[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 145 (Monday, July 31, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35443]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15987]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0728]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Carquinez Strait, Martinez, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge
across the Carquinez Strait, mile 7.0 at Martinez, CA. The deviation is
necessary to allow the bridge owner to conduct emergency repairs. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position during the deviation period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on August 1,
2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation [USCG-2017-0728], is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Union Pacific Railroad has requested a
temporary change to the operation of the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge,
mile 7.0, over the Carquinez Strait, at Martinez, CA. The drawbridge
navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 70 feet above Mean
High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as
required by 33 CFR 117.5. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and
recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position
from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on August 1, 2017, to allow the bridge owner to
conduct emergency repairs. This temporary deviation has been
coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed
temporary deviation were raised.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies
and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The
Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway, through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners, of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: July 24, 2017.
Carl T. Hausner,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-15987 Filed 7-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 56)]
[Notices]
[Page 15225-15228]
[DOCID:fr21mr08-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57502; File No. SR-Amex-2008-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange, LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Create a Delta Hedging Exemption From Equity Options Position Limits

March 14, 2008.
    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 March 4, 2008, the American Stock Exchange, LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Amex. The
Exchange has filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 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 proposes to amend Amex Rule 904 to establish a delta
hedge exemption from equity options position limits. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at Amex, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and www.amex.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Amex 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. Amex 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
    All options contracts listed and traded on the Exchange are subject
to position and exercise limits as set forth in Amex Rules 904 and 905.
Position limits restrict the number of options contracts that an
investor, or a group of investors acting in concert, may own or control
in one particular option class or the security or securities that
underlie that option class. Similarly, exercise limits prohibit the
exercise of more than a specified number of contracts on a particular
instrument within five business days. The Exchange does provide various
hedge exemptions to permit certain ``hedged'' positions greater
position limits than the applicable standard position limit.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Commentary .09 to Amex Rule 904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the past several years, the Exchange as well as the other
self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'') have increased in absolute
terms the size of the options position and exercise limits as well as
the size and scope of available exemptions for ``hedged'' positions.\6\
The exemptions for hedged positions generally require a one-to-one
hedge (i.e., one stock option contract must be hedged by the number of
shares covered by the options contract, typically 100 shares). In
practice, however, many firms do not hedge their options positions in
this way. Rather, these firms engage in what is known as ``delta
hedging,'' which varies the number of shares of the underlying security
used to hedge an options position based upon the relative sensitivity
of the value of the option contract to a change in the price of the
underlying security.\7\ The Amex believes that delta hedging is widely
accepted for net capital and risk management purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51316 (March 3,
2005), 70 FR 12251 (March 11, 2005) (SR-Amex-2005-029); 45312
(January 18, 2002), 67 FR 3752 (January 25, 2002) (SR-Amex-2001-42);
and 40875 (December 31, 1998), 64 FR 1842 (January 12, 1999) (SR-
Amex-98-22). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45650
(March 26, 2002), 67 FR 15638 (April 2, 2002) (SR-Amex-2001-72).
    \7\ For example, an option with a delta of .5 will move $0.50
for every $1.00 move in the underlying stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2002, the Commission approved amendments to Amex Rule 904
providing an expansion to the hedging strategies exempt from the
standard position and exercise limits.\8\ In addition, in 2004, the
Commission approved a proposal of the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') providing for a delta hedging
exemption from stock options position and exercise limits for positions
held by affiliates of NASD members approved by the Commission as ``OTC
derivatives dealers.'' \9\ At that time, the Commission reiterated its
``support for recognizing options positions hedged on a delta neutral
basis as properly exempted from position limits.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 6.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50748 (November 29,
2004), 69 FR 70485 (December 6, 2004) (SR-NASD-2004-153).
    \10\ Id. at 70486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Delta Neutral-Based Hedge Exemption
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new exemption from equity options
position and exercise limits for positions held by Amex members and
certain of their affiliates that are ``delta neutral'' \11\ under a
``permitted pricing model'' (as defined below), subject to certain
conditions (``Exemption''). The proposed Exemption would only apply to
equity options, i.e. stock options and options on Exchange Traded Fund
Shares. Any equity option position that is not ``delta neutral'' would
be subject to position and exercise limits, subject to the availability
of other exemptions. Only the ``options contract equivalent of the net
delta'' \12\ of a hedged options position would be subject to the
appropriate position limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Delta neutral'' is defined in proposed Commentary .10(a)
to Rule 904 as an equity options position that has been fully
hedged, in accordance with a ``Permitted Pricing Model,'' by a
position in the underlying security or one or more instruments
relating to the underlying security, for the purpose of offsetting
the risk that the value of the option position will change in
response to incremental changes in the price of the security
underlying the option position.
    \12\ ``Net delta'' is defined in proposed Commentary .10(b) to
Rule 904 to mean ``the number of shares (either long or short)
required to offset the risk that the value of an equity options
position will change with incremental changes in the price of the
security underlying the options position, as determined in
accordance with a Permitted Pricing Model.'' ``Options Contract
Equivalent of the Net Delta'' is defined in proposed Commentary
.10(c) to Rule 904 to mean the net delta divided by the number of
shares underlying the options contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only financial instruments relating to the security underlying an
equity options position could be included in any determination of an
equity options position's net delta or whether the options position is
delta neutral. In addition, members could not use the same equity or
other financial instrument position in connection with more than one
hedge exemption. Accordingly, a stock position used as part of a delta
hedging strategy could not also serve as the basis for any other equity
hedge exemption.
Permitted Pricing Model
    Under this proposal, the calculation of the delta for any equity
option position, and the determination of whether a particular equity
option position is delta neutral, is required to be made using a
``Permitted Pricing Model.'' A ``Permitted Pricing Model'' is defined
in proposed Commentary .10(e) to Rule 904 to mean the pricing model
maintained and operated by The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
and the pricing models used by: (1) A member or its affiliate subject
to consolidated supervision by the Commission pursuant to Appendix E of
Rule 15c3-1 under the Act; \13\ (2) a financial holding company
(``FHC'') or a company treated as an FHC under the Bank Holding Company
Act of 1956, or its affiliate subject to consolidated holding company
group supervision; \14\ (3) a Commission-registered OTC

derivatives dealer; \15\ and (4) a national bank under the National
Bank Act. \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Use of such pricing model would be required to be
consistent with the requirements of Appendices E or G, as
applicable, to Rules 15c3-1 and 15c3-4 under the Act in connection
with the calculation of risk-based deductions from capital or
capital allowances for market risk thereunder. See proposed
Commentary .10(e)(2) to Rule 904.
    \14\ An FHC's affiliate that is part of the FHC's consolidated
supervised holding company group would be eligible to use this part
of the Exemption. An FHC's (or an affiliate's) use of a proprietary
model would have to be consistent with either: (i) The requirements
of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, as amended
from time to time, in connection with the calculation of risk-based
adjustments to capital for market risk under capital requirements of
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; or (ii) the
standards published by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision,
as amended from time to time and as implemented by such company's
principal regulator, in connection with the calculation of risk-
based deductions or adjustments to or allowances for the market risk
capital requirements of such principal regulator applicable to such
company--where ``principal regulator'' means a member of the Basel
Committee on Banking Supervision that is the home country
consolidated supervisor of such company. See proposed Commentary
.10(e)(3) to Rule 904. It is important to note that the U.S.
activities of entities subject to the Basel standards are overseen
by the Federal Reserve Board, and the Exchange would be relying upon
that oversight in extending exemptive relief to such entities.
    \15\ An OTC derivative dealer's use of a proprietary model would
be required to be consistent with the requirements of Appendix F to
Rule 15c3-1 and Rule 15c3-4 under the 1934 Act in connection with
the calculation of risk-based deductions from capital for market
risk thereunder. Only an OTC derivatives dealer and no other
affiliated entity (including a member) would be able to rely upon
this particular part of the Exemption. See proposed Commentary
.10(e)(4) to Rule 904.
    \16\ The use of a proprietary model by a national bank would be
required to be consistent with the requirements of the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, as amended from time to time, in
connection with the calculation of risk-based adjustments to capital
for market risk under capital requirements of the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency. An affiliate of a national bank
(including an Exchange member) would not be permitted to rely on
this part of the Exemption. See proposed Commentary .10(e)(5) to
Rule 904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aggregation of Accounts
    Members and non-member affiliates relying on the Exemption would be
required to ensure that the Permitted Pricing Model applies to all
positions in, or relating to, the security underlying the relevant
options position that are owned or controlled by the member or its
affiliates.
    However, the net delta of an options position held by an entity
entitled to rely on this Exemption, or by a separate and distinct
trading unit of such entity, could be calculated without regard to
positions in or relating to the security underlying the option held by
an affiliated entity or by another trading unit within the same entity,
provided that: (1) the entity demonstrates to the Exchange's
satisfaction that no control relationship, as defined in Commentary .08
to Rule 904, exists between such affiliates or trading units; and (2)
the entity has provided the Exchange written notice in advance that it
intends to be considered separate and distinct from any affiliate, or,
as applicable, which trading units within the entity are to be
considered separate and distinct from each other for purposes of this
Exemption.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed Commentary .10(f) to Rule 904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has set forth in the proposed Information Circular the
conditions under which it will deem no control relationship to exist
between entities and between separate and distinct trading units within
the same entity.
    Any member or non-member affiliate relying on the Exemption would
be required to designate, by prior written notice to the Exchange, each
trading unit or entity whose options positions are required by Exchange
rules to be aggregated with the options positions of such member or
non-member affiliate relying on the Exemption for purposes of
compliance with Exchange position or exercise limits.
Obligations of Members and Affiliates
    Any member relying on the Exemption would be required to provide a
written certification to the Exchange stating that it is using a
Permitted Pricing Model as defined in proposed Commentary .10(e) to
Rule 904 for purposes of the Exemption. In addition, by such reliance,
such member or member organization would authorize any other person
carrying for such member or member organization an account, including,
or with whom such member has entered into, a position in or relating to
a security underlying the relevant option position to provide to the
Exchange or OCC such information regarding such account or position as
the Exchange or OCC may request as part of the Exchange's confirmation
or verification of the accuracy of any net delta calculation under this
Exemption.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed Commentary .10(g) to Rule 904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The options positions of a non-member affiliate relying on the
Exemption would have to be carried by a member with whom it is
affiliated. A member carrying an account that includes an equity option
position for a non-member affiliate that intends to rely on the
Exemption would be required to obtain from such non-member affiliate a
written certification sufficient that it is using a Permitted Pricing
Model as defined in the Rule for purposes of the Exemption.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In addition, the member or member organization would be
required to obtain from such non-member affiliate a written
statement confirming that such non-member affiliate: (a) Is relying
on the Exemption; (b) will use only a Permitted Pricing Model for
purposes of calculating the net delta of the option positions for
purposes of the Exemption; (c) will promptly notify the member or
member organization if it ceases to rely on the Exemption; (d)
authorizes the member or member organization to provide to the
Exchange or the OCC such information regarding positions of the non-
member affiliate as the Exchange or OCC may request as part of the
Exchange's confirmation or verification of the accuracy of any ``net
delta'' calculation under the Exemption; and (e) if the non-member
affiliate is using the OCC Model, has duly executed and delivered to
the Exchange such documents as the Exchange may require to be
executed and delivered to the Exchange as a condition to reliance on
the Exemption. See proposed Commentary .10(g)(3) to Rule 904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Position Reporting
    Under proposed Commentary .10(h) to Rule 904, each member or member
organization relying on the Exemption would be required to report, in
accordance with Rule 906,\20\ (i) all equity option positions
(including those that are delta neutral) that are reportable
thereunder, and (ii) on its own behalf or on behalf of a designated
aggregation unit pursuant to proposed Commentary .10(f) to Rule 904,
for each such account that holds an equity option position subject to
the Exemption in excess of the levels specified in Rule 904, the net
delta and the options contract equivalent of the net delta of such
position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Amex Rule 906 requires, among other things, that members
and member organizations report to the Exchange aggregate long or
short positions on the same side of the market of 200 or more
contracts of any single class of options contracts dealt in on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange and other SROs are working on modifying the Large
Options Position Reporting system and/or the OCC reports to allow a
member to indicate that an equity options position is being delta
hedged.
Records
    Under proposed Commentary .10(i) to Rule 904, each member and
member organization relying on the Exemption would be required to (i)
retain, and would be required to undertake reasonable efforts to ensure
that any non-member affiliate of the member or member organization
relying on the Exemption retains, a list of the options, securities and
other instruments underlying each options position net delta
calculation reported to the Exchange hereunder, and (ii) produce such
information to the Exchange upon request.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ A member would be authorized to report position information
of its non-member affiliate pursuant to the written statement
required under proposed Commentary .10(g)(3)(ii)(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reliance on Federal Oversight
    As provided under proposed Commentary .10(e) to Rule 904, a
Permitted Pricing Model includes proprietary pricing models used by
members or member organizations and affiliates that have been approved
by the Commission, the Federal Reserve Board or another federal
financial regulator. In adopting the proposed Exemption, the Exchange
would be relying on the rigorous approval processes and ongoing
oversight of a federal financial regulator. The Exchange notes that it
would not be under any obligation to verify whether a member or member
organization's use of a proprietary pricing model is appropriate or
yielding accurate results.
    The Exchange will announce the operative date of the proposed rule
change in an Information Circular to be distributed no later than sixty
days following the notice of filing in the Federal Register. The
operative date shall be no later than thirty days following
distribution of the

Information Circular announcing the notice of filing in the Federal
Register, or such later date as may be necessary to ensure completion
of the required technology changes by the OCC and the Securities
Industry Automation Corporation.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\22\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\23\ in particular, in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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 the proposed delta neutral-based hedge
exemption from equity options position and exercise limits is
appropriate in that it is based on a widely accepted risk management
method used in options trading. In addition, the Commission has
previously stated its support for recognizing options positions hedged
on a delta neutral basis as properly exempted from position limits.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40594 (October 23,
1998), 63 FR 59362, 59380 (November 3, 1998) (S7-30-97) (adopting
rules relating to OTC Derivatives Dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received with respect
to the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30
days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\27\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \28\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would allow the Exchange to implement the delta hedging exemption from
equity options position limits without needless delay. The Commission
notes that it recently approved a substantially similar proposal filed
by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated.\29\ The Commission
believes that Amex's proposal to create a delta hedging exemption from
equity options position limits raises no new issues. For these reasons,
the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing with the Commission.\30\
    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied the five-day pre-filing
notice requirement.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56970 (December 14,
2007), 72 FR 72428 (December 20, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-99).
    \30\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Amex-2008-18 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-Amex-2008-18. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
am and 3 pm. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of Amex. 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-Amex-2008-18 and should be submitted on
or before April 11, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-5674 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


January 6, 2005 Ms. Debbie Edwards Director, Reregistration Division Environmental Protection Division 1101. A USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania, NW Washington, D. C. 20460 Dear Debbie:

The NPC has previously supplied input on the critical role of Guthion in the U. S. potato industry. Recent developments in the potato industry have only added to the importance of this product to growers. This document includes previously submitted information and new material on the product. The NPC believes that Guthion should be continued for use on potatoes where it serves as an important IPM tool, particularly where the use of alternatives can trigger problems with other pests such as mites. The need for Guthion has taken on new urgency with the outbreak of a devastating insect pest of potatoes in the Pacific Northwest, the potato tuberworm.

Guthion has a long history of use on potatoes and, at one time, was one of the most widely used insecticides on the crop and is almost exclusively used for control of the Colorado potato beetle. In the near term, the development of resistance of the target pest to the insecticide and also the registration of alternative products, the use of Guthion declined in many regions. However, due to the combination of the product's low cost, high effectiveness, non flaring of mites, and its value for resistance management, the use of Guthion on potatoes in the Columbia Basin has increased. In 2001, Guthion was applied to approximately 26,000 acres in Washington, with a smaller amount used in Oregon, making it one of the most important insecticides for foliar applications against CPB in the region. In 2003, the state with the greatest use was Wisconsin with 26% of acres treated an average of two times. These estimates are based on USDA NASS statistics for 2004. Other states expect to increase their reliance on Guthion in the near future, assuming the product remains available. These states include Colorado, Oregon, and North Dakota.

Resistance. CPB resistance to Guthion is often mentioned as one of the reasons for the reduced benefits associated with Guthion. It is important to remember that states which represent approximately two thirds of potato production do not have Guthion resistant CPB. Also, these states and states with resistant CPB have other pests for which Guthion can be used. Development of resistance by the CPB is an important concern to Columbia Basin potato growers. Growers are applying different classes of insecticides to prevent or delay the onset of resistance in CPB. CPB is thought to have already developed resistance to pyrethroid Ms. Debbie Edwards January 6, 2005 Page 2 insecticides in Idaho. Now that resistance to neonicotinoid insecticides in the Mid West and Eastern United States has been widely documented, it is expected that growers will increase their reliance on Guthion. Due to resistance issues alone, the retention of Guthion is very important to potato growers. As neonicotinoid resistance spreads, reliance on Guthion is expected to increase further.

Integrated Pest Management. In addition to CPB resistance issues, the Columbia Basin of Washington and Oregon has a second unique feature which warrants retention of Guthion. It is the only location in North America that mites ( two spotted spider mite) are a routine pest of the potato. On average, about 20 to 25% of potato acres in this region are treated for mites. It is unclear why mites are such a severe pest of potatoes only in the Columbia Basin. Research by Dr. Alan Schreiber ( Washington) and Dr. Gary Reed ( Oregon) has demonstrated that applications of pyrethroid insecticides for CPB control can cause mite outbreaks. Mite outbreaks also occur in fields that are not subjected to pyrethroid insecticide applications. Guthion does not share this characteristic with the pyrethroid insecticides.

Growers can apply Guthion for control of the first and second generations of CPB and not have a mite outbreak that would then require an application of a miticide. Use of Guthion for CPB control to avoid a mite outbreak is considered to be a critical potato IPM tactic in the Columbia Basin.

Cost. Guthion is approximately equal in cost to the lowest cost alternatives on the market, the pyrethroid insecticides. However, application of pyrethroid insecticides in some situations, as mentioned above, can result in mite outbreaks. In this case, the cost of application of a pyrethroid insecticide and the resulting application of a miticide is very expensive in comparison to the single application of Guthion.

Effectiveness. Guthion is well known to be a very effective material for control of CPB in areas where resistance to the product does not occur.

Potato Tuberworm. The Columbia Basin of Washington and Oregon has recently suffered from a severe outbreak of potato tuberworm. Historically, this pest has been a tropical/ subtropical pest and has not been a problem at this latitude in either the Northern or Southern Hemispheres. Apparently, this pest has mutated and adapted to this climatic region as it has successfully overwintered during the 2003 2004 winter, which was expected to wipe out the population. Potato tuberworm can be a production ending pest of potatoes. Complete control of this new pest is essential to the continued production of potatoes in Washington and Oregon.

In California, where tuberworm has been the most serious pest of potatoes for decades, the standard insecticide for control of the pest was Guthion. There is ample anecdotal and published data that Guthion is an effective means for controlling potato tuberworm. Guthion will likely be a primary recommended product for control of potato tuberworm in the Columbia Basin. Ms. Debbie Edwards January 6, 2005 Page 3 Conclusion. The NPC supports the continued registration for Guthion on potatoes for the U. S. This request is based due to the development of resistance in key alternatives, its role in IPM and resistance management programs, the product's significant cost effectiveness, and for management of a devastating new insect pest, the potato tuberworm.

Sincerely,

John Keeling Executive Vice President/ CEO WDC99 1025274 1.027357.0010


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60329]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21011]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0471; A-1-FRL-9943-04-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Open Burning and Portable Fuel
Containers

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Connecticut on November 19, 2012. We propose to approve
Connecticut's request to remove two regulations from its SIP that
regulate ``open burning'' and ``portable fuel container spillage
control.'' In place of the open burning regulation, we propose to
approve into the Connecticut SIP a Connecticut statute that controls
open burning. We also propose to approve a definition of ``brush,''
which was included in a December 15, 2015 SIP submittal by Connecticut
to meet infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act for the 2012
fine particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The requirements in the Connecticut portable fuel container
regulation have been superseded by federal portable fuel container
requirements. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean
Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 3, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2015-0471 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: ``EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0471,'' Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
Section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0684, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action
rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: February 4, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2016-21011 Filed 8-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 83 (Monday, May 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23485-23486]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09200]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Women in Aviation Advisory Board; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Women in Aviation
Advisory Board (the Board).

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 25, 2021, from 9 a.m.--3:30 p.m.
EDT. Requests for accommodations to a disability must be received by
May 11, 2021. Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed
during the meeting must be received no later than May 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held virtually. Members of the public
who wish to observe the virtual meeting may access the event live on
the FAA's Twitter, Facebook and YouTube channels. For copies of meeting
minutes along with all other information, please visit the WIAAB
internet website at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/committee/browse/committeeID/817.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Aliah Duckett, Federal Aviation
Administration, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any committee
related request should be sent to the person listed in this section or
by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    WIAAB was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA),
in accordance with Section 612 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018
(Pub. L. 115-254) to encourage women and girls to enter the field of
aviation with the

objective of promoting organizations and programs that are providing
education, training, mentorship, outreach, and recruitment of women in
the aviation industry.

II. Agenda

    At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics:

     Official Statement of the Designated Federal Officer
 Welcome/Opening Remarks
 Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes
 Subcommittee Presentations
 Review of Action Items
 Closing Remarks

    A detailed agenda will be posted on the WIAAB internet website
address listed in the ADDRESSES section at least 15 days in advance of
the meeting. Copies of the meeting minutes will also be available on
the WIAAB internet website.

III. Public Participation

    The meeting will be open to the public and livestreamed. Members of
the public who wish to observe the virtual meeting can access the
livestream on the FAA social media platforms listed in the ADDRESSES
section on the day of the event.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing
equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need
alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as sign
language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    The FAA is not accepting oral presentations at this meeting due to
time constraints. However, the public may present written statements to
the Board by providing a copy to the Designated Federal Officer via the
email listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Angela O. Anderson,
Director, Regulatory Support Division, Office of Rulemaking, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021-09200 Filed 4-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4295-4296]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01482]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0763; FRL-9941-70-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Emergency and
Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms (Tier I and Tier II) (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Hazardous Chemical Reporting:
Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms (Tier I and Tier II)
(Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2436.03, OMB Control No. 2050-0206) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through March 31, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register (80 FR 62526) on October 16, 2015 during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. 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: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 25,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number, EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2010-0763, to (1) EPA 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, and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    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: Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency
Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-8019; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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.
    Abstract: Sections 311 and 312 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) apply to the owner or operator of
any facility that is required to prepare or have available a Material
Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for a hazardous chemical under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and its implementing
regulations. Under section 311 of EPCRA, these facilities are required
to submit MSDS to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), the
Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), and the local fire
department for each hazardous chemical stored on-site in a quantity
greater than the reporting threshold. Section 312 of EPCRA requires
owners and operators of facilities to annually report the inventories
of those chemicals reported under section 311. EPA is required to
publish two emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms, ``Tier
I'' and ``Tier II,'' for use by these facilities. On July 13, 2012, EPA
further revised these forms to add some new data elements that would be
useful for local emergency planners and responders. In ICR 2436.02, EPA
estimated that after the initial reporting of the new data elements, it
would only take 0.25 hours per facility to review the new data elements
and revise if necessary. New data elements added to page one of the
Tier II form included contact information for facility emergency
coordinator; Tier II information; whether facility is manned or
unmanned; if the facility is subject to EPCRA Section 302 or CAA
Section 112(r) (Risk Management Program) etc.
    Form Numbers: 8700-29 and 8700-30.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities with hazardous chemicals

above the reporting thresholds specified in the regulations at 40 CFR
part 370.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (Section 312 of
EPCRA).
    Estimated number of respondents: 400,000 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 100,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $3,760,400 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 62,500 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is because the burden of reading the
rule and modifying their software was only necessary at the onset of
the rule.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-01482 Filed 1-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68058-68060]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27153]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9902-84-ORD; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-0680]

Next Generation Risk Assessment: Incorporation of Recent Advances
in Molecular, Computational, and Systems Biology [External Review
Draft]

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of extension of public comment period to January 13,
2014.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing
an extension of the public comment period for 60 days for the draft
document titled, ``Next Generation Risk Assessment: Incorporation of
Recent Advances in Molecular, Computational, and Systems Biology
[External Review Draft]'' (EPA/600/R-13/214A). The original Federal
Register notice announcing the public comment period was published on
September 30, 2013. At the request of the American Chemistry Council,
the public comment deadline is extended to January 13, 2014. The draft
document explores how new molecular, computational, and systems biology
data can better inform risk assessment. This draft document is
available for public review and comment and is undergoing independent
external peer review. This draft document is not final as described in
EPA's information quality guidelines, and it does not represent and
should not be construed to represent Agency policy

or views. The public comment period and the external peer review are
separate processes that provide opportunities for all interested
parties to comment on the document. When finalizing the draft document,
EPA intends to consider the external peer reviewers' comments and any
public comments that EPA receives in accordance with this notice.

DATES: The public comment period began on September 30, 2013, and is
being extended to end on January 13, 2014. Technical comments should be
in writing and must be received by EPA by January 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The draft ``Next Generation Risk Assessment: Incorporation
of Recent Advances in Molecular, Computational, and Systems Biology
[External Review Draft]'' is available primarily via the Internet on
the NCEA home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and
Publications menus at www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of CD-ROM
copies will be available from Ms. Marieka Boyd by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you are
requesting a CD-ROM copy, please provide your name, your mailing
address, and the document title, ``Next Generation Risk Assessment:
Incorporation of Recent Advances in Molecular, Computational, and
Systems Biology [External Review Draft]'' (EPA/600/R-13/214A) to
facilitate processing of your request.
    Comments may be submitted electronically via www.regulations.gov,
by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/courier. Please follow the
detailed instructions provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the ORD Docket at the EPA Headquarters Docket Center;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical information, contact Dr. Lyle Burgoon, NCEA;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Project/Document

    The Next Generation (NexGen) Risk Assessment project was initiated
in 2010 as a multi-year, multi-organization effort to consider new
molecular, computational, and systems biology approaches for use in
risk assessments. The specific aims of the NexGen effort, described in
this draft document, are to: (1) Demonstrate proof of concept that the
data and methods from recent advances in biology can inform risk
assessment; (2) identify which of the information resources and
practices are most useful for particular purposes (value of
information); (3) develop decision considerations for use of different
types of NexGen data and methods to inform different types of
assessments; and (4) identify priority research needs.
    The ``Next Generation Risk Assessment: Incorporation of Recent
Advances in Molecular, Computational, and Systems Biology [External
Review Draft]'' presents the results and lessons learned from the
prototypes/case studies for use of molecular, computational, and
systems biology data in risk assessment. The prototype results
demonstrated proof of concept for an integrated approach to
incorporating molecular, computational, and systems biology data in
risk assessment and considered various data types for specific
assessment purposes. The lessons learned from this project suggested
research needs and near- and longer-term implications of incorporating
molecular, computational, and systems biology data in risk assessment.

II. Extension of Comment Period

    The EPA is extending the deadline for submitting comments on the
draft document ``Next Generation Risk Assessment: Incorporation of
Recent Advances in Molecular, Computational, and Systems Biology
[External Review Draft]'' to January 13, 2014. The original deadline
for comments was November 14, 2013. EPA's decision responds to a
request from the American Chemistry Council to extend the comment
deadline. The EPA believes that this extension will assist in providing
an adequate amount of additional time for the public to review the
draft document and to provide written comments.

III. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at
www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-
0680, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center (ORD Docket), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you provide
comments by mail, please submit one unbound original with pages
numbered consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For
attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the
comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.
     Hand Delivery: The ORD Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center's Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Deliveries are only accepted during the
docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by
hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered
consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For attachments,
provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and
submit an unbound original and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2013-0680. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your

comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket
Center home page at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center.

     Dated: November 5, 2013.
Debra B. Walsh,
Acting Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2013-27153 Filed 11-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66733-66737]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27159]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8253]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's
scheduled suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third
column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the

suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal
Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Effective date
                                                authorization/
                                  Community     cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
      State and location             No.         sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                 insurance in                               available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Region III

Pennsylvania:
    Ashley, Borough of,               420596  December 13, 1974,  Nov. 2, 2012..........  Nov. 2, 2012
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; September
                                               30, 1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Avoca, Borough of, Luzerne        420597  March 7, 1975,      do*...................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 16,
                                               1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Bear Creek, Township of,          421136  March 12, 1974,     do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; September
                                               29, 1978, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Bear Creek Village,               422756  N/A, Emerg; July    do....................   Do.
     Borough of, Luzerne                       26, 2002, Reg;
     County.                                   November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Black Creek, Township of,         420598  March 9, 1973,      do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; September
                                               3, 1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Buck, Township of, Luzerne        421824  February 17, 1976,  do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; April 15,
                                               1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Butler, Township of,              420599  August 16, 1973,    do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; December
                                               16, 1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Conyngham, Borough of,            420992  August 24, 1973,    do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; July 16,
                                               1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Conyngham, Township of,           420600  February 9, 1973,   do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; February
                                               16, 1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Courtdale, Borough of,            420601  May 1, 1973,        do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; June 1,
                                               1979, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Dallas, Borough of,               421825  April 15, 1974,     do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; January 2,
                                               1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Dallas, Township of,              420602  September 5, 1973,  do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; April 1,
                                               1988, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Dupont, Borough of,               422250  July 29, 1974,      do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; June 15,
                                               1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Duryea, Borough of,               420603  January 12, 1973,   do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; June 18,
                                               1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.

    Edwardsville, Borough of,         420604  December 1, 1972,   do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; April 15,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Exeter, Township of,              420606  January 19, 1973,   do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; September
                                               15, 1983, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Fairmount, Township of,           421827  February 9, 1976,   do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; April 1,
                                               1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Fairview, Township of,            420993  January 23, 1974,   do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; June 1,
                                               1979, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Forty Fort, Borough of,           420607  November 3, 1972,   do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; April 1,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Hanover, Township of,             420608  October 20, 1972,   do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; May 16,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Hollenback, Township of,          421831  September 30,       do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           1975, Emerg;
                                               September 17,
                                               1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Hunlock, Township of,             420994  November 5, 1973,   do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; April 1,
                                               1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Huntington, Township of,          421832  July 2, 1974,       do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; April 15,
                                               1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Jackson, Township of,             420610  March 16, 1973,     do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; September
                                               17, 1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Jenkins, Township of,             420611  February 2, 1973,   do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; May 16,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Kingston, Borough of,             420612  October 6, 1972,    do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; June 1,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Kingston, Township of,            420613  December 22, 1972,  do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; January 2,
                                               1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Laflin, Borough of,               420995  October 4, 1973,    do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; December
                                               2, 1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Lake, Township of, Luzerne        421833  October 24, 1975,   do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; September
                                               3, 1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Larksville, Borough of,           420614  March 23, 1973,     do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; April 1,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Lehman, Township of,              420615  July 10, 1973,      do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; December
                                               2, 1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Luzerne, Borough of,              420616  March 2, 1973,      do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; April 15,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Nanticoke, City of,               420617  April 4, 1973,      do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; April 15,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Nescopeck, Borough of,            420618  April 16, 1973,     do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; February
                                               1, 1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Nescopeck, Township of,           420619  March 2, 1973,      do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; August 1,
                                               1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    New Columbus, Borough of,         421819  July 9, 1975,       do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; March 16,
                                               1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Newport, Township of,             421822  December 17, 1975,  do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; December
                                               2, 1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Nuangola, Borough of,             422272  October 15, 1975,   do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; September
                                               28, 1979, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Penn Lake Park, Borough           422645  July 12, 1976,      do....................   Do.
     of, Luzerne County.                       Emerg; December
                                               5, 1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Pittston, City of, Luzerne        420620  April 17, 1973,     do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; May 2,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Plymouth, Borough of,             420622  October 27, 1972,   do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; April 1,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Plymouth, Township of,            420623  February 2, 1973,   do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; April 15,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Pringle, Borough of,              420624  January 19, 1973,   do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; May 2,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Rice, Township of, Luzerne        420996  December 6, 1973,   do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; January 2,
                                               1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Ross, Township of, Luzerne        421835  February 9, 1976,   do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; April 15,
                                               1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Salem, Township of,               420625  May 23, 1973,       do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; March 18,
                                               1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Shickshinny, Borough of,          420626  December 15, 1972,  do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; December
                                               31, 1976, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Union, Township of,               421836  February 18, 1976,  do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; September
                                               30, 1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.

    West Hazleton, Borough of,        421821  June 6, 1974,       do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; July 31,
                                               1978, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    West Pittston, Borough of,        420628  November 24, 1972,  do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; April 15,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    White Haven, Borough of,          420630  April 4, 1973,      do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; August 1,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Wilkes-Barre, City of,            420631  December 10, 1971,  do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; September
                                               30, 1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Wilkes-Barre, Township of,        421823  August 13, 1974,    do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; December
                                               2, 1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Wright, Township of,              420632  May 10, 1973,       do....................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; January
                                               16, 1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Wyoming, Borough of,              420633  November 3, 1972,   .do...................   Do.
     Luzerne County.                           Emerg; November
                                               16, 1977, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.

           Region IV

Florida:
    Bronson, Town of, Levy            120582  April 11, 1980,     do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; February
                                               1, 1987, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Cedar Key, City of, Levy          120373  August 6, 1975,     do....................
     County.                                   Emerg; March 1,
                                               1984, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Inglis, Town of, Levy             120586  January 10, 1986,   do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; January
                                               10, 1986, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Levy County,                      120145  November 13, 1970,  do....................   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; March 1,
                                               1984, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Otter Creek, Town of, Levy        120592  February 8, 2005,   do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; September
                                               1, 2005, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Yankeetown, Town of, Levy         120147  November 13, 1970,  do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; August 20,
                                               1971, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
Georgia:
    Cobb County,                      130052  June 12, 1973,      do....................   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; January 3,
                                               1979, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Marietta, City of, Cobb           130226  September 5, 1974,  do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; February
                                               15, 1978, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.

           Region V

Indiana:
    Batesville, City of,              180507  N/A, Emerg; March   do....................   Do.
     Ripley County.                            9, 2010, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Ripley County,                    180221  February 11, 1976,  do....................   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; September
                                               1, 1987, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
Wisconsin:
    Chaseburg, Village of,            550451  August 25, 1975,    do....................   Do.
     Vernon County.                            Emerg; February
                                               4, 1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Coon Valley, Village of,          550452  April 7, 1975,      do....................   Do.
     Vernon County.                            Emerg; February
                                               4, 1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    De Soto, Village of,              550069  December 15, 1980,  do....................   Do.
     Vernon County.                            Emerg; January
                                               16, 1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Genoa, Village of, Vernon         555556  May 7, 1971,        do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; February
                                               26, 1972, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Ontario, Village of,              550457  August 16, 1978,    do....................   Do.
     Vernon County.                            Emerg; N/A, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Readstown, Village of,            550458  April 30, 1971,     do....................   Do.
     Vernon County.                            Emerg; March 16,
                                               1976, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Stoddard, Village of,             555582  April 23, 1971,     do....................   Do.
     Vernon County.                            Emerg; October
                                               20, 1972, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Vernon County,                    550450  September 1, 1972,  do....................   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; September
                                               29, 1978, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Viola, Village of, Vernon         550460  December 5, 1974,   do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; June 4,
                                               1990, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.

          Region VII

Missouri:
    Carl Junction, City of,           290179  October 28, 1975,   do....................   Do.
     Jasper County.                            Emerg; June 1,
                                               1982, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Carterville, City of,             290180  January 17, 1977,   do....................   Do.
     Jasper County.                            Emerg; July 16,
                                               1984, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Cole County,                      290107  January 21, 1982,   do....................   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; January
                                               21, 1982, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.

    Duenweg, City of, Jasper          290182  N/A, Emerg; April   do....................   Do.
     County.                                   1, 2004, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Jasper County,                    290807  May 15, 1987,       do....................   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; May 15,
                                               1987, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Jefferson City, City of,          290108  April 23, 1971,     do....................   Do.
     Cole County.                              Emerg; April 15,
                                               1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Sarcoxie, City of, Jasper         290186  May 29, 1974,       do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 16,
                                               1979, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Webb City, City of, Jasper        290187  May 19, 1975,       do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; June 1,
                                               1982, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.

          Region VIII

North Dakota:
    Grafton, City of, Walsh           380137  January 17, 1975,   do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; January
                                               16, 1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Minto, City of, Walsh             380138  June 27, 1975,      do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; January
                                               16, 1981, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Park River, City of, Walsh        380139  February 3, 1975,   do....................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; May 1,
                                               1980, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
    Walsh County,                     380135  March 28, 1978,     do....................   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; May 1,
                                               1986, Reg;
                                               November 2, 2012,
                                               Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*-do- = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: October 17, 2012.
David L. Miller,
Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-27159 Filed 11-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: October 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 56396]
[DOCID:fr03oc07-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of China Expert Technology, Inc.; Order of
Suspension of Trading

October 1, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
China Expert Technology, Inc. (``China Expert'') because of questions
regarding the adequacy and accuracy of publicly-disseminated
information concerning, among other things, China Expert's: (1)
Financial performance and business prospects and (2) current financial
condition.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed
company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, October 1, 2007
through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on October 12, 2007.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-4915 Filed 10-1-07; 11:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P