FQPA NOTICE OF FILING

<COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE  (7/1/2006)>

<EPA Registration Division contact: [Tawanda Spears, PM Team 22]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance
petition documents.  In cases where the outline element does not apply
please insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline.  The comment
notes that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes
designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document.
Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins,
font, or format in your document. Simply replace the instructions that
appear in italics and brackets, i.e., “[insert company name],” with
the information specific to your action.]>

<TEMPLATE:>

<[Chemtura USA Corporation]>

<[Insert petition number]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from
[Chemtura USA Corporation], [199 Benson Road, Middlebury, CT 06749]
proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.>

<	X 1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of>

<	[Ipconazole
(2-[(4-chlorophenyl)methyl]-5-(1-methylethyl)-1-(1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ylm
ethyl)cyclopentanol)] [from the treatment of seed prior to planting in
or on the raw agricultural commodities as follows:  cereal grains
(except rice), group 15;  forage, fodder and straw of cereal grains
(except rice), group 16; cotton; peanut; soybean , and dry pea & bean
(shelled) at 0. 01 ppm ] The registrant has field residue data in the
petition for barley, wheat, corn, cotton, peanut and soybean. EPA has
determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the
elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FDDCA; however, EPA has
not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time
or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data
may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism [The nature of the residues of ipconazole in wheat
and soybeans grown from seeds treated with ipconazole is adequately
understood.  The major residues found are triazolylalanine,
triazolylpyruvate and triazolylacetic acid.  Minor metabolites include
tert-hydroxy-isopropyl-ipconazole and hydroxy-ipconazole-glycoside.].>

<	2. Analytical method. [Analytical methods have been developed,
validated (including radiovalidation), and independently validated for
the determination of ipconazole, triazolylalanine, triazolylacetic acid,
and triazolylpyruvate in wheat forage, hay, straw, and grain, and in
corn forage, cobs, and straw using liquid chromatography-tandem mass
spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The limit of quantitation of 0.01 ppm for each
analyte in each matrix was determined as the lowest level validated.
Analytical methods have also been validated and independently validated
in peanut nutmeat for the determination of ipconazole, triazolylalanine,
triazolylacetic acid, triazolylpyruvate, and triazole in peanut nutmeat
using LC-MS/MS, with a limit of quantitation of 0.01 ppm for ipconazole,
and 0.025 ppm for its metabolites. ]

>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. [A crop residue program has been completed
for ipconazole in the major growing areas of the US for:

Cereal grains (except rice) – Chemtura is proposing a crop group
tolerance of 0.01 ppm in cereal grains, except rice, based on field
trials in barley, wheat, and corn at the exaggerated rate of 5X in which
no quantifiable residues of ipconazole were found in the RACs at a limit
of quantitation of 0.01 ppm.

Cotton – Chemtura is proposing a tolerance of 0.01 ppm, based on field
trials at the exaggerated rate of 5X in which no quantifiable residues
of ipconazole were found at a limit of quantitation of 0.01 ppm.

Peanut – Chemtura is proposing a tolerance of 0.01 ppm on peanut
nutmeat, based on field trials at the exaggerated rate of 5X in which no
quantifiable residues of ipconazole were found at a limit of
quantitation of 0.01 ppm. A label restriction will be applied to peanut
hay.

Soybean - Chemtura is proposing soybean and  subgroup  6-C (dried
shelled pea and beans) tolerances of 0.01 ppm, based on field trials on
soybeans at the exaggerated rate of 5X in which no quantifiable residues
of ipconazole were found in the RACs at a limit of quantitation of 0.01
ppm. ]

>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  [Ipconazole Technical and Ipconazole formulations
(Crusoe® MD, Ipconazole 3.8FS and Ipconazole/Thiram 10/350 FS) have
low acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity in laboratory animals.
The oral LD50 in rats is greater than 5 g /kg for Crusoe MD and the
Ipconazole/Thiram formulation.  The oral LD50 in rats for Ipconazole 3.8
FS is 5.3 g/kg for males and 3.7 g/kg for females.  The oral LD50 is 1.3
g/kg for male rats and 0.89 g/kg in female rats for the technical
material.  The oral LD50 for ipconazole technical in male mice is 0.53
g/kg and 0.47 for female rats.  The dermal LD50 in rats of Ipconazole
Technical is greater than 2 g/kg.  The dermal LD50 in rats for Crusoe
MD, Ipconazole 3.8 FS and Ipconazole/Thiram formulations are all greater
than 5 g/kg.   The 4 hour inhalation LC50 in rat for Ipconazole
Technical and Crusoe MD are greater than 1.88 and 2.07 mg/l,
respectively.  The 4 hour inhalation LC50 in rats for the
Ipconazole/Thiram formulation is greater than 2.04 mg/l and greater than
2.59 mg/L for Ipconazole 3.8 FS.  In the eye irritation studies, Crusoe
MD, Ipconazole 3.8FS, Ipconazole/Thiram formulation and Ipconazole
Technical were all mildly irritating to rabbit eyes.  Crusoe MD,
Ipconazole 3.8FS and Ipconazole/Thiram formulations were found to be
slightly irritating to the skin of rabbits.  Ipconazole Technical was
found to be non-irritating to the skin of rabbits.  Ipconazole Technical
and Ipconazole formulations were non-sensitizing on the skin of guinea
pigs.]>

<	2. Genotoxicty. [Ipconazole Technical was evaluated and found to be
negative in the Ames Reverse Mutation, CHO HGPRT Mammalian mutation,
Bacillus subtilis DNA Repair, Chinese Hamster Lung Chromosome Aberration
and Mouse Micronucleus assays.]>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [Rabbit Teratology Study:
Ipconazole was evaluated in a rabbit teratology study as dose levels of
0, 2, 10 and 50 mg/kg/day.  At the 50 mg/kg/day, there was a tendency
for reduction of maternal body weight gain and food consumption during
dosing.  A tendency for reduction of fetal body weights and placental
weights was seen at the high dose (50 mg/kg/day) when compared to the
concurrent controls.  There was no increase in fetal variations or
malformations at any dosage level.  The NOEL for maternal and
developmental toxicity was 10 mg/kg/day

Rat Teratology Study:  Ipconazole was evaluated in a teratology study
with the Sprague Dawley rat at dose levels of 0, 3, 10 and 30 mg/kg/day.
 At the 30 mg/kg/day dose level, there was a statistically significant
reduction in maternal body weight gain and food consumption during
dosing.  There was a statistically significant reduction in fetal body
weights at the high dose level (30/mg/kg/day) with an increase in the
incidence of visceral and/or skeletal variations.  There was no increase
in fetal malformations at any dose level.  The NOEL for maternal and
developmental toxicity was 10 mg/kg/day

Rat Reproduction Study: [Ipconazole was evaluated through dietary
administration to two successive generations of Han Wistar rats at 0,
30, 100 or 300 ppm.  The no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) for
the reproductive performance of the F0 and F1 adults was 300 ppm. The
NOAEL for the general toxicity of the F0 and F1 females was 100 ppm, in
view of minor but statistically significant reductions in bodyweight
gain during gestation and food consumption during gestation and
lactation. The NOAEL for the growth of the offspring was 100 ppm, in
view of reduced weight gain seen among F1males at 300 ppm, but was 300
ppm for the survival and general condition of the F1 and F2 offspring. ]

>

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. [Thirteen Week Rat Feeding Study:  Ipconazole
was fed to male and female Fischer-344 rats for thirteen weeks at
dietary concentrations of 30, 120, 500 and 2000 ppm. At the 500 and 2000
ppm dosage levels, there was a reduction in body weight gain and food
consumption.  Effects were seen on numerous clinical chemistry
parameters at 500 and 2000 ppm.  Histopathological effects observed at
500 and 2000 ppm include erosion, hyperplasia, and hyperkeratosis of the
stomach, hyperkeratosis of the esophagus and hepatocellular swelling.
The 500 ppm dose group had an increase in liver and salivary gland
weight.  Effects at 2000 ppm included a decrease in red blood cell
concentration and hepatocellular hyperplasia.  No treatment related
effects were seen on neurobehavior in a standard Functional Observation
Battery conducted at weeks 8 and 13.  No effects were seen on
neuropathology.  The NOAEL for subchronic toxicity in rats was 120 ppm
(7.22 mg/kg/day).

Thirteen Week Dog Feeding Study:  Ipconazole was fed to male and female
Beagle dogs for thirteen weeks at dietary concentrations of 2, 10 and 40
mg/kg/day.  The target organs were identified as the liver and eyes
(lens).  At dosage levels of 10 and 40 mg/kg/day there was a lens fiber
anomaly in males as well as clinical signs that were attributable to the
irritant potential of ipconazole presented by reddening of gums, ears,
muzzle, eyes and neck.  Liver weights were increased at 40 mg/kg/day and
centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy and bile duct proliferation
were seen.  The NOAEL for subchronic toxicity in dogs was 2 mg/kg/day).
]>

<

	5. Chronic toxicity. [Dog Chronic Feeding Study: Ipconazole was
administered in capsules to male and female Beagle dogs for one year at
concentrations of 1.5, 5 and 20 mg/kg/day.  At 5 or 20 mg/kg/day there
was reddening of the skin and at 20 mg/kg/day there was some
non-specific toxicity in two females and the target organs were
identified as the liver, eyes (lens) and adrenal.  Ipconazole exerts its
antifungal action by the inhibition of sterol synthesis.  The NOAEL for
chronic toxicity in dogs 1.5 mg/kg/day.

Rat Chronic Feeding/Oncogenicity Study: The chronic toxic and
carcinogenic potential of ipconazole, when administered to male and
female HsdBrl Han:Wist (Han Wistar) rats, via the diet, was assessed
over a period of 52 and 104 weeks.  The initial concentrations given to
these groups were 0, 30, 80, 200 or 300 ppm but, following advice from
the US EPA, the dietary concentrations given to females in the 200 and
300 ppm groups were reduced to 120 and 200 ppm, respectively, from
Week 2.  Treatment caused only an initial non-specific toxic response
at 300 ppm.  The histopathological examination did not reveal any
neoplastic or non-neoplastic change.  The no-observed-adverse-effect
level (NOAEL) was concluded to be 300 ppm in the males (equivalent to
an overall mean achieved dosage of 13.3 mg/kg/day) and 200 ppm in the
females (equivalent to an overall mean achieved dosage of
12.6 mg/kg/day)

Mouse Oncogenicity Study: Ipconazole was not oncogenic when administered
in the diet to CD-1 mice for eighteen months at concentrations of 15,
175 or 350 ppm .  Treatment related effects included reduced body
weight gain in females at 350 ppm.  There were treatment-related
non-neoplastic findings in the liver of animals given 175 or 350 ppm
and in the stomach of females given these dietary concentrations, though
there was no evidence of treatment-related neoplastic change.
Consequently, the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) in this study
was concluded to be 15 ppm (equivalent to an overall mean achieved
dosage of 1.9 mg/kg/day in males and 2.3 mg/kg/day in females).]>

<	6. Animal metabolism.  [ Pharmacokinetic parameters] in the rat.
Following single oral doses of [14C-benzyl methylene]ipconazole or
[14C-triazole]ipconazole at levels of 2 and 100 mg/kg, greater than 90%
of the radioactivity was eliminated in urine and feces within 72 hours.
Excretion was mainly via the feces and was higher in male rats than in
females.  Urinary excretion was higher in females than in males.
Excretion and retention of radioactivity during 0 – 120 hours after
the final dose following administration of 14 consecutive daily oral
doses of 14C-[benzyl methylene]ipconazole was also investigated and
excretion was rapid with greater than 90% of the dose excreted within 48
hours after the final dose.  There were no substantial differences in
excretion patterns between single and repeat low level oral doses.  In
bile duct-cannulated rats, absorption was higher at the low dose
compared to the high dose and higher in male rats than in females.  Bile
was an important route of excretion.  After administration of
[14C-benzyl methylene]ipconazole at 2 mg/kg, no major differences in
pharmacokinetic parameters were observed between the sexes apart from
Tmax, which occurred later in male rats.  After administration of
[14C-triazole]ipconazole, lower Cmax and AUC parameters were observed
for females relative to males.  There were no sex differences in the
time taken to reach Cmax or the terminal half life.  Following the
administration of single oral doses of 100 mg/kg [14C-benzyl]ipconazole,
both Cmax and AUC increased in comparison to the 2 mg/kg dose. After 14
consecutive daily doses of [14C-benzyl methylene]ipconazole at 2 mg/kg,
exposure was higher in males than in females.  Tmax occurred at 1 hour
for both sexes which was earlier in males than after a single dose.  The
terminal half life of radioactivity was longer after repeated oral doses
indicating that changes in clearance and/or volume of distribution of
radioactivity occurred during repeated dosing.  In all cases, T1/2 was
shorter for plasma than whole blood, indicating a transfer of
radioactivity into red blood cells.  After repeated oral daily dosing,
the whole blood to plasma ratio was increased by approximately two fold
thus indicating an increased distribution of radioactivity into the red
blood cells.]

>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. [Metabolites from the goat metabolism study
essentially matched those produced in the rat.  In addition to triazole,
intact ipconazole metabolites were characterized as further oxidized and
conjugated.  In addition, cyclization occurred to produce both
hemiacetals and lactones.  In plants, intact ipconazole metabolites were
also found in the rat.  In addition to intact metabolites, wheat and
soybean produced triazole conjugates – triazolylalanine,
triazolylpyruvic acid and triazolylacetic acid.  Although not produced
in the rat, triazolylalanine, triazolylacetic acid, and by inference,
triazolylpyruvic acid, have been evaluated in a recent human health risk
assessment for triazole-derived fungicides (EPA, Memorandum entitled,
“1,2,4-Triazole, Triazole Alanine, Triazole Acetic Acid: Human Health
Aggregate Risk Assessment in Support of Reregistration and Registration
Actions for Triazole-derviative Fungicide Compounds”, dated February
7, 2006. In this risk assessment, it was assumed that triazole
conjugates were all toxicologically equivalent to triazolylalanine. It
was concluded that the risk from these metabolites was below HED’s
level of concern.]

>

<8. Endocrine disruption. [There are no known reported adverse
reproductive or developmental effects in domestic animals or wildlife as
a result of exposure to this chemical. A standard battery of required
toxicity tests have been conducted on ipconazole. No effects were seen
in the reproduction or teratology studies to indicate that ipconazole
has an effect on the endocrine system.]

	9. Toxicology Endpoints (special sensitivities).  [The following are
the toxicology endpoints for the exposure assessments:

a) Acute Endpoint: An acute reference dose (RfD) is not necessary for
ipconazole.  An acute dietary RfD for females 13-50 years of age and the
general population, including infants and children, was not selected
because an acute oral endpoint attributed to a single-dose exposure
could not be identified in any of the studies in the toxicological
database, including developmental and maternal toxicity in the
developmental toxicity studies.

b) Short-term Endpoint: The endpoint for acute dermal exposure is based
on the NOEL of 150 mg/kg/day from the 21-day dermal toxicity study in
rats. Use of a 100-fold safety factor, a margin of exposure (MOE) of
100, is appropriate.

c) Intermediate Endpoint: An intermediate exposure endpoint is not
required. Residential exposure is not expected and Ipconazole is not
used on turf.

d) Chronic Endpoint: Chronic Endpoint. The endpoint for chronic exposure
is based upon the NOEL of 1.5 mg/kg/day which was obtained in the
chronic dog feeding studies.  The RfD for chronic effects is 0.015
mg/kg/day using a 100-fold safety factor.

The need for an additional safety factor for infants and children has
been evaluated. Ipconazole was not carcinogenic in rodents and did not
produce reproductive effects in rats or developmental toxicity in rats
and rabbits. These data indicate that children would not be more
sensitive to dietary ipconazole than the general population, therefore,
a chronic RfD of 0.015 mg/kg/day, which is sufficient to protect the
general population, would provide adequate protection to infants and
children. Therefore, the application of an additional 10X safety factor
is not necessary.

Due to the general inaccessibility of agricultural use sites to children
and given the low mammalian dermal and inhalation toxicity of Crusoe MD,
Ipconazole 3.8 FS and Ipconazole/Thiram formulation, both exposure and
risk to children will be insignificant.]>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. [Based on dietary, drinking water, and
non-occupational exposure assessments, there is reasonable certainty of
no harm to the US population, any population subgroup, or infants and
children from chronic exposure to ipconazole.]>

<	i. Food. [Chronic dietary exposures were estimated utilizing the
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with Food Commodity Intake
Database (DEEM-FCID) version 2.16.  Results from residue trials indicate
that ipconazole tolerances should be set at the limit of quantification
for the analytical method (0.01 ppm) for cotton, peanuts, soybeans, dry
shelled peas and beans (Group 6C) and cereal grains (except rice).  All
crops were assumed to be 100% treated and default processing factors of
1.89 for peanut butter and 1.5 for corn syrup were incorporated into the
residue file.  For the general US population, the estimated chronic
dietary exposure is 0.3% of the cPAD.  The most highly exposed
subpopulation, children aged 3-5, has an estimated total ipconazole
exposure equal to 0.8% of the cPAD. The total chronic dietary exposure
associated with proposed uses of ipconazole has been demonstrated to be
less than the cPAD (0.015 mg/kg/d) and are therefore not of concern. It
is important to remember that this assessment is quite conservative
because it includes tolerance level residues and 100% crop treated in
all proposed crops. ]>

<	ii. Drinking Food. [Exposure to ipconazole and potential residues in
drinking water is expected to be negligible. The maximum application
rate for Ipconazole on an area basis is that for wheat at 0.00223 lb
ai/A.  This value is derived from an application rate on seed of 2.5 g
ai/100 kg seed and a planting rate of 100 kg seed per hectare.  Surface
and ground water impacts from such a low rate seed treatment use are
expected to be negligible.  Screening level water modeling using
SCI-GROW for ground water and FIRST for surface water demonstrate that
the annual concentration in ground water is 0.0002 ppb in ground water
and 0.024 ppb in surface water.  At these very low concentrations,
exposures from drinking water will be negligible for all subpopulations.
 Therefore, it is not necessary to include potential residues in
drinking water for this assessment.  This is consistent with EPA
practice, which generally does not include estimates of residues in
drinking water for seed treatment uses. ]>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. [Food uses described in this petition are
strictly agricultural, and will not add to any residential non-dietary
exposure that may exist.]>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	[Ipconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of
pesticides. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by
inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is no relationship in their
mechanism of toxicity in mammals. There is no evidence to indicate that
conazoles share a common mechanism of toxicity and EPA is not following
a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity.]>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. [Chronic Risk.  The chronic Population Adjusted
Dose (cPAD) of  0.015 mg/kg bw/day was based on the NOAEL of 1.5
mg/kg/day from the 1 year dog study and a 100x uncertainty factor and a
1x FQPA safety factor.  The chronic dietary exposure to the U.S.
population (total) was 0.000047 mg/kg/day or 0.3% of the cPAD.]>

<	2. Infants and children. [Chronic Risk.  The chronic dietary exposure
to infants was 0.000055 mg/kg bw/day, and was 0.4% of the cPAD.  The
chronic dietary exposure to children 3-5 yrs, the most sensitive group,
was 0.000113 and was 0.8% of the cPAD. Therefore, chronic aggregate
exposure from ipconazole is not expected to exceed the cPAD.]>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	[No CODEX or other international MRLs or tolerances have been
established for the requested uses.  Ipconazole is currently registered
in Japan as a seed treatment on rice and wheat.  Registrations also
exist in Argentina on wheat, barley, corn and peanuts and in Uruguay on
wheat and barley.]>


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48137-48138]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19300]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-193-000]

Aguirre Offshore GasPort, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Aguirre Offshore
Gasport Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Aguirre Offshore GasPort Project (Project), proposed by Aguirre
Offshore GasPort, LLC (Aguirre LLC), a wholly owned subsidiary of
Excelerate Energy, LP in the above-referenced docket. Aguirre LLC is
seeking authorization from the FERC to develop, construct, and operate
a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal off the southern coast of
Puerto Rico.
    The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Aguirre Offshore GasPort Project in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed
Project, with the mitigation measures recommended in the EIS, would
ensure that impacts in the Project area would be avoided or minimized
and would not be significant. Construction and operation of the Project
would result in mostly temporary and short-term environmental impacts;
however, some long-term and permanent environmental impacts would
occur.
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, Puerto Rico Permits Management Office,
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, Puerto Rico Planning Board,
Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, and
Puerto Rico Department of Health participated as cooperating agencies
in the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction
by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially
affected by the proposal, and participate in the NEPA analysis. In
addition, other federal, state, and local agencies may use this EIS in
approving or issuing permits for all or part of the proposed Project.
Although the cooperating agencies provided input to the conclusions and
recommendations presented in the draft EIS, the agencies will present
their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective Records
of Decision for the Project.
    The Project is being developed in cooperation with the Puerto Rico
Electric Power Authority (PREPA) for the purpose of receiving, storing,
and regasifying the LNG to be acquired by PREPA; and delivering natural
gas to PREPA's existing Aguirre Power Complex (Aguirre Plant) in
Salinas, Puerto Rico. The Project will help diversify Puerto Rico's
energy sources, allow the Aguirre Plant to meet the EPA's Mercury and
Air Toxics Standard rule, reduce fuel oil barge traffic in

Jobos Bay, and contribute to price stabilization for power in the
region. The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of
the construction and operation of the following Project facilities:
     An offshore berthing platform;
     an offshore marine LNG receiving facility;
     a Floating Storage and Regasification Unit moored at the
offshore berthing platform; and
     a 4.1-mile-long (6.6 kilometer) subsea pipeline connecting
the Offshore GasPort to the Aguirre Plant.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the draft EIS to federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; other interested individuals
and groups; newspapers and libraries in the Project area; and parties
to this proceeding. The draft EIS was also translated in Spanish. Paper
copy versions of this EIS, in English or Spanish, were mailed to those
specifically requesting them; all others received a CD version. In
addition, the draft EIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's
Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of
copies are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    If you would like a hard copy of the draft EIS, please contact the
Public Reference Room.
    Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure
consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is
important that the Commission receive your comments before September
29, 2014.
    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
Project docket numbers (CP13-193-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are
properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the
Commission invites you to attend the public comment meeting its staff
will conduct in the Project area to receive comments on the draft EIS.
The Puerto Rico Permits Management Office will jointly conduct this
meeting. We encourage interested groups and individuals to attend and
present oral comments on the draft EIS. Transcripts of the meetings
will be available for review in eLibrary under the Project docket
numbers. The meetings will begin at 4:00 p.m. and are scheduled as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Date                               Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 9, 2014.........................  Lions Club, Avenida Los
                                             Veteranos, (Entrance by
                                             Pizza Hut), Guayama, 787-
                                             864-1925.
September 10, 2014........................  Marina de Salinas, P.R. 701
                                             (end) Playa Ward, Salinas,
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors have the
right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission
grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns
intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a
clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can
adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not
give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to
have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions?

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP13-
193). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FercOnline
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal
documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: August 7, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19300 Filed 8-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 66002-66004]
[DOCID:fr26no07-77]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56804; File No. SR-Amex-2006-107]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, to
Eliminate Options Specialists' Agency Responsibilities and Establish
Amex Book Clerks

November 16, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On November 14, 2006, American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposal to eliminate the agency obligations of
Exchange options specialists and establish Amex book clerks (``ABCs'').
The Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on March
29, 2007. The proposal as amended was published for comment in the
Federal Register on April 13, 2007.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55583 (April 5,
2007), 72 FR 18695 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange has proposed to eliminate the obligation and ability
of an Exchange options specialist to act as an agent in connection with
orders in his or her assigned options classes. This proposal would
permit the Exchange to designate Exchange employees or independent
contractors to serve as ABCs, responsible for maintaining and operating
the ANTE Central Book (i.e., the specialist's customer limit order
book) and the ANTE Display Book.\4\ The Exchange also seeks to amend
certain Exchange rules relating to the operation of the Plan for the
Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage
(``Linkage Plan'') to accommodate the implementation of pertinent ABC
rules and other proposed rule changes described herein.\5\ Finally, the
proposed rule change would implement several other amendments to
conform other Exchange rules to the proposal. The Exchange has noted
that its proposal substantially mirrors changes recently adopted by the
Chicago Board Options Exchange to eliminate DPM agency responsibilities
and establish PAR Officials.\6\ The following description summarizes
certain significant effects this proposed rule change would have on
existing Exchange rules.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange submits that all incoming customer orders are
represented in the ANTE Central Book, and if marketable, will be
automatically executed subject to a number of limited exceptions.
Orders that are otherwise eligible for automatic execution may not
receive an automatic execution: (i) Whenever the Amex Best Bid or
Offer (ABBO) crosses the National Best Bid or Offer (NBBO) and
causes an inversion in the quote; or (ii) whenever a better bid or
offer is being disseminated by another options exchange and the
order is not eligible for automatic price matching. In addition, if
quotes are deemed unreliable or the Exchange is experiencing
communications or systems problems, non-firm markets or delays in
the dissemination of quotes by the Options Price Reporting
Authority, orders will not be automatically executed. In these
limited cases, incoming customer orders will be routed to the ANTE
Display Book for manual handling.
    \5\ Exchange rules governing the operation of the Linkage Plan
are set forth under Amex Rules 940 through 945 and Amex Rule 941-
ANTE.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52798 (November 18,
2005), 70 FR 71344 (November 28, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-46).
    \7\ For a complete description of the proposed rule change, see
the Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current rules of the Exchange, options specialists are
required to execute options orders on an agency basis for those classes
of options assigned to them.\8\ Accordingly, all options specialists on
the Amex presently act as both agent and principal for orders in their
respective assigned options classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Amex Rule 950-ANTE(l), incorporating Amex Rule 170 to
options transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has now determined that it is in the best interest of
the Exchange, its members, and investors to eliminate the agency
obligation of options specialists. The Exchange has proposed to amend
its rules to remove an options specialist's obligation to act as an
agent in its allocated securities on the Exchange.\9\ The Exchange has
further proposed to designate ABCs who would be responsible for
handling certain orders in the same manner as they are currently
handled by the options specialists.\10\ The ABCs will maintain and
operate the customer limit order book,\11\ effect proper executions of
orders that are routed to the customer limit order book,\12\ display
eligible limit

orders,\13\ undertake the obligations related to handling certain
Linkage orders,\14\ and act as agent for orders that, for various
reasons, cannot be automatically executed and so are routed to the ANTE
Display Book for manual handling.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Proposed Amex Rules 950-ANTE(f) cmt. .01 and 950-ANTE(l)
cmt. .01.
    \10\ See Proposed Amex Rule 995-ANTE.
    \11\ See Proposed Amex Rule 995-ANTE(a)(i).
    \12\ See Proposed Amex Rule 995-ANTE(a)(ii). The requirement
that options specialists effect proper executions would require an
options specialist to use due diligence to execute customer orders
at the best prices available under the rules of the Exchange. See
Proposed Amex Rule 995-ANTE(b)(ii).
    \13\ See Proposed Amex Rule 995-ANTE(b)(i).
    \14\ See Proposed Amex Rule 995-ANTE(e).
    \15\ See Proposed Amex Rule 995-ANTE(b)(iv); see also supra note
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed to amend its rules to provide that the
Exchange, via the ABCs, and not the options specialists, would be
responsible for handling Linkage orders. Under the proposal, ABCs
would: (i) Use an options specialist's account to route Principal
Acting as Agent (``P/A'') Orders and Satisfaction Orders to away
markets based on prior instructions that must be provided by the
options specialist to the ABC,\16\ and (ii) handle all Linkage orders
or portions of Linkage orders received by the Exchange that are not
automatically executed.\17\ The ABC also would use the specialist's
account to fill incoming Satisfaction Orders that result from a Trade
Through \18\ that the Exchange effects.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Proposed Amex Rule 950-ANTE(l) cmt. .05.
    \17\ See Proposed Amex Rule 995-ANTE(e).
    \18\ See Amex Rule 940(b)(19).
    \19\ See Proposed Amex Rule 950-ANTE(l) cmt. .05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed measures designed to ensure the
independence of ABCs from Exchange members. An ABC would be required to
be an Exchange employee or independent contractor, and his or her
compensation would be determined and paid solely by the Exchange. In
addition, the ABC would be prohibited from having an affiliation with
any member that is approved to act as a specialist, registered options
trader (``ROT''), remote registered options trader (``RROT'') or
supplemental registered options trader (``SROT'') on the Exchange.
    Because the options specialists would no longer be operating the
customer limit order book, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 958A--
ANTE, which defines when an options specialist's firm quote obligation
attaches. Amex Rule 958A--ANTE currently provides that, in the case of
an order received by the options specialist, the options specialist's
firm quote obligation attaches at the time the order is received by
such specialist, regardless of whether the options specialist is
actually aware of the order at that time. This rule would be modified
to provide that the firm quote obligation would attach, when an options
specialist is the responsible broker or dealer, at the same time those
obligations attach with respect to each other responsible broker or
dealer--that is, when the order is announced to the trading crowd
either via electronic display or by the ABC. The Exchange has proposed
this clarification in light of the fact that options specialists will
no longer represent orders on the customer limit order book in an
agency capacity from the moment such orders are received on the book.
    Finally, to ensure a smooth and orderly transition of the
responsibility for operating the customer limit order book and
executing agency orders from options specialists to ABCs, the Exchange
proposes to implement this rule change to all applicable trading posts
over a 180-day period from the effective date of this rule change.
During this 180-day transition period, any options specialist who
continues to operate the customer limit order book would continue to be
subject to the same agency obligations as currently provided under Amex
Rules 950-ANTE(l) and 958A-ANTE(e), except that, upon the approval of
this proposal, these obligations instead would be reflected in a
Regulatory Circular.

III. Discussion

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\20\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ 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, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this proposal, Amex seeks to eliminate potential conflicts of
interest that may currently arise for its options specialists in the
handling of customer orders. Currently, Amex options specialists trade
for their own accounts in order to assist in the maintenance of a fair
and orderly market on the Exchange, and also act as agents for certain
orders in their allocated options. Amex has proposed to eliminate an
options specialist's obligation and permission to act as agent for
customer orders in his or her allocated securities.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Commission notes that Amex Rule 950-ANTE, as amended,
will no longer permit an options specialist to act as an agent for
customer orders. However, to the extent that an options specialist
nevertheless undertakes to represent a customer's order in violation
of Amex Rule 950-ANTE, the options specialist will assume all the
duties and liabilities of an agent to a principal during the course
of such representation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead, Amex has proposed that orders that currently are
represented by options specialists as agent be handled by Exchange
employees known as Amex Book Clerks, or ABCs. ABCs would be independent
from options specialists, as Amex has proposed to prohibit affiliations
between ABCs and specialists, ROTs, RROTs, and SROTs in order to ensure
the ABCs are independent from Exchange members' interests. Further, the
compensation of ABCs would be determined and paid exclusively by the
Exchange. The Commission believes that the Amex's proposal adequately
assures the independence of the ABC in a manner designed to mitigate
potential conflicts of interest with the options specialist. Further,
the Commission believes that eliminating an options specialist's
obligation to act as agent for certain orders in its assigned classes
will promote just and equitable principles of trade and protect
investors and the public interest, because it will greatly reduce any
potential conflicts of interest that may have previously arisen when a
specialist traded for its own account while acting as agent for certain
customer orders.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In addition, the Commission notes that Amex Rule 193,
Affiliated Persons of Specialists, will have the effect of
mitigating conflicts of interest that might arise when an affiliate
of the options specialist acts as agent for a customer order in one
of the specialist's assigned options classes. Amex Rule 193 provides
that any approved person or member organization which is affiliated
with a specialist must either: (a) Be subject to Amex Rule 170(e),
which provides that ``[n]o member . . . officer, employee, or
approved person who is affiliated with a specialist or specialist
member organization, shall, during the period of such affiliation,
purchase or sell any security in which such specialist is registered
for any account in which such person or party has a direct or
indirect interest''; or (b) ``establish[] and obtain[] Exchange
approval of procedures restricting the flow of material, non-public
corporate or market information between itself and the specialist
member organization, and any member, officer, or employee associated
therewith.'' The Exchange represented that Rule 193 will have the
effect of restricting the sharing of material, nonpublic information
between the options specialist and any affiliate of the options
specialist who acts as agent for a customer order. Telephone
conversation between Jeffrey P. Burns, Vice President and Associate
General Counsel, Amex, and Nathan Saunders, Special Counsel,
Division, Commission, on November 14, 2007.

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

    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, ABCs will undertake
responsibilities comparable to those currently held by options
specialists with respect to customer orders. For example, an ABC must
use due diligence to execute the orders placed in his or her custody at
the best prices available to him or her under Exchange rules. In
addition, ABCs will assume the obligations related to displaying public
customer orders that improve Amex's disseminated quote by maintaining
the ANTE Central Book, the Exchange's automated limit order display
facility, and keeping it active. Accordingly, the Commission believes
that the Exchange's proposal should ensure that customers' orders
continue to be represented and handled in a timely fashion on the
Exchange. The Commission therefore believes that the proposal will
continue to protect customer orders while preventing fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices.
    The ABCs also would assume responsibilities related to Linkage
orders. An ABC would use an options specialist's account to route P/A
Orders and Satisfaction Orders to other participants in the Linkage
Plan based on prior written instructions provided by the options
specialist to the ABC.\24\ The written instructions provided by the
options specialist will also include direction as to how the ABC should
handle responses to Linkage orders routed to other Linkage Participants
that are not responded to in a timely manner.\25\ The ABC will also use
the options specialist's account to fill any Satisfaction Order that
results from a Trade Through that is effected on the Exchange by ABCs.
Finally, the ABC will handle all Linkage orders or portions of Linkage
orders received by the Exchange that are not automatically executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Commission today is also granting the Exchange a
conditional exemption from the requirement in Rule 608(c) of
Regulation NMS promulgated under the Act that the Exchange comply
with and enforce compliance by its members with certain provisions
of the Linkage Plan to facilitate the establishment of ABCs and
their handling of Linkage Orders. See Letter from Elizabeth K. King,
Associate Director, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, to
Jeffrey P. Burns, Vice President and Associate General Counsel,
Amex, dated November 16, 2007.
    \25\ Amex Rule 942(d)(3) specifically addresses the situations
in which an Amex member (or, as proposed to be amended, an ABC
acting as employee of the Exchange) does not receive a response to a
Linkage order within 20 seconds of sending the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rules governing the
handling of Linkage orders by the ABC and the use of the options
specialist's accounts for routing Linkage orders is consistent with the
promotion of a national market system because, among other things, it
will allow P/A Orders that reflect the terms of Amex customer orders to
be generated by Amex and routed to other Linkage Participant markets,
which will allow a Amex customer order to receive possible execution at
a price better than the price disseminated by Amex.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\26\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-Amex-2006-107), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \27\ 27 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-22911 Filed 11-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2591]
[DOCID:fr15ja10-102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief from the requirements of 49
CFR Part 236 as detailed below.

CSX Transportation, Inc.

[Docket Number FRA-2009-0120]

    The CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) seeks relief from the
requirements of the Rules, Standards and Instructions, Title 49 CFR
Part 236, Section 236.377 Approach Locking; 236.378 Time Locking;
236.379 Route Locking; 236.380 Indication Locking; and 236.381 Traffic
Locking on vital microprocessor-based systems. CSXT proposes to verify
and test signal locking systems controlled by microprocessor-based
equipment by use of alternative procedures every 4 years after initial
baseline testing or program change as follows:
     Verifying the Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC)/Check Sum/
Universal Control Number (UNC) of the existing location's specific
application logic to the previously tested version.
     Testing the appropriate interconnection to the associated
signaling hardware equipment outside of the processor (switch
indication, track indication, searchlight signal indication, approach
locking (if external)) to verify correct and intended inputs to and
outputs from the processor are maintained.
     Analyze and compare the results of the 4-year alternative
testing with the results of the baseline testing performed at the
location and submit the results to FRA.
    Applicant's justification for relief: Many of CSXT's interlockings,
control points, and other locations are controlled by solid-state vital
microprocessor-based systems. These systems utilize programmed logic
equations in lieu of relays or other mechanical components for control
of both vital and non-vital functions. The logic does not change once a
microprocessor-based system has been tested and locking tests are
documented on installation.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2009-0120) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 11, 2010.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
 Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-682 Filed 1-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P