From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, July 25, 2022 12:21 PM
To:
BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: hold off on starting the Indiana Harbor response

Hi Katie. We are in the process of sending you another letter with Indiana Harbor (East Chicago, IN) removed from enclosure 1 requirements and enclosure 2 testing. Basically, it is a letter that has no mention of Indiana Harbor/East Chicago, IN. We will be sending you a revised answer file for enclosure 1 that also has Indiana Harbor removed, but it's not necessary that you use this file if you already started in the other answer file for Haverhill/Franklin Furnace or Jewel/Vansant.

We will be sending a letter to Cokenergy to test the Main stack and respond to Enclosure 1 that will include answering HRSG questions.

Out of curiosity, what do you do if the Cokenergy HRSG outages make you go over your permit limit for bypass hours?

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2022 3:35 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: hold off on starting the Indiana Harbor response

Hi Donna Lee,

I just wanted to check in and see if you had any update on the path forward for Indiana Harbor?

Thanks,

Katie Batten
Director of Health, Safety and Environmental

SunCoke Energy, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 12:38 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: hold off on starting the Indiana Harbor response

EXTERNAL:  This email originated from outside of the organization.  Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I typically work with Luke Ford.

Thanks,

Katie Batten
Director of Health, Safety and Environmental

SunCoke Energy, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 12:05 PM
To: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: hold off on starting the Indiana Harbor response

Thanks! Big help. Who do you mostly deal with at Coke Energy/Primary Energy?

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 5:41 AM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: hold off on starting the Indiana Harbor response

Hi Donna Lee,

I do have their email addresses.  Based on Primary Energy's website, it looks like they are still with the company.

Mo Klefeker  -<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Luke Ford  -<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Seth Acheson  -<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Thanks,

Katie Batten
Director of Health, Safety and Environmental

SunCoke Energy, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 5:29 PM
To: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: hold off on starting the Indiana Harbor response

Hi Katie. Further on the 114's, do you have emails for any of these people below? If they have left the companies, it would be helpful if you could provide me with the correct names for the same positions and their emails also if possible. Thanks

Mr. Mo Klefeker. President and Chief Executive Officer, Primary Energy
Mr. Luke Ford. Director of Environmental, Health and Safety, Primary Energy
Mr. Seth Acheson, GM of Cokenergy  -  East Chicago, IN

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: Jones, DonnaLee
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 4:59 PM
To: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: hold off on starting the Indiana Harbor response

Thanks for your input. I understand the points you make. I will let you know what we decide.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 4:52 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: hold off on starting the Indiana Harbor response

Hi Donna Lee,

We can refrain from starting the Indiana Harbor response, but, to be perfectly frank, I recommend that EPA issue any main stack test request to Cokenergy if the agency desires to obtain the relevant main stack data on the proposed timeframe.  While some of the limitations we have raised for bypass vent stacks are not applicable to the main stack, there are extremely limited resources both at SunCoke and our consultant to even start planning and/or responding for the issues raised by the bypass vent stack test request, fenceline monitoring request, and enclosure 1 responses.  As we've stated in a few different submittals, we believe that EPA is asking for the impossible, and expanding the test request to Haverhill's main stack only compounds these issues for SunCoke.

Assuming EPA's concern is remaining below 10 companies to which the 114 is issued, you could alleviate this problem by asking Cokenergy for this testing and SunCoke not completing the Indiana Harbor information.  Given all of the issues SunCoke has raised in its submittals and our discussions thus far with our consultant regarding manpower and lab turnaround times, it is simply not realistic that any such testing will be feasible to be conducted at a SunCoke facility at this time, and perhaps Cokenergy does not foresee the same obstacles that SunCoke anticipates for its facilities.

Thanks,

Katie Batten
Director of Health, Safety and Environmental

SunCoke Energy, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 7:07 PM
To: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: hold off on starting the Indiana Harbor response

Katie  -  In light of the issue with Coke Energy, we may switch the Indiana Harbor 114 to Haverhill. Im checking with Chuck on this.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 29319]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2016-64 ]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR). The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory
activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or
omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal
status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before May 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-
0328 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments digitally.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Forseth, ANM-113, Federal
Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Sandra Long, ARM-
200, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 29, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2016-0328.
    Petitioner: L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.813(e).
    Description of Relief Sought: Relief from the requirements and
limitations specified in exemption no. 10686, which stipulates that
doors installed across the main aisle must open and close in a
transverse direction. The petitioner seeks to install curved partition
doors in Boeing Model 747-8 airplanes designated as private use, not
for hire, not for common carriage.

[FR Doc. 2016-11112 Filed 5-10-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 5, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 72484-72486]
[DOCID:fr05de05-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52850; File No. SR-NYSE-2004-51]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto
Relating to a Proposed Interpretation to Rule 342 (Offices--Approval,
Supervision, and Control)

November 29, 2005.

I. Introduction

    On September 3, 2004, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed Interpretation of Exchange Rule 342
(Offices--Approval, Supervision, and Control) to permit the waiver of
the qualified resident branch office manager requirement for ``limited
purpose offices'' with more than three registered representatives
(``RRs''). On September 28, 2005, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change, replacing the original filing in its
entirety.\3\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on October 25, 2005.\4\ The Commission received no
comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 more fully describes the factors to be used
in determining whether a location qualifies as a limited purpose
office, as well as how those factors will be considered by the
Exchange when examining an application for a limited purpose office
status. The proposed rule change is described in its entirety in
Section II below.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52640 (October 19,
2005), 70 FR 61672 (October 25, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposed Rule Change

    Currently, except for ``small offices,'' \5\ all member and member
organization branch offices are required to have an on-site qualified
manager. According to the Exchange, member organizations with branch
offices that have a limited scope of activities, but that do not meet
the definition of ``small office'' under the Interpretation, have
approached the

Exchange seeking relief from the requirement that such offices have a
qualified branch office manager on-site. The Exchange explains that
there has been a large increase in the number of small, multi-function
offices that offer a combination of services related not only to
securities brokerage, but also to banking and insurance products. In
fact, many banks and insurance companies with broker-dealer alliances
or affiliates often ``dually employ'' their personnel with the
registered broker-dealer. Because the dually employed persons often
primarily conduct business (e.g., banking and insurance) other than
broker or dealer activities, they typically physically remain on bank
and insurance company premises. However, because they are employees of
the registered broker-dealer as well, the location is considered a
branch office pursuant to NYSE Rule 342 and must have an on-site
qualified manager if more than three RRs are employed there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Interpretation of NYSE Rule 342.15 limits a small office
to a total of three RRs. Small offices that serve an order-taking
function only and have no operational facilities are not required to
have a qualified manager on-site if they are under the close
supervision of the main office or other designated branch offices.
See NYSE Rule Interpretation 342.15/01-02. In addition, supervision
and control procedures must be made part of the member's or member
organization's written plan of supervision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, advances in technology have resulted in
increasingly sophisticated surveillance capabilities that enable
Exchange members and member organizations to more effectively supervise
and control the business activities of their associated persons in
branch offices from remote locations, such as another branch office or
a firm's main office. For example, supervisors and firms use
centralized communication networks to monitor their employees'
activities and communication with customers, as well as the trading and
handling of funds in customer accounts serviced in branch offices. The
use of surveillance systems and exception reports that are linked to
the broker-dealer's internal order management system further enhances
this remote supervision.
    Given these surveillance and monitoring capabilities, and the
often-limited scope of securities-related business activities conducted
in many offices, the Exchange believes that the requirement to have an
on-site qualified branch office manager may often be neither practical
nor necessary for its members. Consequently, the Exchange re-examined
its ``four-or-more'' standard for requiring on-site supervision, and
proposed an alternative system for granting regulatory relief currently
available only to small offices.
    The proposed rule change sets forth a process by which Exchange
members and member organizations may seek a waiver of the on-site
branch office manager requirement for ``limited purpose offices,''
which are a proposed new category of offices that have more than three
RRs and conduct limited securities-related business activities. Under
the proposed rule change, members and member organizations seeking a
waiver of the on-site qualified branch office manager requirement for
limited purpose offices would be required to provide a written plan of
risk-based supervision and control acceptable to the Exchange.
Notwithstanding the grant of a waiver, all limited purpose offices
would be required to be under the close supervision and control of a
qualified person, as defined under NYSE Rule 342.13, at the main office
or other designated branch office.
    The proposed Interpretation sets forth factors to be used in
determining whether a location qualifies as a limited purpose office
and the supervisory requirements for each such office, including:
    (i) The number of registered persons in the office (the RR to
offsite Branch Office Manager ratio), their registration category, and
the functions they perform (the nature and level of the RRs'
responsibilities would be taken into account);
    (ii) the scope and types of business activities conducted (in
general, the nature of business should not pose special risks or
otherwise warrant on-site supervision);
    (iii) the nature and complexity of products and services offered
(likewise, the products and services offered should not pose special
risks or otherwise warrant on-site supervision);
    (iv) the volume of business done (e.g., annual revenues, number of
transactions, number of customers, etc. Locations with high activity
levels would generally be deemed more likely to require an on-site
manager);
    (v) the adequacy of procedures to supervise the limited purpose
office activities; and
    (vi) the adequacy and independence of systems and supervisory
persons for regular and ``for cause'' internal and third party
inspections and audits.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See also NYSE Info Memo 04-38 regarding independence of
supervision and internal controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to factors (v) and (vi) above, the Exchange expects
members and member organizations to present a system of supervision and
control that is reasonably designed to detect and prevent regulatory
violations and that otherwise meets the requirements of NYSE Rule 342.
Such a system should include, but is not limited to, the following
elements, where applicable: (1) Clearly articulated policies and
procedures, and sufficient resources to implement them; (2) systematic
monitoring of activity using routine and exception reporting criteria;
(3) an appropriate system of follow-up and review if ``red flags'' are
detected, and mechanisms for verifying that deficiencies are corrected;
(4) routine and ``for cause'' inspections, including possible use of
unannounced surprise inspections; (5) offsite monitoring of trading,
handling of funds, and use of personal computers; (6) adequate
designation of supervisors and clearly delineated supervisory
responsibilities, including a system of review and follow-up to ensure
that such supervision is sufficiently independent and is diligently
exercised; (7) monitoring of outside business activities and outside
accounts; (8) monitoring and surveillance of internal and external
communications; and (9) the education and training of RRs and their
supervisors to ensure they understand their responsibilities under the
firm's procedures and all applicable securities laws.
    In addition to the elements enumerated above, members and member
organizations should also take into consideration relevant guidance
provided by the Exchange and other regulatory bodies when developing
their supervisory plan for a proposed limited purpose office.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., NYSE Info Memo 04-38 (Amendments to Rules 342,
401, 408 and 410 Relating to Supervision and Internal Controls)
(July 26, 2004); SEC Division of Market Regulation Staff Legal
Bulletin No. 17: Remote Office Supervision (March 19, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the above factors will be considered as a whole to determine
whether an application for limited purpose office status should be
granted. However, any one factor could cause an application to be
delayed or rejected by the Exchange if it raises a substantive issue
with respect to the appropriateness or advisability of a remote
supervisory arrangement. If an application for limited purpose office
status encompasses more than one office, pursuant to a categorical
description or plan, the member organization must submit the proposed
list of prospective offices so as to disclose the scope of the request.
    In addition, members and member organizations will be responsible
for maintaining a readily available, current and accurate list of all
locations either specifically approved and designated by the Exchange
as a limited purpose office, or otherwise designated as such pursuant
to a general categorical description or plan approved by the Exchange.
Further, any material change with respect to the representations made
by any member or member organization pursuant to the proposed
Interpretation

with respect to any location so approved and designated must be
promptly brought to the attention of the Exchange for reconsideration.

III. Discussion and Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,\9\ which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, many broker-dealer business models are
becoming more reliant on offices of more than three RRs that service
geographically isolated locations, but do not offer a full line of
securities products and services. Given that the proposed safeguards
are designed to promote effective supervisory procedures, the
Commission believes it is reasonable for the Exchange to have more
flexibility and discretion to determine whether a qualified on-site
branch office manager is necessary for offices that engage in a limited
scope of securities-related business activity. The Commission also
believes that the proposed Interpretation strikes an appropriate
balance between providing flexibility to the Exchange to accommodate
the evolving business models of its members, while at the same time
setting parameters to ensure that limited purpose offices will continue
to be effectively supervised. To further ensure that such offices
receive effective remote supervision, the Commission expects the
Exchange to review plans of risk-based supervision and control for
limited purpose offices and their implementation as part of the
Exchange's regular examination of members and member organizations.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act \10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2004-51) be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6820 Filed 12-2-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 11393-11396]
[DOCID:fr17mr09-73]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59561; File No. SR-NYSEALTR-2009-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Alternext US LLC
Eliminating the Ability To Enter Orders on the Exchange With the
Settlement Instructions of ``Cash'', ``Next Day'' and ``Seller's
Option'' To Conform to Amendments Filed by the New York Stock Exchange

March 11, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on March 5, 2009, NYSE Alternext US LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Alternext'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the ability to enter orders on
the Exchange with the settlement instructions of ``cash'', ``next day''
and ``seller's option'' to conform to amendments filed by the New York
Stock Exchange (``NYSE'').

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Through this filing the Exchange seeks to amend several NYSE
Alternext Equities rules to conform these rules with amendments filed
by the New York Stock Exchange \4\ to remove references to certain
settlement instructions that are no longer compatible with the
Exchange's more electronic market. These include instructions to settle
on ``cash'', ``next day'' or ``seller's option'' basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-59446 (February
25, 2009), 74 FR 9323 (March 3, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    As described more fully in a related rule filing,\5\ NYSE Euronext
acquired The Amex Membership Corporation (``AMC'') pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated January 17, 2008 (the ``Merger'').
In connection with the Merger, the Exchange's predecessor, the American
Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''), a subsidiary of AMC, became a subsidiary
of NYSE Euronext called

NYSE Alternext U.S. LLC, and continues to operate as a national
securities exchange registered under Section 6 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') [sic].\6\ The effective
date of the Merger was October 1, 2008. In connection with the Merger,
on December 1, 2008, the Exchange relocated all equities trading
conducted on the Exchange legacy trading systems and facilities located
at 86 Trinity Place, New York, New York, to trading systems and
facilities located at 11 Wall Street, New York, New York (the
``Equities Relocation''). The Exchange's equity trading systems and
facilities at 11 Wall Street (the ``NYSE Alternext Trading Systems'')
are operated by the NYSE on behalf of the Exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58673 (September 29,
2008), 73 FR 57707 (October 3, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-60 and SR-Amex-
2008-62) (approving the Merger).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58705 (October 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-63) (approving
the Equities Relocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the Equities Relocation, NYSE Alternext adopted NYSE
Rules 1-1004, subject to such changes as necessary to apply the Rules
to the Exchange, as the NYSE Alternext Equities Rules to govern trading
on the NYSE Alternext Trading Systems.\8\ The NYSE Alternext Equities
Rules, which became operative on December 1, 2008, are substantially
identical to the current NYSE Rules 1-1004 and the Exchange continues
to update the NYSE Alternext Equities Rules as necessary to conform
with rule changes to corresponding NYSE Rules filed by the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58705 (October 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-63) (approving
the Equities Relocation); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58833
(October 22, 2008), 73 FR 64642 (October 30, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-
106) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58839 (October 23,
2008), 73 FR 64645 (October 30, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-03)
(together, approving the Bonds Relocation); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 59022 (November 26, 2008), 73 FR 73683 (December 3,
2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-10) (adopting amendments to NYSE Alternext
Equities Rules to track changes to corresponding NYSE Rules);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59027 (November 28, 2008), 73 FR
73681 (December 3, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-11) (adopting amendments
to Rule 62--NYSE Alternext Equities to track changes to
corresponding NYSE Rule 62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Amendments

    Currently, in addition to regular way settlement (i.e., settlement
on the third business day following trade date), a customer may submit
an order with settlement instructions for cash, next day or seller's
option. An order with cash settlement instructions requires delivery of
the securities the same day as the transaction in contrast to a regular
way transaction, where the seller is required to deliver the securities
on the third business day. Next day settlement instructions require
delivery of the securities on the first business day following the
transaction. Orders that have settlement instructions of seller's
option afford the seller the right to deliver the security or bond at
any time within a specified period, ranging from not less than two
business days to not more than 180 days for stocks and not less than
two business days and no more than sixty days for U.S. government
securities.
    Orders that include cash, next and seller's option settlement
instructions may be submitted electronically to the Exchange; however,
the orders containing any of those settlement instructions cannot be
immediately and automatically executed. Rather, the orders must bypass
the Exchange matching/execution engine, Display Book, and are literally
printed on paper at the trading post for manual processing on the
Floor.
Proposed Elimination of Cash, Next Day, Seller's Option Settlement
Instructions
    In the Exchange's current more electronic market, orders received
by Exchange systems that are marketable upon entry are eligible to be
immediately and automatically executed. Order types and settlement
instructions that require manual intervention pose significant
impediments to the efficient functioning of the NYSE Alternext Trading
Systems operated by the NYSE on behalf of the Exchange. To this end the
NYSE filed with the Commission to remove legacy orders that require
manual processing. Specifically, on January 31, 2008, the NYSE filed
with the Commission to amend NYSE Rule 13 to invalidate the use of the
manual order types ``Alternative Order--Either/Or Order'', ``Orders
Good Until a Specified Time'', ``Scale Order'' and ``Switch Order--
Contingent Order'' and Rule 124's order types ``Limited Order, With or
Without Sale'' and ``Basis Price Order'' as being incompatible with the
more electronic NYSE market environment.\9\ These changes were already
reflected in NYSE Alternext's rules following the merger with the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities and [sic] Exchange Act Release No. 57295
(February 8, 2008), 73 FR 8731 (February 14, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-
11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's commitment to provide its market participants with
the ability to have their orders executed in the most efficient manner
necessitates the elimination of cash, next day and seller's option as
valid settlement instructions for orders submitted to the Exchange.
These instructions result in these orders printing to paper at the
trading Post \10\ when they are submitted electronically in Exchange
systems. The DMM and the trading assistant must realize that the
document printed was in fact an order thus causing delay in the
execution of the order. The DMM is then responsible for the manual
execution of the order. The manual intervention required of the DMM and
trading assistant at the Post in the processing of these orders puts
the orders at the very real risk of ``missing the market'' as a result
of the current speed of order execution in the Exchange market. In
addition, since orders with these settlement instructions will no
longer be supported by New York Stock Exchange systems, NYSE Alternext
will also no longer be able to accept them for the securities traded in
the NYSE Alternext market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Trading Posts are the horseshoe shaped counters manned by
DMMs and trading assistants on the Trading Floor of the NYSE where
individual stocks are bought and sold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now seeks to eliminate cash, next day and seller's
option as valid settlement instructions for orders submitted to the
Exchange. The Exchange therefore proposes to delete the references to
those settlement instructions from NYSE Alternext Rules 12 (``Business
Day''), 64 (Bonds, Rights and 100-Share-Unit Stocks), 66 (U.S.
Government Securities) \11\, 123 (Records of Orders), 124 (Odd-Lot
Orders), 130 (Overnight Comparison of Exchange Transactions), 137
(Written Contracts), 137A (Samples of Written Contracts), 189 (Unit of
Delivery), 235 (Ex-Dividends, Ex-Rights), 236 (Ex-Warrants), 241
(Interest--Added to Contract Price), 257 (Deliveries After ``Ex''
Date), 282 (Buy-In Procedures) and 440G (Transactions in Stocks and
Warrants for the Accounts of Members, Principal Executives and Member
Organizations). In addition, the Exchange seeks to eliminate entirely
NYSE Alternext Rules 73 (``Seller's Option''), 177 (Delivery Time--
``Cash'' Contracts) and 179 (``Seller's Option''). In addition, the
Exchange proposes to remove language in NYSE Alternext Rules 64 and 66
that provide for the possibility of using multiple settlement periods
for bids and offers entered on the Exchange since, for all practical
purposes, the Exchange will now only accept orders for regular way
settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange does not have the capability to accept these
order types for U.S. Government securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend NYSE Alternext Rule 66 to add
the provision that exists in NYSE Alternext Rule 64 to allow the
Exchange, in its

discretion, to provide for additional settlement periods. The Exchange
is proposing this addition to bring the provisions of the two rules
into harmony as they address similar procedures with respect to
different types of securities admitted to dealings on the Exchange. The
Exchange, however, recognizes that any additional settlement periods it
proposes to add will be subject to the rule filing process under
Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
[sic].\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will commence implementation of the proposed
elimination of the settlement instructions discussed herein on March
13, 2009. The Exchange intends to progressively implement this
elimination on a security by security basis as it gains experience with
the implementation until it is operative in all securities traded on
the Floor. During the implementation, the Exchange will identify on its
website which securities will no longer be eligible for these
settlement instructions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
[sic] for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section
6(b)(5) \13\ that an exchange have rules that are designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The instant filing accomplishes these goals by rescinding legacy
settlement instructions that place customers at risk of missing the
market and possibly receiving inferior priced executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
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 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 proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest, (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition, and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative until 30 days after the date of filing.\16\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ 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 so that the proposed rule
change may become operative on March 13, 2009. Specifically, the
Exchange states that the proposal will rescind legacy settlement
instructions that are not compatible with the Exchange's electronic
market. The Commission believes that allowing the proposed rule change
to become operative on March 13, 2009 is consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest, because it will enable the
Exchange to implement pending technological enhancements that require
the rescission of these legacy settlement instructions. The Exchange
expects these enhancements to make its order processing operations more
efficient and thereby strengthen and advance the quality of the
Exchange's market. Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed
rule change to be operative on March 13, 2009.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
the proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2009-25 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2009-25. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2009-25 and

should be submitted on or before April 7, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-5719 Filed 3-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3150-3151]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01011]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0631]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0048

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0048, Vessel
Reporting Requirements. Our ICR describes the information we seek to
collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
February 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2015-0631] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE., Stop 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether
this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical
utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These
comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred
to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2015-0631], and must be received by February 19,
2016.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0048.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (80 FR 48553, August 13, 2015)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request:

    1. Title: Vessel Reporting Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0048.
    Summary: Owners, Charterers, Managing Operators, or Agents of U.S.
vessels must immediately notify the Coast Guard if they believe the
vessel may be lost or in danger. The Coast Guard uses this information
to investigate the situation and, when

necessary, plan appropriate search and rescue operations.
    Need: Section 2306(a) of 46 U.S.C. requires the owner, charterer,
managing operator, or an agent of vessel of the United States to
immediately notify the Coast Guard if: (1) There is reason to believe
that the vessel may have been lost or imperiled, or (2) more than 48
hours have passed since last receiving communication from the vessel.
These reports must be followed by written confirmation submitted to the
Coast Guard within 24 hours. The implementing regulations are contained
in 46 CFR part 4.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for profit organizations. The
number of respondents is estimated at 550 annually.
    Frequency: There are no recordkeeping requirements for this
information collection. The frequency of reporting is, on occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 137
hours to 138 hours a year due to an adjustment in the agency's
estimate.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: January 12, 2016.
Thomas P. Michelli,
Deputy Chief Information Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2016-01011 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AKIVA ABRAMOVITCH at 703 308 8328 PP# 4F6833 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION EPA has received a request to amend pesticide petition ( PP 4F6833) from Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. c/ o Nisso America Inc., 45 Broadway, Suite 2120, New York, NY, 10006. This amendment to the petition proposes, pursuant to Section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. section 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing tolerances for the residues of acetamiprid in/ on cucurbits, stone fruit, tree nuts, and pistachios as given below. The proposed analytical method is by LC/ MS/ MS.

Pursuant to section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA), Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. has submitted the following amended summary of information, data and rationales in support of their pesticide petition and authorization for the summary to be published in the Federal Register in a notice of receipt of the petition. This amended summary was prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd.; EPA is in the process of evaluating the amended petition and has not determined whether the data supports granting of the petition. EPA may have made minor edits to the summary for the purpose of clarity.

A. Residue Chemistry

1. Plant Metabolism The metabolism of acetamiprid in plants is well understood, having been investigated in eggplant, apples, cabbage, carrots, and cotton. Metabolism in plants primarily involves demethylation of the N methyl group with subsequent hydrolysis of the acetamidine function to give the N acetyl compound. This compound is then hydrolyzed to the corresponding amine followed by oxidation to the alcohol and acid. Conjugation of the alcohol with glucose is also significant. Degradation of the side chain without loss of the Nmethyl group is seen in carrots since this is the major metabolic route in soil.

2. Analytical Method Based upon the metabolism of acetamiprid in plants and the toxicology of the parent and metabolites, quantification of the parent acetamiprid is sufficient to determine toxic residues. As a result a method has been developed which involves extraction of acetamiprid from crops with methanol, filtration, partitioning and cleanup, and analysis by LC/ MS/ MS methods. The limit of quantification ( LOQ) for the method is 0.01 ppm and the method limit of detection ( LOD) is 0.003 0.004 ppm for cucurbits, stone fruit, almond, pecan nutmeat and pistachio. The LOQ and LOD for almond hulls is 0.02 ppm and 0.006 ppm, respectively.

3. Magnitude of Residues Magnitude of residue studies were conducted in cucumber, cantaloupe, and squash as the representative commodities for the cucurbit crop grouping. Trials were conducted in all of the major use areas for each of the crops as specified in the Residue Chemistry Guidelines OPPTS 860.1500 with applications at the maximum label use rate for each crop. As a result of the field trials the following tolerance is proposed for the commodities in the cucurbit crop group: 0.5 ppm. Magnitude of residue studies were conducted in peach, plum ( fresh and dried), sweet cherry, and tart cherry as the representative commodities for the stone fruit crop grouping. Trials were conducted in all of the major use areas for each of the crops as specified in the Residue Chemistry Guidelines OPPTS 860.1500 with applications at the maximum label use rate for each crop. As a result of the field trials, the following tolerance is proposed for the commodities in the stone fruit crop group except plum, prune, fresh and dried: 1.2 ppm. The proposed tolerance for plum, prune, fresh and dried is 0.3 ppm.

Magnitude of residue studies were conducted in almonds and pecans as the representative commodities for the tree nut crop grouping. Almond residue data is translatable to pistachio. Trials were conducted in all of the major use areas for each of the crops as specified in the Residue Chemistry Guidelines OPPTS 860.1500 with applications at the maximum label use rate for each crop. As a result of the field trials, the following tolerance is proposed for the commodities in the tree nut crop group except almond hulls: 0.1 ppm. The proposed tolerance for almond hulls is 5.0 ppm. The proposed tolerance for pistachio is 0.1 ppm.

B. Toxicological Profile

1. Acute Toxicity for Technical Acetamiprid The acute oral LD 50 for acetamiprid was 146 mg/ kg for female Sprague Dawley rats and 217 for male rats. The acute dermal LD 50 for acetamiprid was greater than 2000 mg/ kg in rats. The acute 4 hour inhalation LC 50 for acetamiprid was greater than 1.15 mg/ L, the highest attainable concentration. Acetamiprid was not irritating to the eyes or skin and was not considered to be a sensitizing agent. The NOEL for acute neurotoxicity was 10mg/ kg and no evidence of neuropathy was noted.

Acute Toxicity for Formulated Acetamiprid 70WP The acute oral LD 50 for Acetamiprid 70WP was 944 mg/ kg for female Sprague Dawley rats and 1107mg/ kg for male rats. The acute dermal LD 50 for formulated acetamiprid was greater than 2000mg/ kg in rats. The acute inhalation LC 50 ( four hour) for Acetamiprid 70WP was determined to be greater than 2.88 mg/ L, the highest attainable concentration. Acetamiprid 70WP was concluded to be a mild eye irritant and slight skin irritant. There were no indications of skin sensitization for the formulated product.

2. Genetic Toxicity for Technical Acetamiprid Based on the weight of the evidence provided by a complete test battery, acetamiprid is neither mutagenic nor genotoxic. The compound was found to be devoid of mutagenic activity ( with and without metabolic activation) in Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli ( Ames assay). Acetamiprid was also not mutagenic in an in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation assay on Chinese hamster ovary ( CHO) cells ( HPRT locus, with and without metabolic activation). Acetamiprid did not induce unscheduled DNA synthesis ( UDS) in either rat liver primary cell cultures or in mammalian liver cells in vivo. In an in vitro chromosomal aberration study using CHO cells, acetamiprid was positive when tested under metabolic activation at cytotoxic dose levels; no effect was detected without metabolic activation. Acetamiprid was non clastogenic in an in vivo chromosomal aberration study in rat bone marrow. It also was negative in an in vivo mouse bone marrow micronucleus assay. 3. Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity In the multi generation rat reproduction study a NOEL of 100 ppm was established based on decreased body weight gains and a reproduction NOEL of 800 ppm ( highest dose tested) was established for reproductive performance and fertility. In the rat teratology study the developmental NOEL was 50 mg/ kg/ day ( maternal NOEL of 16 mg/ kg/ day based on decreased body weight and food consumption) and in the rabbit teratology study the developmental NOEL was 30 mg/ kg/ day ( maternal NOEL of 15 mg/ kg/ day based on decreased body weight and food consumption). In both the rat and rabbit studies there were no fetotoxic or teratogenic findings.

A developmental neurotoxicity study in rats with acetamiprid was conducted. The test article was administered orally by gavage to Crl: CD( SD) IGS BR rats once daily from gestation day 6 through lactation day 21 inclusive at dosage levels of 2.5, 10, and 45 mg/ kg/ day. One female in the 45 mg/ kg/ day group died during parturition on gestation day 23, following delivery of one pup. All other females survived to the scheduled necropsies. No adverse clinical signs were noted. F0 maternal toxicity was expressed at a dose level of 45 mg/ kg/ day by a single mortality and reductions in body weight gain and food consumption. No maternal toxicity was exhibited at dose levels of 2.5 and 10 mg/ kg/ day. F1 developmental toxicity was expressed at a dose level of 45 mg/ kg/ day by early postnatal mortality and reduced postweaning body weights. No developmental toxicity was exhibited at dose levels of 2.5 and 10 mg/ kg/ day. Deficits in auditory startle response occurred in the 45 mg/ kg/ day group F1 males and females without concomitant effects in other functional endpoints ( FOB), neuropathology or brain morphometry. Based on the results of this study, the NOAEL for maternal toxicity, developmental toxicity and developmental neurotoxicity is considered to be 10 mg/ kg/ day.

4. Subchronic Toxicity In the 3 month dog feeding study a NOEL of 800 ppm ( 32 mg/ kg/ day for both males and females) was established based on growth retardation and decreased food consumption.

In the 3 month rat feeding study a NOEL of 200 ppm ( 12.4 and 14.6 mg/ kg/ day respectively for male and female rats) was established based on liver cell hypertrophy at a dose of 800 ppm.

In the 3 month mouse feeding study a NOEL of 400 ppm ( 53.2 and 64.6 mg/ kg/ day respectively for male and female mice) was established based on increased liver/ body weight ratio and decreased cholesterol in females at 800 ppm.

A 13 week dietary neurotoxicity study for acetamiprid established a NOEL of 200 ppm ( 14.8 and 16.3 mg/ kg for male and female rats) based on reduced body weight and food consumption decreases at 800 ppm. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity.

A 21 day dermal study in rabbits at dose levels up to 1000 mg/ kg/ day caused no systemic toxicity, dermal irritation or histomorphological lesions in either sex tested.

5. Chronic Toxicity In the 1 year dog study, the NOEL was established at 600 ppm ( 20 and 21 mg/ kg/ day for male and female dogs, respectively) based on growth retardation and decreased food consumption at a dose of 1500 ppm.

In the 18 month mouse study the NOEL was established at 130 ppm ( 20.3 and 25.2 mg/ kg/ day for male and female mice) based on growth retardation and hepatic toxicity at 400 ppm. In the 2 year rat study the NOEL was 160 ppm ( 7.1 and 8.8 mg/ kg/ day for male and female rats) based on growth retardation and hepatic toxicity. There were no indications of carcinogenicity in either the rat or mouse chronic studies.

6. Animal metabolism The metabolism of acetamiprid is well understood and the primary animal metabolite is IM 2 1.

7. Metabolite Toxicology Testing of IM 2 1 demonstrated that it is significantly less toxic than the parent acetamiprid and it is not being considered as part of the total toxic residue in plants, therefore no tolerance is being requested by the registrant. The acute oral LD50 of IM 2 1 is 2543 mg/ kg for male rats and 1762 mg/ kg for female rats.

8. Endocrine disruption Acetamiprid does not belong to a class of chemicals known or suspected of having adverse effects on the endocrine system. Developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and a reproductive study in rats gave no indication that acetamiprid has any effects on endocrine function. The chronic feeding studies also did not show any longterm effects related to endocrine systems.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary Acute and chronic dietary analyses were conducted to estimate exposure to potential acetamiprid residues in/ on the following crops: cole crop group, citrus crop group, fruiting vegetable crop group, pome fruit crop group, grapes, leafy vegetables, canola oil, mustard seed, cotton, tuberous and corm vegetable crop group, cucurbit crop group, stone fruit crop group, tree nut crop group and pistachio using the DEEM   FCID software. Exposure estimates to drinking water were made based on conservative tier 1 FIRST and SCIGROW modeling.

2. Food The acute dietary exposure estimates at the 99.9th percentile for the US Population was calculated to be 6.2% of the acute Reference Dose ( aRfD). The population subgroup with the highest exposure was children, 1 2 years old at 19.6% of the aRfD. The acute RfD was based on the NOEL of 10 mg/ kg/ day in the acute neurotoxicity study in rats. Chronic dietary exposure estimates from residues of acetamiprid and the animal metabolite for the US Population was 0.1% of the chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( cPAD). The subpopulation with the highest exposure was children 1 2 with 0.6% of the cPAD used. These values are based on projected percentages for percent of crop treated and field trial residues at maximum label rates and minimum PHI's with no reduction factors for common washing, cooking, or preparation practices. These can be considered conservative values. The cPAD was based on the NOEL of 7.1 mg/ kg/ day in the chronic rat study and an uncertainty factor of 100 to account for inter and intra species variations. In the Final Rule establishing tolerances for acetamiprid on canola and mustard ( Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 170 / Wednesday , September 3, 2003 / Page 52343), EPA concluded that a data base uncertainty factor ( e. g., FQPA factor) was not needed to account for the lack of a developmental neurotoxicity study with acetamiprid and that reliable data supported removing the additional safety factor ( e. g., additional 3 fold or 3X) for the protection of infants and children. Since that time, an oral exposure developmental neurotoxicity study in the rat was conducted with acetamiprid and submitted to EPA. Based on the results of this and other developmental toxicology studies, the inclusion of an additional FQPA uncertainty factor is unwarranted.

3. Drinking Water US EPA's draft Standard Operating Procedure ( SOP) for Incorporating Estimates of Drinking Water Exposure Into Aggregate Risk Assessments was used to perform the drinking water analysis for acetamiprid. This SOP utilizes a variety of tools to conduct drinking water assessments. These tools include water models such as SCI GROW, FIRST, PRZM/ EXAMS, and monitoring data. If monitoring data are not available then the models are used to predict potential residues in surface water and ground water. In the case of acetamiprid, monitoring data do not exist, therefore, FIRST and SCIGROW models were used to estimate acetamiprid residues in surface and ground water, respectively. The shortterm drinking water levels of comparison ( DWLOC) were greater than 2000 ppb while the modeled drinking water estimated concentration ( DWEC) was 17 ppb for surface water and 0.0008 ppb for ground water. The intermediate term DWLOCs were also greater than 2000 ppb while the modeled DWEC was 4 ppb for surface water and 0.0008 ppb for ground water. The modeled DWEC surface and ground water residues were less than the calculated DWLOCs for short and intermediate term exposures for all adults and toddlers ( 1 2 years old).

4. Non dietary exposure A Ready to Use, dilute formulation of acetamiprid is registered for insect control on outdoor ornamentals, vegetables and fruit trees. Based on surrogate exposure data obtained from a carbaryl study, the homeowner MOE was calculated to exceed ten million. Postapplication exposure resulting from contact with acetamiprid treated foliage resulted in an MOE in excess of 500,000. Additionally a pending use allowing residential applications of formulated acetamiprid both indoors and outdoors resulted in short term applicator exposure MOEs of greater than 1,500 and short term post application exposure MOEs of greater than 2,000 for adult and toddler exposure scenarios. For intermediate term post application exposure following indoor applications, the MOEs for toddlers and adults were greater than 2,500.

Short and intermediate term aggregate exposure assessments were conducted using EPA's Draft Guidance for Performing Aggregate Exposure and Risk Assessments which suggests using the Total MOE method for aggregating exposures. In the case of acetamiprid, an MOE greater than 100 provides a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur from the assessed uses. Using the Total MOE method for aggregating exposures, adults had the lowest MOE estimates in the short term aggregate assessment while toddlers had the lowest MOE estimates in the intermediate term aggregate assessment. All short term aggregate MOEs were greater than 900 and all intermediate term aggregate MOEs were greater than 2000. Therefore, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate ( food, drinking water, and residential) exposure to acetamiprid residues. D. Cumulative Effects A determination has not been made that acetamiprid has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Acetamiprid does not appear to produce a common toxic metabolite with other substances. A cumulative risk assessment was therefore not performed for this analysis.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. Population Using the conservative assumptions described above and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, it is concluded that aggregate exposure from the existing and proposed uses of acetamiprid will utilize at most 6.2% of the acute reference dose ( aRfD) at the 99.9 percentile of exposure and 0.1% of the chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( cPAD) for the U. S. Population. These percentages are likely to be much less as more realistic exposure data and models are developed. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the aRfD and cPAD. Drinking water levels of comparison ( DWLOCs) based on these exposure estimates are much greater than conservative estimated concentrations, and would be expected to be well below the 100% level, if they occur at all. Existing and pending uses allowing residential applications of acetamiprid both indoors and outdoors resulted in short term applicator exposure MOEs of greater than 1,500 and shortterm post application exposure MOEs of greater than 2,000 for adult and toddler exposure scenarios. For intermediate term post application exposure following indoor applications, the MOEs for adults and toddlers were greater than 2,500. Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to the US Population from aggregate exposure to acetamiprid.

2. Infants and Children. In multi generation reproduction and teratology studies, no adverse effects on reproduction were observed in either rats or rabbits. In the long term feeding studies in rats and mice there was no evidence of carcinogenicity. Acetamiprid was not mutagenic under the conditions of testing. There is no indication of developmental neurotoxicity associated with acetamiprid. Using the conservative assumptions described in the exposure section above, the percent of the acute reference dose ( aRfD) that will be used is 19.6% for children 1 2 years old ( the most highly exposed sub group) at the 99.9 percentile of exposure and 0.6% of the chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( cPAD). As in the adult situation, drinking water levels of comparison are much higher than the worst case drinking water estimated concentrations and would be expected to use well below 100% of the RfD, if they occur at all. MOEs resulting from post application exposure to acetamiprid in residential areas are greater than 2,000. Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues of acetamiprid.

F. International Tolerances

Acetamiprid is registered for use on food crops in several countries outside the United States.