by models and associated
modeling parameters which are designed to produce conservative, health
protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations which are not
likely to be exceeded. The dietary (food and drinking water) exposure
assessment does not underestimate the potential exposure for infants,
children, or women of child bearing age.

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-term, intermediate-term, 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. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
flonicamid 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
flonicamid from food and water will utilize 30% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for flonicamid.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short- term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term and
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Short-term and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified;
however, flonicamid is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in short-term or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short-
term and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short-term and
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure.
Because there is no short-term 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 or intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of short-term or intermediate-term risk is
necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating short-term and intermediate-term risk for flonicamid.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the
discussion in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that the cPAD is
protective of possible cancer effects from flonicamid, and as evidenced
in Unit III.E.2, aggregate exposure to flonicamid is below the cPAD.
    6. 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 flonicamid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methods are available to enforce the
tolerances for flonicamid and the major metabolites in plants and
livestock. The proposed method for plants uses liquid chromatography
with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) (FMC No. P-3561M) to determine
the residues of flonicamid and its major metabolites, TFNA-AM, TFNA,
and TFNG. Three enforcement methods are used for livestock commodities:
    1. An LC/MS/MS method RCC No. 844743 for determination of residues
in eggs, poultry tissues, and fat of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and
sheep;
    2. LC/MS method RCC No. 842993 for determination of residues in
milk; and
    3. LC/MS/MS method FMC No. P-3580, which includes an acid
hydrolysis step, for determination of residues in meat and meat
products (kidney and liver) of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep. All
three methods determine flonicamid and the metabolites OH-TFNA-AM,
TFNA-AM, TFNG, and TFNA
    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 any MRLs for flonicamid.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on the review of the residue data, EPA is modifying the
proposed tolerance on alfalfa forage from 7.0 ppm to 10.0 ppm; alfalfa
hay from 0.20 ppm to 1.0 ppm; almond hulls from 10.0 ppm to 9.0 ppm;
and the tree nut group 14-12 from 0.09 ppm to 0.15 ppm. For alfalfa
forage, the tolerance was calculated using 5x the mean of the field
trial data instead of using the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures because there
are only two field trials reflecting the proposed application rate and
pre-harvest interval. For alfalfa hay, the level of quantitation (LOQ)
was used since all residues were


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 143 (Friday, July 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44872-44873]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15868]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD20-20-000]

Notice of Availability of Draft Engineering Guidelines for the
Evaluation of Hydropower Projects: Chapter 15--Supporting Technical
Information Document and Request for Comments

    The staff of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) has drafted its
initial version of Chapter 15--Supporting Technical Information
Document of its Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower
Projects (Guidelines). This chapter will supersede the portions of
Chapter 14--Dam Safety Performance Monitoring Program that pertain to
the Supporting Technical Information Document, and is one of four draft
chapters intended to provide additional guidance related to the notice
of proposed rulemaking issued by the Commission in Docket No. RM20-9-
000. Please note that any comments on the proposed rulemaking or on
draft chapters of the Guidelines other than Chapter 15 should be filed
in the corresponding docket number.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission is concurrently issuing for public comment
four draft chapters of the Guidelines in Docket Nos. AD20-20-000
(Chapter 15--Supporting Technical Information Document), AD20-21-000
(Chapter 16--Part 12D Program), AD20-22-000 (Chapter 17--Potential
Failure Mode Analysis), and AD20-23-000 (Chapter 18--Level 2 Risk
Analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are now requested on the draft Chapter 15--Supporting
Technical Information Document from federal and state agencies,
licensees whose projects are subject to Part 12, Subpart D of the
Commission's regulations, independent consultants and inspectors, and
other interested parties with special expertise with respect to dam
safety. Comments are due 60 days from the date of this Notice.
    Interested parties can help us determine the appropriate updates
and improvements by providing: Meaningful comments or suggestions that
focus on the specific sections requiring clarification; updates to
reflect current laws and regulations; or improved measures and best
practices for compiling and storing project records in physical and
electronic formats. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. A detailed explanation of your submissions and/or any
references of scientific studies associated with your comments will
greatly help us with this process. We will consider all timely comments
on the revised Guidelines before issuing the final version.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the docket number (AD20-20-000) on the first page of your
submission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov). Select the FERC
Online option from the left-hand column and click on eComment. This is
an easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only
comments up to 6,000 characters. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments.
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov). Select the FERC
Online option from the left-hand column and click on eFiling. 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. When selecting the filing
type, select General, then choose Comment (on Filing, Environ. Report
or Tech Conf).
    (3) In lieu of electronic filing, you can mail a paper copy of your
comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand-delivered
comments, or those delivered by carriers/couriers other than the US
Postal Service, should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    All information related to Chapter 15--Supporting Technical
Information Document, including the draft chapter and all submitted
comments, can be found on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on General Search and
enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket
Number field (i.e., AD20-20). Be sure you have selected an appropriate
date range. The Commission also 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
electronic notification of these filings and direct links to the
documents. Go to the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov), select the
FERC Online option from the left-hand column, and click on
eSubscription. Users must be registered in order to use eSubscription.

Information Collection Statement

    The proposed Guidelines include information collection activities
for which the Paperwork Reduction Act \2\ requires approval by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission has included the
burden and cost estimates for information collection activities in
these Guidelines in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled, Safety of
Water Power Projects and Project Works (Docket No. RM20-9-000). The
Commission has designated the information collection activities in the
proposed rule and in the Guidelines as FERC-517. Upon approval of FERC-
517, OMB will assign an OMB Control Number and expiration date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you would like to submit comments on the information-collection
aspects (such as burden, cost, need for the data, and frequency of
reporting or recordkeeping) of the proposed Guidelines, please submit
them to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget [Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Desk Officer]. Due to security concerns, comments should be sent
directly to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Comments submitted to
OMB should be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register and refer to FERC-517 and OMB Control No. 1902-TBD.

    Please submit to the Commission copies of comments concerning the
collection of information and the associated burden estimates
(identified by Docket Nos. RM20-9-000 and AD20-20-000) by any of the
three methods listed above.
    For assistance with filing or any of the Commission's online
systems, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 16, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15868 Filed 7-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6075-6076]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02200]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA HQ-OA-2008-0701; FRL-9922-48-OA]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Focus
Groups as used by EPA for Economics Projects (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Focus Groups as used
by EPA for Economics Projects (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2205.15, OMB
Control No. 2090-0028) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This
is a proposed renewal of the ICR, which is currently approved through
June 30, 2015. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-
2008-0701, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathalie Simon, Office of Policy, (MC
1809T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
566-2363 email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: EPA is seeking renewal of a generic ICR for the conduct
of focus groups and protocol interviews (hereafter jointly referred to
as focus groups) related to economics projects. Over the next three
years, the Agency anticipates embarking on a number of survey
development efforts associated with a variety of economics projects
including those related to valuation of ecosystems, children's health
risks, mortality risk reductions, improvements to coastal waters
including the Chesapeake Bay, to name a few. Focus groups are an
important part of any survey development process, allowing researchers
to directly gauge what specific issues are important to the public and
providing a means for explicitly testing draft survey materials. These
focus groups will allow the Agency to gain a more in-depth
understanding of the public's attitudes, beliefs, motivations and
feelings regarding specific issues and will provide valuable
information regarding the quality of draft survey instruments.
    The information collected in the focus groups may be used to
develop and improve economics-related surveys. To the extent that these
surveys are ultimately successfully administered, they will serve to
expand the Agency's understanding of benefits and costs of a variety of
actions and could provide the means to quantitatively assess the
effects of others. Participation in the focus groups will be voluntary
and the identity of the participants will be kept confidential.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Individuals.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 2,066 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once.
    Total estimated burden: 1,359 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)
    Total estimated cost: $41,356 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

    Dated: January 27, 2015.
Joel Beauvais,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-02200 Filed 2-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 50 (Friday, March 13, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14559]
[FR Doc No: C1-2020-03475]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 50 / Friday, March 13, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0330; Special Conditions No. 25-761-SC]

Special Conditions: The Boeing Company Model 777-9 Series;
Overhead Flight Attendant Rest Compartment

Correction

    In Rule document 2020-03475, appearing on pages 11836-11841, in the
issue of Friday, February 28, 2020, make the following corrections:
    On page 11838, in the third column, on the thirty-second line from
the top of the page, the paragraph entry titled ``Exit Signs and
Placards.'' should read ``4. Exit Signs and Placards.''.

[FR Doc. C1-2020-03475 Filed 3-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


[Federal Register: December 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 237)]
[Notices]
[Page 74799-74801]
[DOCID:fr09de08-102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0014]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: This notice solicits public comment on continuation of the
requirements for the collection of information on safety standards.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the
public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
    This document describes a collection of information associated with
49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket notice number cited at the
beginning of this notice, and the OMB control number, 2127-0050, and be
submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for NHTSA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. It is requested, but not required,
that 2 copies of the comment be provided.
    Commenters may also, but are not required to, submit their comments
to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any
of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may call the Docket Management Facility at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Complete copies of each request for
collection may be obtained from Mr. Jeff Woods, NVS-122, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Woods' telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before a proposed collection of information is submitted to OMB for
approval, Federal agencies must first publish a document in the Federal
Register providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with
members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed
collection of information. The OMB has promulgated regulations
describing what must be included in such a document. Under OMB's
regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment
on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and

    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    The agency published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on
January 24, 2008 (73 FR 4157), in which we proposed revisions to the
tire registration requirements in 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification
and Recordkeeping, to allow electronic means for consumers, tire
dealers, and tire manufacturers to register the first purchaser
information of new tires. The notice also included the agency's
announcement (at 4167) that it was preparing to submit a renewal
request to OMB for a three-year extension of this previously-approved
collection of information, and the agency provided a 60-day comment
period for the public to submit comments on the renewal request and the
agency's estimates of the burden associated with this collection of
information.
    The NPRM included the following proposed revisions to the Part 574
requirements to facilitate increased use of electronic means to collect
tire registration information and to otherwise improve the rate of tire
registration. Independent tire dealers could, in lieu of providing a
paper registration form to consumers, voluntarily register the tires on
behalf of the purchaser with the tire manufacturer using the internet
or other electronic means as authorized by the tire manufacturer.
Independent tire dealers could continue to provide paper registration
forms to purchasers for them to mail to the tire manufacturer, or
independent dealers would have the option of sending completed tire
registration forms to the tire manufacturer on behalf of the purchaser.
Figures 3a and 3b depicting the paper registration form for use by
independent tire dealers were proposed to be deleted from Part 574,
while the regulatory text would be amended to include all of the
minimum requirements for the form in descriptive terms. The paper
registration forms could also include tire registration Web site
information, as authorized by the tire manufacturer, to enable
purchasers to register their tires using the internet.
    The NPRM also proposed amendments to Part 574 requirements for tire
dealers that are owned or controlled by tire manufacturers by
specifying that in addition to using to paper tire registration forms,
these dealers may also use electronic means to transmit tire
registration information to the tire manufacturer. Figure 4 depicting
the paper registration form for use by company-controlled tire dealers
was proposed to be deleted from Part 574, while the regulatory text
would be amended to include all of the minimum requirements for the
form in descriptive terms.
    As described in the NPRM, prior interpretations of the Part 574
requirements issued by the agency had already provided allowances and
guidance for tire dealers to use electronic means to register tires on
behalf of consumers (for independent tire dealers) or as required by
tire dealers under Part 574 (for company-controlled tire dealers). The
revisions proposed in the NPRM would serve to codify in Part 574 the
provisions for electronic means of tire registration by independent and
company-controlled tire dealers. In addition, the proposed revisions to
Part 574 would provide additional opportunities for tire purchasers
(consumers) to register their tires using the internet, telephones, or
other electronic means, as provided by tire manufacturers or their
designees. Finally, the tire manufacturers would have additional
flexibility in designing and printing the tire registration forms, as
would tire dealers in providing their identifying information on the
forms.
    The proposed provisions in the NPRM for the electronic means of
registering tires, including tire manufacturers providing tire
registration Web sites, would be implemented on a voluntary basis by
the tire manufacturers and tire dealers. There would be no obligation
for independent tire dealers to register the tires on behalf of the
purchaser and these dealers could still continue to provide the
purchaser with a paper tire registration form. In addition, if the
independent tire dealer were to register the tires on behalf of the
purchaser by either returning the paper tire registration form to the
tire manufacturer or by using electronic means to register the
information, the agency proposed that this voluntary service would be
provided at no cost to the purchaser.
    The Paperwork Reduction Act analysis in the NPRM included burden
estimates for the tire registration and recordkeeping collection of
information requirements in Part 574. These were the same burden
estimates that were included in the agency's March 21, 2007 30-day
notice (72 FR 13344) during the previous renewal of this information
collection with OMB. The analysis in the NPRM indicated that the tire
registration rate may increase in the future because of increased
availability of electronic means for purchasers to register their
tires, or because independent tire dealers may elect to voluntarily
register tires on behalf of the purchaser. However, for the purposes of
estimating the current burden associated with this information
collection, the agency believed that whether a purchaser registered
their tires by filling out the paper tire registration form, or typed
this information in on a tire registration Web site, the amount of time
required to provide the purchaser's name and address would be very
roughly the same. Therefore, the agency did not revise (increase or
decrease) the burden estimate associated with this collection of
information.
    After considering the comments to the NPRM, the agency published a
final rule on November 28, 2008. The rule substantially adopts the
proposal.
    The agency did not receive any comments regarding the agency's
burden estimates for this collection of information, and therefore,
these same estimates are included in this notice. The purpose of this
notice is to provide notice of the agency's intent to request a renewal
of this collection of information with OMB and to seek public comments
on this request in accordance with requirements in 5 CFR Part 1320. As
noted above, commenters responding to this notice shall provide their
comments directly to OMB, although they may also submit a copy of their
comments to the docket where they will be available for public viewing.
    Title: 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0050.
    Form Number: None.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from approval
date.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: 49 U.S.C. 30117(b)
requires each tire manufacturer to collect and maintain records of the
first purchasers of new tires. To carry out this mandate, 49 CFR Part
574 requires tire dealers and distributors to record the names and
addresses of retail purchasers of new tires and the identification
number(s) of the tires sold. A specific form is provided to tire
dealers and distributors by tire manufacturers for recording this
information. The completed forms are returned to the tire manufacturers
where they are retained for not less than five years. Part 574 requires
independent tire dealers and distributors to provide a registration
form to consumers with the tire identification number already recorded
and information identifying

the dealer/distributor. The consumer can then record his/her name and
address and return the form to the tire manufacturer. Additionally,
motor vehicle manufacturers are required to record the names and
addresses of the first purchasers (for purposes other than resale),
together with the identification numbers of the tires on the new
vehicles, and retain this information for not less than five years.
    Description of the Need for the Information and the Proposed Use of
the Information: The information is used by a tire manufacturer after
it or the agency determines that some of its tires either fail to
comply with an applicable safety standard or contain a safety related
defect. With the information, the tire manufacturer can notify the
first purchaser of the tire and provide them with any necessary
information or instructions or remedy.
    Without this information, efforts to identify the first purchaser
of tires that have been determined to be defective or nonconforming
pursuant to Sections 30118 and 30119 of Title 49 U.S.C. would be
impeded. Further, the ability of the purchasers to take appropriate
action in the interest of motor vehicle safety may be compromised.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information):
January 24, 2008 Federal Register Notice--In the 60-day notice
announcing NHTSA's request for an extension to collect the tire
registration and recordkeeping information, we estimated that the
collection of information affects 10 million respondents annually. This
group consists of approximately 20 tire manufacturers, 59,000 new tire
dealers and distributors, and 10 million consumers who choose to
register their tire purchases with tire manufacturers. A response is
required by motor vehicle manufacturers upon each sale of a new vehicle
and by non-independent tire dealers with each sale of a new tire. A
consumer may elect to respond when purchasing a new tire from an
independent dealer.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information: The estimated burden is
as follows:
    New tire dealers and distributors: 59,000.
    Consumers: 10,000,000.
    Total tire registrations (manually): 54,000,000.
    Total tire registration hours (manual): 225,000 hours.
    Recordkeeping hours (manual): 25,000 hours.
    Total annual tire registration and recordkeeping hours: 250,000
hours.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c); delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50

    Issued on: December 3, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E8-29052 Filed 12-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P