[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 188 (Monday, September 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58390-58393]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23048]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73192; File No. SR-FINRA-2014-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1, and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Adopt a Supplementary Schedule for Inventory
Positions Pursuant to FINRA Rule 4524 (Supplemental FOCUS Information)

September 23, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On June 16, 2014, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt a supplementary schedule
for inventory positions pursuant to FINRA Rule 4524 (Supplemental FOCUS
Information). The proposed rule change was

published for comment in the Federal Register on June 26, 2014.\3\ The
Commission received three comment letters on the proposed rule
change.\4\ On September 22, 2014, FINRA filed Amendment No. 1 with the
Commission to respond to the comment letters and to add clarifying
instructions.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice and order to
solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 and to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 72444 (June 20, 2014), 79 FR
36357 (June 26, 2014).
    \4\ See Letter from Holly H. Smith, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan
LLP, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated July 17, 2014
(``Sutherland''); Letter from Howard Spindel, Senior Managing
Director, and Cassondra E. Joseph, Managing Director, Integrated
Management Solutions USA LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
SEC, dated July 17, 2014 (``IMS''); Letter from Suzanne Shatto,
dated September 7, 2014 (``Shatto'').
    \5\ See SEC File No. SR-FINRA-2014-025 Amendment No. 1, dated
September 22, 2014 (``Amendment No. 1''). Amendment No. 1 is
described below in Section III and the text of Amendment No. 1 is
available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the
principal office of FINRA, and on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposal

    Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 17a-5,\6\ most firms are required to
file with FINRA reports concerning their financial and operational
status using the Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single
(FOCUS) Report.\7\ In general, firms with a FOCUS filing requirement
must either file a FOCUS Report Part II if they clear transactions or
carry customer accounts \8\ or file a FOCUS Report Part IIA if they do
not.\9\ Firms that are government securities broker-dealers registered
under Section 15C of the Exchange Act \10\ do not file a FOCUS Report
and instead are required to file reports concerning their financial and
operational status using the Report on Finances and Operations of
Government Securities Brokers and Dealers (``FOGS Report'').\11\ These
firms are required to file a FOGS Report Part I and either a FOGS
Report Part II if they clear transactions or carry customer accounts or
FOGS Report Part IIA if they do not.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-5.
    \7\ See SEC Form X-17A-5.
    \8\ Firms that calculate net capital using Appendix E to
Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1 file FOCUS Report Part II CSE, rather than
FOCUS Report Part II.
    \9\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-5.
    \10\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-5.
    \11\ See Department of the Treasury Form G-405.
    \12\ See 17 CFR 405.2; 17 CFR 240.17a-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA Rule 4524 (Supplemental FOCUS Information) requires each
firm, as FINRA shall designate, to file such additional financial or
operational schedules or reports as FINRA may deem necessary or
appropriate for the protection of investors or in the public interest
as a supplement to the FOCUS Report.\13\ Pursuant to FINRA Rule 4524,
FINRA is proposing the adoption of a supplemental schedule to the FOCUS
Report Part II, FOCUS Report Part IIA and the FOGS Report Part I that
would provide more detailed information about inventory positions held
by firms. The proposed Supplemental Inventory Schedule (``SIS'') would
be due 20 business days after the end of a firm's FOCUS or FOGS
reporting period.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The reference to FOCUS Reports under FINRA Rule 4524
includes FOGS Reports required to be filed by government securities
broker-dealers registered under Section 15C of the Exchange Act in
lieu of FOCUS Reports.
    \14\ Firms that file FOCUS Report Part II CSE would not be
subject to the proposed SIS. As part of FOCUS Report Part II CSE,
the Aggregate Securities and OTC Derivative Positions schedule
requires firms to provide information that is similar to the
proposed SIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal requires the SIS to be filed by firms that are
required to file FOCUS Report Part II, FOCUS Report Part IIA or FOGS
Report Part I with inventory positions as of the end of the FOCUS or
FOGS reporting period with two exceptions. The first exception is for
firms that have a minimum dollar net capital or liquid capital
requirement \15\ of less than $100,000. Such firms are not allowed to
engage in dealer activities and are limited to 10 proprietary
transactions per year. Further, such firms are not permitted to self-
clear or carry customer accounts. The second exception is for firms
that have inventory positions consisting only of money market mutual
funds. Money market mutual funds limit their investments to short-term,
high-quality debt securities and are permitted to sell and redeem
shares at a stable price, typically at $1.00 per share, without regard
to small variations in the value of the funds' underlying
securities.\16\ A firm with inventory positions consisting only of
money market mutual funds would need to affirmatively indicate through
functionality on the eFOCUS system that no SIS filing is required for
the reporting period. FINRA believes that firms that meet either of
these two criteria pose significantly less risk to customers and other
market participants. These exceptions would not only minimize the
burden on firms, but also would allow FINRA to focus its resources
where the risk is most concerning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Firms that file the FOCUS Report must comply with a minimum
dollar net capital requirement, while firms that file the FOGS
Report must comply with a minimum liquid capital requirement.
    \16\ See Securities Act Release No. 9408 (June 5, 2013), 78 FR
36834, 36835 (June 19, 2013) (Proposed Rule: Money Market Fund
Reform; Amendments to Form PF).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed SIS is intended to capture more details of a firm's
long and short inventory positions than what is captured on the FOCUS
Report Part II, FOCUS Report Part IIA and FOGS Report Part I. For
example, FOCUS Report Part II, FOCUS Report Part IIA and FOGS Report
Part I require total inventory of securities sold short to be reported
in aggregate (Item 1620), providing no information on the types of
securities sold short by firms. In addition, FOGS Report Part I
requires that all long inventory be reported in aggregate (Item 850).
Further, on FOCUS Report Part II and IIA, long inventory is reported in
categories that aggregate securities with different market risk
profiles (e.g., the Corporate Obligations category on the FOCUS Report
Part II (Item 400) and Debt Securities category on the FOCUS Report
Part IIA (Item 419) include single name corporate bonds, private-label
mortgage-backed securities and foreign issuer debt obligations). The
proposed SIS would enhance FINRA's ongoing surveillance monitoring of
firms' financial condition by providing greater transparency into the
market risk posed by a firm's inventory positions and the potential
impact to a firm's net capital or liquid capital, as well as related
funding and liquidity needs. In addition, the information provided by
the proposed SIS would enable FINRA staff to perform more targeted
examinations of firms' market risk exposure.
    The proposed rule change will be effective upon Commission
approval. FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed
supplemental schedule in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later
than 60 days following Commission approval. The due date for the first
proposed schedule will be no later than 90 days following Commission
approval of the proposed rule change.

III. Summary of Comment Letters, FINRA's Response, and Amendment No. 1

    As stated above, the Commission received three comment letters in
response to the proposed rule change.\17\ One commenter opposed the
definition of ``arbitrage'' in the instructions for the SIS and
questioned why the definition was limited to firms that have a separate
arbitrage trading desk.\18\ The commenter stated that the SIS should
take into account arbitrage strategies and

recommended amending the SIS to allow firms ``to indicate how much of
the gross market value reported in the long or short columns
represented positions that were offsets or related to other positions,
directly or indirectly.'' \19\ In addition, the commenter recommended
eliminating line 10 (Arbitrage) and the parenthetical description on
line 9 (Stocks and Warrants (other than arbitrage positions)) on the
SIS on the grounds that they would become redundant if the columns for
offsets were added.\20\ Finally, the commenter suggested the definition
of ``arbitrage'' in the instructions ``be changed to indicate something
to the effect that arbitrage is whatever the reporting firm thinks it
is.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 4.
    \18\ See IMS.
    \19\ See IMS.
    \20\ See IMS.
    \21\ See IMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commenter's concern regarding the definition of
``arbitrage,'' FINRA agrees that the definition should not be limited
to firms that have a separate arbitrage trading desk and is proposing
to amend the instructions to provide that firms would report the market
value of all securities that are part of a ``bona fide arbitrage.'' For
purposes of the SIS, a security would be considered part of a ``bona
fide arbitrage'' if a security is convertible into or exchangeable for
another security within a period of 90 days, subject to no conditions
other than the payment of money, and the other securities into which
such security is convertible or for which it is exchangeable, are short
in the accounts of such broker or dealer. The definition of ``bona fide
arbitrage'' is substantially similar to the provision in Exchange Act
Rule 15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(J)(1). With respect to the additional changes
requested by the commenter, FINRA believes, at this time, that the
proposed SIS captures the information that is needed to enable FINRA
staff to assess the related market risk and impact on firms' liquidity
and funding needs arising from inventory holdings.
    Another commenter had concerns ``with FINRA's piecemeal approach to
requesting supplemental financial and operational information'' and
recommended ``that FINRA coordinate with the SEC to propose an amended
FOCUS report that requests all of the information FINRA is collecting
or plans to collect from firms via supplementary schedules or
reports.'' \22\ In addition, the commenter requested that FINRA: (1)
``define the term `inventory' by reference to specific reporting lines
of the FOCUS report, so that member firms know exactly what FOCUS line
items are required to be dis-aggregated for the SIS''; (2) confirm that
``investments held by member firms for the purpose of funding employee
benefit plans for a member firm's associated persons'' would not be
considered inventory under the SIS; and (3) publish general directions
for firms with nothing to report because they have no inventory.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Sutherland.
    \23\ See Sutherland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commenter's recommendation that FINRA coordinate
with the SEC to propose an amended FOCUS Report, FINRA proposed the SIS
pursuant to FINRA Rule 4524, which, subject to FINRA meeting the
requirements of Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act \24\ and Rule 19b-
4 thereunder,\25\ provides an independent basis for FINRA to supplement
information provided on FOCUS and FOGS Reports filed pursuant to
Exchange Act Rule 17a-5 and FINRA Rule 2010.\26\ In response to this
commenter, FINRA further notes that Form X-17A-5 is an SEC form, and
any changes to it must be proposed and adopted by the SEC. However,
FINRA would support updates to Form X-17A-5 by the SEC that would
incorporate more detailed reporting, and, if such updates were made,
FINRA staff would seek to reduce accordingly the requirement for firms
to file supplemental information. With respect to the term
``inventory,'' for purposes of the SIS, FINRA is proposing to define
the term ``inventory positions'' to mean securities or commodities
positions (long, short or both) which are required to be reported on
the balance sheet pursuant to GAAP. Consequently, if ``investments held
by member firms for the purpose of funding employee benefit plans for a
member firm's associated persons'' fall within the term ``inventory
positions,'' as defined in the proposed SIS, then such investments
would be required to be reported. Finally, in regard to firms with
nothing to report, the eFOCUS system would not require an affirmative
indication from the firm that no filing is required for the reporting
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \25\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \26\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66364 (Feb. 9,
2012), 77 FR 8938 (Feb. 15, 2012) (Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of SR-FINRA-2011-064).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A third commenter raised a number of issues that are outside the
scope of the proposal.\27\ This commenter, however, also suggested
daily reporting for the proposed SIS.\28\ FINRA believes daily
reporting for the proposed SIS would be overly burdensome on firms
without a concomitant benefit to FINRA regarding its understanding of a
firm's market risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Shatto.
    \28\ See Shatto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the changes proposed in response to some of the
comments the SEC received, discussed above, FINRA is proposing to
clarify that the capital exception for filing the proposed SIS is based
on the minimum dollar net capital requirement or liquid capital
requirement. Firms that have a minimum dollar net capital or liquid
capital requirement, as applicable, of less than $100,000 would not
have to file the proposed SIS.

IV. Commission's Findings

    After careful consideration of the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, the comment letters received, and FINRA's
response to the comment letters, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act, and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
association.\29\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of
the Exchange Act,\30\ which requires, among other things, that the
rules of a national securities association 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. The
Commission believes that FINRA adequately addressed the comments raised
in response to FINRA's notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 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).
    \30\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed SIS should provide FINRA with the ability to obtain
more specific information about the inventory of a member broker-
dealer. Thus, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the provisions of the
Exchange Act noted above in that the proposed SIS could provide FINRA
with greater insights into the types of securities held in inventory by
firms and the related market risk associated with such inventory
positions. In addition, the proposed SIS would enable FINRA staff to
review inventory

trends and assess the related impact on firms' liquidity and funding
needs. The information provided on the proposed SIS would be used by
FINRA to monitor firms' financial condition and perform more targeted
examinations of firms' market risk exposure.
    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1, works in conjunction with the existing Commission
broker-dealer financial responsibility rules and will further FINRA's
ability to oversee its members by, among other things, capturing trends
in the securities held in broker-dealers' inventory.
    The Commission does not believe that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, will result in burden on competition that
is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Exchange Act. As stated above, the Commission believes the proposed SIS
will allow FINRA to better understand the potential impact of broker-
dealers' inventory on net capital, leverage and liquidity, and ability
to fulfill customer protection obligations. Ready access to the
information in the proposed SIS is important for FINRA to efficiently
monitor on an ongoing basis the financial condition of firms.
    The Commission also believes FINRA has carefully crafted the
proposed SIS to achieve its intended and necessary regulatory purpose
while being cognizant of the burden on firms. The information required
to complete the proposed SIS should be readily available to firms due
to firms' obligations to maintain books and records and apply
applicable capital charges to their inventory. Further, for smaller
firms, the proposed SIS contains exceptions for firms that (1) have a
minimum dollar net capital or liquid capital requirement, as
applicable, of less than $100,000, or (2) have inventory positions
consisting only of money market mutual funds.

V. Accelerated Approval

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Exchange Act \31\ for approving the proposal, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after publication of Amendment
No. 1 in the Federal Register. The changes proposed in Amendment No. 1
are technical or clarifying changes and do not raise regulatory
concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds that good cause exists to approve
the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.

VI. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2014-025 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2014-025. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2014-025 and should be
submitted on or before October 20, 2014.

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\32\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2014-025), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be and hereby is approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23048 Filed 9-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 11013-11014]
[DOCID:fr12mr07-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-176-129]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Negotiated
Rate

March 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 28, 2007, Natural Gas Pipeline Company
of America (Natural) tendered for filing an amendment to five (5)
Transportation Rate Schedule FTS Agreements currently on file with the
Commission, to be effective March 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4361 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52485-52487]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20654]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0576; FRL-9900-25-Region 9]

Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa
County Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Maricopa County
Area portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern particulate matter (PM) emissions from fugitive dust
sources. We are approving local statutes that regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We
are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0576], by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 942-
3848<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action.
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the statutes addressed by this proposal with the
dates that they were signed into law by the Governor and submitted by
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arizona statute       Statute title            Signed                 Submitted          Revised  submittal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9-500.27..............  Off-road vehicle   July 2, 2007..........  May 25, 2012..........  May 21, 2013.
                         ordinance;
                         applicability;
                         violation;
                         classification.
11-871................  Emissions          July 2, 2007..........  May 25, 2012..........  May 21, 2013.
                         control; no
                         burn;
                         exemptions;
                         penalty.
28-1098...............  Vehicle loads;     July 2, 2007..........  May 25, 2012..........  May 21, 2013.
                         restrictions;
                         civil penalties.
49-457.03.............  Off-road           July 2, 2007..........  May 25, 2012..........  May 21, 2013.
                         vehicles;
                         pollution
                         advisory days;
                         applicability;
                         penalties.
49-457.04.............  Off-highway        July 2, 2007..........  May 25, 2012..........  May 21, 2013.
                         vehicle and all-
                         terrain vehicle
                         dealers;
                         informational
                         material;
                         outreach;
                         applicability.
49-501................  Unlawful open      July 2, 2007..........  May 25, 2012..........  May 21, 2013.
                         burning;
                         exceptions;
                         fine; definition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 20, 2012, EPA determined that the May 25, 2012 submittal of
Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) 9-500.27, 11-871, 28-1098, 49-457.03,
49-457.04 and 49-501 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On May 21, 2013
ADEQ identified several statute subsections included in the May 25,
2012 submittal for which Arizona no longer requested EPA SIP approval
and provided a revised submittal.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of these statutes in the SIP,
although the Maricopa Association of Governments submitted them with
the 2007 Five Percent Plan for PM-10, which was subsequently withdrawn.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    PM contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the
environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory
and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility
impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control PM
emissions. These statutes regulate PM emissions from off-highway
vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, off-road recreational motor vehicles,
residential wood burning and vehicle loads. EPA's technical support
documents (TSDs) have more information about these statutes. The State
is not taking emission reduction credits for these statutes.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193).
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate these
requirements consistently include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998 (August
16, 1994).
    5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
    6. ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control Measures,'' EPA 450/2-92-004,
September 1992.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these statutes are consistent with the relevant policy
and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSDs
have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time Arizona modifies the rules but are not currently the
basis for rule disapproval.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted statutes fulfill all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a

substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 8, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013-20654 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2634-2635]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00749]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-321-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 010418 Negotiated Rates--
Consolidated Edison Energy R-2275-13 to be effective 1/4/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180105-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-324-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 010418 Negotiated Rates--
Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc. H-2275-89 to be effective 1/4/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180105-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-325-000.
    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest LLC.
    Description: Interruptible Transportation Refund Report for the
Coyote Springs Lateral of Gas Transmission Northwest LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180105-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-326-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate PAL
Agreements--Sequent & Koch to be effective 1/5/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180105-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-327-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Capacity Release Agmts with
Neg Rate Provisions to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180105-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-328-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--Range Amended
NRA 911376 to be effective 1/6/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180105-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-329-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Merger Filing 2018 to be
effective 2/5/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180105-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-330-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 010518 Negotiated Rates--
Sierentz Global Merchants LLC R-7845-03 to be effective 1/5/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180105-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-331-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 010518 Negotiated Rates--
Statoil Natural Gas LLC R-7120-04 to be effective 1/5/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180105-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-332-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 010518 Negotiated Rates--ENI
Trading & Shipping Inc. R-7825-03 to be effective 1/5/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180105-5195.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-333-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 010518 Negotiated Rates--Wells
Fargo Commodities, LLC R-7810-04 to be effective 1/5/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180105-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-334-000.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate PAL
Agreement--EDF & MIECO to be effective 1/5/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180105-5198.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-335-000.
    Applicants: Saltville Gas Storage Company L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Duke Neg Rate Release k490099
to be effective 1/6/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/8/18.
    Accession Number: 20180108-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-336-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Update to Contact Person to be
effective 2/7/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/8/18.
    Accession Number: 20180108-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and

385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to
become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 9, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00749 Filed 1-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE

PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: James Tompkins,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Bayer CropScience LLC

PP# 9F7678

The EPA has received a pesticide petition (9F7678) from Bayer
CropScience LLC, 2 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709 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. by
revising tolerances for residues of the herbicide, bromoxynil including
its metabolites and degradates. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified is to be determined by measuring residues of bromoxynil
(3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile) in or on the raw agricultural
commodities [sorghum, grain] at [0.2] parts per million (ppm); [grass,
hay] at [5.0] ppm; and [grass, forage] at [18] ppm. EPA has determined
that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements
set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; 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 residue chemistry database for bromoxynil is
current

and complete and adequate to describe the nature and magnitude of
residues for use in assessing

the human dietary exposure. Residue chemistry data supporting
registration of the end use

product (Huskie Herbicide) are listed in the completed EPA Data Matrix
form accompanying

this petition. HUSKIE is a mixture of pyrasulfotole, bromoxynil, and the
safener mefenpyrdiethyl. A summary of the bromoxynil data follows.

The nature of bromoxynil residues in plants and livestock is adequately
understood. The

residue of concern is bromoxynil (3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile).

2. Analytical method. Since bromoxynil already has tolerances on

sorghum and grass commodities adequate analytical methods are in place
to support the

desired uses.

3. Magnitude of residues. Twelve field trials were conducted to measure

the magnitude of total bromoxynil residues in/on sorghum forage, grain,
and stover

following two foliar spray applications of HUSKIE herbicide to sorghum.
Residues of

bromoxynil were quantified in the harvested matrices (sorghum grain,
forage and stover)

following the postemergence applications of Huskie Herbicide.

The HAFT bromoxynil residue in sorghum forage harvested at a 0-day PHI
was

25 ppm (maximum residue 27 ppm). The HAFT bromoxynil residue in sorghum
forage

harvested at a target 7-day PHI was 0.58 ppm (maximum residue 0.61 ppm).
The HAFT

bromoxynil residue in sorghum forage harvested at ECH was 0.30 ppm
(maximum

residue 0.31 ppm).

The HAFT bromoxynil residue in sorghum grain was 0.10 ppm (maximum

residue 0.11 ppm). The HAFT bromoxynil residue in sorghum stover was
0.10 ppm

(maximum residue 0.11 ppm). The bromoxynil residue decreased with time
in the

sorghum forage but not in sorghum stover. The decline of bromoxynil
residue with time

in sorghum grain could not be assessed due to residue levels below the
LOQ.

Twelve field trials were conducted to measure the magnitude of
bromoxynil

residues in/on grass forage and hay following two foliar spray
applications of HUSKIE

herbicide to grass. Residues of bromoxynil were quantified in the
harvested matrices

(grass forage and hay) following the postemergence applications of
Huskie Herbicide.

The HAFT bromoxynil residue in grass forage harvested at a 0-day PHI was
37

ppm (maximum residue 38 ppm). The HAFT bromoxynil residue in grass
forage

harvested at a target 7-day PHI was 14 ppm (maximum residue 14 ppm). The
HAFT

bromoxynil residue in grass hay harvested at a target 30-day PHI was 2.1
ppm (maximum

residue 2.3 ppm).

B. Toxicological Profile

1. Acute toxicity. A complete battery of acute toxicity studies for
bromoxynil

(phenol) has been conducted. The acute oral toxicity study in rats
resulted in a LD50 of 81

milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) (males) and a LD50 of 93 mg/kg (females).
The acute

dermal toxicity study in rabbits resulted in a LD50 of >2,000 mg/kg for
both males and

females. The acute inhalation study in rats resulted in a LC50 of 0.269
milligram/liter

(mg/L) for males and 0.150 for females. The primary eye irritation study
showed corneal

opacity resolved within 3 days, iritis resolved within 4 days and
conjuctival irritation

which persisted for 10 days. There was no irritation in the primary
dermal irritation study

and the dermal sensitization study in guinea pigs was negative.

2. Genotoxicty. Mutagenicity studies conducted include an unscheduled
DNA

synthesis study-rat primary hepatocytes (negative); in vitro
transformation assay-mouse

cells (negative); sister chromosomal exchange study-CHO cells
(negative); forward

mutation study-mouse lymphoma cells (negative without activation and
positive with

activation); DNA repair test-E. Coli (positive); in vitro chromosomal
aberration (negative

without activation and positive with activation); two separate
micronucleus assays (both

negative); forward mutation-CHO cells (negative); and Salmonella
typhimurium reverse

mutation assay (negative with and without activation). Therefore,
bromoxynil (phenol)

and DBHA are non-mutagenic.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. A teratology study was
conducted

with rats administered (orally) bromoxynil phenol at dose levels of 0,
4, 12.5, or 40

mg/kg/day. The maternal no-observed-effect level (NOAEL) and
lowest-observedadverse-

effect level (LOAEL) are 12.5 and 40 mg/kg/day respectively. The

developmental NOAEL and LOAEL are 4.0 and 12.5 mg/kg/day, respectively.
Maternal

body weights and food consumption were reduced in the high dose group.
Fetal effects

observed were reduced body weight, with associated decreases in
ossification. An

increase in 14th ribs was observed in the mid and high dose levels. A
teratology study

was conducted with rats administered (orally) bromoxynil phenol at dose
levels of 0, 5,

15, or 35 mg/kg/day. The maternal NOAEL and LOAEL are 5.0 and 15
mg/kg/day,

respectively. The fetotoxicity and developmental NOAEL and LOAEL are
less than 5

and 5 mg/kg/day, respectively. Significant maternal mortality and
decreased body weight

gain were associated with the high dose, indicating that the maximum
tolerance dose was

exceeded. Decreases in maternal body weight gain were also observed in
the mid and low

dose levels. At the mid-dose level a statistically significant increase
in the number of

fetuses with supernumerary ribs, a common fetal variant was observed. A
teratology

study was conducted with rats administered (orally) bromoxynil phenol at
dose levels of

0, 1.7, 5, or 15 mg/kg/day. The maternal NOAEL and LOAEL are 5 and 15
mg/kg/day,

respectively. The developmental NOAEL and LOAEL are 5 and 15 mg/kg/day,

respectively. This study was classified as unacceptable, primarily due
to reporting

deficiencies. A teratology study was conducted with rabbits administered
(orally)

bromoxynil phenol at dose levels of 0, 15, 30, or 60 mg/kg/day. The
maternal NOAEL

and LOAEL are 15 and 30 mg/kg/day, respectively. The developmental NOAEL
and

LOAEL are less than 15 and 15 mg/kg/day, respectively. Significant body
weight gain

decrements were reported at the two highest dose levels along with
observed decreases in

food consumption. The severe maternal toxicity among high dose dams was
associated

with fetotoxicity and teratogenicity. A slight, nonsignificant increase
in supernumerary

ribs was reported at the mid and low dose levels. A teratology study was
conducted with

mice administered (orally) bromoxynil phenol at dose levels of 0, 11,
32, or 96

mg/kg/day. Maternal mortality was observed at 32 and 96 mg/kg/day. Fetal
body weight

was decreased at the top dose level, associated with a decrease in
caudal vertebral

ossification and an increase in supernumerary ribs. The maternal NOAEL
and LOAEL

are 11 and 32 mg/kg/day respectively. The developmental NOAEL and LOAEL
are 32

and 96 mg/kg/day, respectively. A reproduction study was conducted with
rats

administered (orally) bromoxynil phenol at dose levels of 0, 0.8, 4, or
21 mg/kg/day in

the diet. The systemic adult rat NOAEL is 4 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL is
21 mg/kg/day.

The reproductive NOAEL is 21 mg/kg/day, and the LOAEL is greater than 21

mg/kg/day. The postnatal developmental NOAEL is 4 mg/kg/day, and the
LOAEL is

21 mg/kg/day. Body weight gain decrements were reported. However, no
adverse effects on

fertility, fecundity, reproductive performance or pre and postnatal
development were

observed. A reproduction study was conducted with rats administered
(orally)

bromoxynil phenol at dose levels of 0, 1.5, 5, or 15 mg/kg/day in the
diet. The systemic

rat NOAEL is 1.5 mg/kg/day, and the LOAEL is 5 mg/kg/day. The
reproductive NOAEL

is 15 mg/kg/day, and the LOAEL is greater than 15 mg/kg/day. The
offspring

developmental NOAEL is 5 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL is 15 mg/kg/day. Body
weight

gain decrements were reported. However, no adverse effects on fertility,
fecundity,

reproductive performance or pre and postnatal development were observed.
Based on the

studies discussed above, it is concluded that bromoxynil is not
teratogenic at doses that

are not maternally toxic. In addition, bromoxynil is not considered a
reproductive

toxicant and shows no evidence of endocrine effects.

4. Subchronic toxicity. In a 12-week range-finding study, bromoxynil
(phenol)

was administered in the diets of male and female CD-1 mice at dose
levels of 0, 1.3, 3.9,

13, 39, 130, or 390 mg/kg/day. For male mice, the NOAEL is 3.9 mg/kg/day
and the

LOEL is 13 mg/kg/day based on increased liver weights and hepatocellular
hypertrophy.

In female mice, the NOAEL is 13 mg/kg/day and the LOEL is 39 mg/kg/day
based on

increased liver weights, hepatocellular hypertrophy, hepatocellular
degeneration, and

hepatocellular vacuolization. In a 13-week subchronic feeding study,
bromoxynil

(phenol) was administered in the diet to male and female Sprague-Dawley
rats at dose

levels of 0, 28, 58, or 168 mg/kg/day. For male rats, the NOAEL is 28
mg/kg/day and the

LOEL is 58 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gain, increased ALT
and

increased alkaline phosphatase. For female rats, no NOAEL was determined
in this study

and the LOEL is 35 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gain. In a
13-week

range-finding study, bromoxynil (phenol) was administered orally to male
and female

dogs at doses of 0, 1, 5, 8, 12, 16, 20, 30, 40, or 50 mg/kg/day. For
males, no NOAEL

was determined and the LOEL is 1 mg/kg/day based on decreased body
weight gain. For

females, the NOAEL is 1 mg/kg/day and the NOAEL is 5 mg/kg/day based on
decreased

body weight gain, panting and liquid feces. In a 21 day subchronic
dermal study,

bromoxynil (phenol) was applied to skin of male and female New Zealand
white rabbits

at doses of 0, 30, 300, or 1,000 mg/kg/day for 6 hours/day, 5 days/week.
Treatment

produced no observable dermal or systemic toxicity therefore the NOAEL
is 1,000

mg/kg/day.

5. Chronic toxicity. A 1-year oral study was conducted with dogs
administered

bromoxynil (phenol) at dose levels of 0, 0.1, 0.3, 1.5, and 7.5
mg/kg/day in capsules. The

NOAEL/LOAEL is 1.5 mg/kg/day for both females and males based on
decreased body

weight gain, decreased RBC count, decreased hemoglobin, decreased PCV,
and increased

liver weights. The chronic dog study was determined to be the most
appropriate study for

setting the Reference Dose (RfD) of 0.015 mg/kg/day (includes a
hundredfold safety

factor).

A 2-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study was conducted
with rats

administered (oral) dosages of 0, 60, 190, or 600 ppm (0, 2.6, 8.2, or
28 mg/kg/day in

males; 0, 3.3, 11.0, or 41 mg/kg/day in females) bromoxynil phenol in
the diet. In males

the no-observed-effect-level (NOAEL) for systemic toxicity is 2.6
mg/kg/day, and the

lowest-observable-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) is 8.2 mg/kg/day. In
females, the

NOAEL is 3.3 mg/kg/day, and the LOAEL is 11.0 mg/kg/day. This study did
not

demonstrate any increase in tumor incidences in either male or female
rats. A 2-year

combined feeding/carcinogenicity study was conducted with rats
administered

bromoxynil phenol in the diet at dose levels of 0, 10, 30, or 100 ppm
(0, 0.5, 1.5, or 5

mg/kg/day). In both males and females, the NOAEL and LOEL for systemic
toxicity was

5 mg/kg/day and >5 mg/kg/day, respectively. At the highest dose tested,
increased liver

weights were observed at 12 months, but not at 24 months. This study was
considered

negative for carcinogenicity. An 18 month carcinogenicity study was
conducted with

mice administered bromoxynil phenol at dose levels of 0, 10, 30, or 100
ppm (0, 1.3, 3.9,

or 13 mg/kg/day) in the diet. For males, dose related increases in
hyperplastic nodules

and liver adenomas/carcinomas were observed which were statistically
significant at the

100 ppm. Increased relative liver weights were also observed. In
females, increased

absolute liver weights and relative liver and kidney weights were
observed. The study

was considered negative for carcinogenicity for females. An 18 month
carcinogenicity

study was conducted with mice administered bromoxynil phenol at dose
levels of 0, 20,

75, or 300 ppm (0, 3.1, 12 or 46 mg/kg/day in males and 0, 3.7, 14, or
53 mg/kg/day in

females). Mice given 300 ppm had significantly increased absolute and
relative liver

weights. Histopathology of the liver revealed increased hepatocellular
hypertrophy,

hepatocellular degeneration, necrosis of individual hepatocytes, and
pigment

accumulation in hepatocytes and Kupffer cells. Male mice had
statistically significant

increased numbers of hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas at 20 ppm,
but not 75

ppm. In contrast, no significant increase in tumor incidence was
observed for female

mice by pair-wise analysis. The trend test was significant for adenomas
or carcinomas in

females, only at p<0.05, not p<0.01 as would be appropriate for this
type of tumor. The

trend is due entirely to the high dose group and therefore is of
questionable validity. It is

concluded that bromoxynil is a weak, single sex, single species,
non-metastic, single

target organ carcinogen, inducing hepatocellular tumors in male mice
exposed to 300

ppm for 18 months. These tumors and associated histopathological
findings are consistent

with secondary mechanisms such as peroxisome proliferation, a mechanism
known to

have marked species differences and questionable relevance for humans.
Therefore, the

data are not suitable for quantitative risk assessment. A threshold
safety factor approach

is more appropriate and is commonly used for single sex, single species
carcinogens such

as bromoxynil that are thought to work through secondary mechanisms. For
the purposes

of this tolerance petition, risk assessments have been performed using a
low dose linear

extrapolation model (Q1* is 1.03 x 10-1).

6. Animal metabolism. Results of a bromoxynil metabolism study with the
rat

(octanoate) demonstrated that 2 mg/kg of radiolabeled bromoxynil
octanoate was rapidly

absorbed, hydrolyzed to bromoxynil phenol, distributed, and excreted in
rats following

repeated oral administration. The urine was the major route of
excretion, representing

80.24% of the administered dose in males and 67.91% in females at 7 days
post-dosing.

Tissue distribution was similar for both sexes with the highest
radioactivity recovered in

the liver and kidney. Similar results were obtained in a separate rat
metabolism study

conducted with bromoxynil heptanoate.

7. Metabolite toxicology. DBHA (3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzoic acid) is a
major

plant metabolite of bromoxynil only in bromoxynil-resistant transgenic
cotton. Acute oral

toxicity testing with DBHA in rats resulted in an LD50 of >2,000 mg/kg.
Acute dermal

toxicity testing with DBHA in rabbits resulted in an LD50 of >2,000
mg/kg. The primary

dermal irritation study with DBHA in rabbits indicated DBHA to be a
slight irritant, and

DBHA was not a dermal sensitizer in Guinea pigs. Mutagenicity studies
conducted with

DBHA include a Salmonella typhimurium reverse mutation assay (negative
with and

without activation); micronucleus assay (negative); and TK+/- mouse
lymphoma assay

(negative with and without metabolic activation). In subchronic feeding
studies in the rat,

DBHA was administered by oral gavage to groups of Sprague-Dawley rats
for 28 days at

dose levels of 25, 50, 100 and 250 mg/kg/day. No toxicologically
meaningful changes

were observed in any of the parameters measured in this study. The NOAEL
and LOAEL

for this study were 250 and >250 mg/kg/day, respectively.

C. Aggregate Exposure

Assessments were conducted to evaluate potential risks due to chronic
and acute dietary

exposure of the U.S. population and selected population subgroups to
residues of

bromoxynil. These assessments included current and proposed uses of
bromoxynil

including the increased use rates on sorghum and grass grown for seed.

Exponent Inc.'s Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID, Version
2.14),

which is licensed to Bayer, was used to estimate the chronic and acute
dietary exposure.

This software uses the food consumption data from the 1994-1998 USDA
Continuing

Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII 1994-1998).

The aRfD for the general U.S. population, including infants and
children, was 0.08

mg/kg/day based on a NOAEL of 8 mg/kg/day and an uncertainty factor of
100. The

aRfD for Females 13-49 was 0.004 mg/kg/day based on a NOAEL of 4
mg/kg/day and an

uncertainty factor of 1000. The cRfD was 0.015 mg/kg/day based on a
NOAEL of 1.5

mg/kg/day and an uncertainty factor of 100. The cancer assessment was
based on a Q*

of 0.103 (mg/kg/day)-1.

i. Dietary (food and water) exposure. For the purpose of estimating the
potential

human dietary exposure resulting from bromoxynil use on sorghum and
grass grown for

seed in addition to all current uses under the existing tolerances,
anticipated residues of

bromoxynil were used for all crops except cotton where anticipated
residues of

bromoxynil and DBHA were used. Based on the use of these exposure data
and the above

reference doses the acute exposure was equivalent to approximately 3.7%
of the acute

reference dose (food and water) for the US Population and 48.6% of the
aPAD for

females 13-49. The chronic cancer risk of bromoxynil, i.e., the
upper-bound human risk

estimate for the general (U.S.) population represented by all sources of
bromoxynil

exposure is approximately 2.8 x 10-6 (food and water). Water exposure is
based on the

USEPA-derived acute EDWC of 12.3 ppb and chronic EDWC of 0.24 ppb.

D. Cumulative Effects

There are no reliable data suggesting that any toxic effect that might
be caused by

bromoxynil would be cumulative with those of any other compound.
Further, bromoxynil

does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite that is produced by other
substances.

Therefore, consideration of potential cumulative effects is not
appropriate at this time.

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. Using the present acute reference doses for
bromoxynil (0.08

mg/kg/day for the US Population) and a chronic RfD for bromoxynil of
0.015 mg/kg/day

the total bromoxynil exposure (food and water) was equal to 3.7% of the
acute RfD and

0.2% of the chronic RfD for the US Population. The cancer risk for the
US Population is

2.8 x 10-6. Therefore, the dietary exposure estimates are below EPA's
level of concern

for the overall U.S. population.

2. Females 13-49. Using the acute bromoxynil reference dose for females
13-49

of 0.004 mg/kg/day and a chronic RfD for bromoxynil of 0.015 mg/kg/day
the total

bromoxynil exposure (food and water) was equal to 48.9% of the acute RfD
and 0.1% of

the chronic RfD for Females 13-49. Therefore, the acute and chronic
dietary exposure

estimates are below EPA's level of concern for Females 13-49.

3. Infants and children. To estimate dietary risk for other population
subgroups

(i.e., infants and children) an acute reference dose of 0.08 mg/kg/day
and a chronic

reference dose of 0.015 mg/kg/day were used. Two multi-generation rodent
reproduction

studies demonstrated that there were no adverse effects on reproductive
performance,

fertility, fecundity, pup survival, or pup development. Maternal and
developmental

NOAELs and LOAELs were comparable indicating no increase susceptibility
of

developing organisms. No evidence of endocrine effects was noted in any
study. It is

therefore concluded that bromoxynil poses no additional risk for infants
and children and

no additional uncertainty factor is warranted. Dietary assessment based
on the above

acute and chronic reference doses resulted in total exposure (food and
water) equal to

8.6% of the acute RfD (Infants) and 0.6% of the chronic reference dose
(Children 1-2) for

the most exposed population subgroup.

F. International Tolerances

There are no Codex tolerances established for bromoxynil residues,
therefore

international compatibility is not considered to be an issue at this
time.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42361-42362]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17354]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Notice of Applications for Modification of Special Permit

AGENCY: Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

ACTION: List of Applications for Modification of Special Permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107,
Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. This
notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because
the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of
application have been shown in earlier Federal Register publications,
they are not repeated here. Requests for modification of special
permits (e.g. to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging
design changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described
in footnotes to the application number. Application numbers with the
suffix ``M'' denote a modification request. These applications have
been separated from the new application for special permits to
facilitate processing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 2, 2012.
    Address Comments to: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC, or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special
permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR
1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 11, 2012.
Donald Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Regulation(s)         Nature of special
   Application No.          Docket No.             Applicant             affected            permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          MODIFICATION SPECIAL PERMITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12516-M.............  ......................  Poly-Coat Systems,   49 CFR               To modify the special
                                               Inc., Liverpool,     107.503(b)(c);       permit that authorizes
                                               TX.                  172.102(c)(3) B15    the manufacture, mark,
                                                                    and B23; 173.241;    sale and use of non-DOT
                                                                    173.242; 178.345-    specification cargo
                                                                    1; -2; -3; -4; -7;   tanks constructed of
                                                                    -14; -15; 178.347-   fiberglass reinforced
                                                                    1; -2; 178.348-1;    plastic by increasing
                                                                    178.348-2;           the volumetric
                                                                    180.405;             capacity.
                                                                    180.413(d).
14546-M.............  ......................  Linde Gas North      49 CFR 180.209.....  To modify the special
                                               America LLC,                              permit to authorize an
                                               Murray Hill, NJ.                          alternative testing
                                                                                procedures for
                                                                                requalifying cylinders.

15267-M.............  ......................  SMI Companies        49 CFR 171.8.......  To modify the special
                                               Franklin, LA.                             permit to change the
                                                                                design by removing the
                                                                                2'' nozzles on the top
                                                                                flange.
15599-M.............  ......................  Vodik Labs,          LLC 49 CFR 173.311.  To modify the special
                                               (formerly Ovonic                          permit to authorize
                                               Hydrogen Systems),                        cargo aircraft only.
                                               Fort Worth, TX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-17354 Filed 7-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE M


[Federal Register: October 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 50801-50802]
[DOCID:fr01oc09-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0461]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Format and Content of Proposed
Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS), REMS Assessments, and
Proposed REMS Modifications; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Format and
Content of Proposed Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS),
REMS Assessments, and Proposed REMS Modifications.'' The Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) added new provisions to
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) giving FDA the
authority to require REMS. The draft guidance describes the format and
content of a proposed risk evaluation and mitigation strategy,
including REMS supporting documentation, the content of assessments and
proposed modifications of approved REMS, what identifiers to use on
REMS documents, and how to communicate with FDA about a REMS.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance
by December 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or
the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development (HFM-40), Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. The
draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-
835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to
assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments
on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305),
Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the
draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Regarding questions for the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research: Kathleen Frost, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 4316,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regarding questions for the Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research: Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
(HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Suite
200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Format and Content of Proposed Risk Evaluation and
Mitigation Strategies (REMS), REMS Assessments, and Proposed REMS
Modifications.'' On September 27, 2007, the President signed into law
FDAAA (Public Law 110-85). Title IX, Subtitle A, section 901 of FDAAA
created new section 505-1 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the act) (21 U.S.C. 355-1). Section 505-1(a) of the act authorizes FDA
to require persons who submit certain applications or hold certain
approved applications\1\ to submit a proposed REMS if FDA determines
that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh
the risks of the drug and informs the holder of the application for the
drug of the determination. Sections 505-1(c) through (f) describe the
content of a required strategy. Section 505-1(g) describes assessments
and modifications of an approved strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 505-1(b)(2) of the act (21 U.S.C. 355(p)(1))
provides that section 505-1 of the act applies to applications for
prescription drugs approved under section 505(b) or (j) of the act
and applications approved under section 351 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262). See Section 505(p)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The draft guidance provides information regarding FDA's current
thinking on the format and content that should be used for submissions
of proposed REMS, including a description of REMS supporting
documentation. It also includes preliminary information on the content
of assessments and proposed modifications of approved REMS, information
on identifiers that should be included on the first page of REMS
submissions, and information on whom to contact to communicate with FDA
about a REMS.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on the format
and content of proposed REMS, REMS assessments, and proposed REMS
modifications. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any
person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative
approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains information collection provisions that are
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collection of information in the guidance was approved under OMB
control numbers 0910-0001 and 0910-0338.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm or http://
www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 25, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-23616 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: March 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 53)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14381-14384]
[DOCID:fr18mr08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 95

[Docket No. 30599; Amdt. No. 473]

IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required
IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for
certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a
minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This
regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the
safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument
conditions in the affected areas.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, April 10, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 95 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR
altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a
specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover
points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as
prescribed in part 95.

The Rule

    The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the
prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid
coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of
frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the
need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and
operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to
published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and
provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In
addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this
amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication
date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the
user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those
considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between
these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice
and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable
and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for
making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95

    Airspace, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 11, 2008.
James J. Ballough,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, April 10, 2008.

0
1. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.

0
2. Part 95 is amended as follows:

             Revisions to IFR Altitudes & Changeover Points
             [Amendment 473 effective date April 10, 2008 ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               From                           To                 MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Sec.   95.6001 Victor Routes--U.S.
     Sec.   95.6001 VOR Federal Airway V1 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salisbury, MD VORTAC.............  Waterloo, DE VOR/DME....        *2000
    *1500--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Sec.   95.6006 VOR Federal Airway V6 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selinsgrove, PA VORTAC...........  Snowy, PA FIX...........        *5000
    *3500--MOCA
    *4000--GNSS MEA
Snowy, PA FIX....................  Allentown, PA VORTAC....        *4000
    *3300--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Sec.   95.6008 VOR Federal Airway V8 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Matzo, UT FIX................  Bryce Canyon, UT VORTAC.        12300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6016 VOR Federal Airway V16 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tappa, VA FIX....................  Colin, VA FIX...........        *5000
    *1500--MOCA
    *2000--GNSS MEA
Colin, VA FIX....................  Patuxent, MD VORTAC.....        *5000
    *1400--MOCA
    *2000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6020 VOR Federal Airway V20 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tappa, VA FIX....................  Colin, VA FIX...........        *5000
    *1500--MOCA
    *2000--GNSS MEA
Colin, VA FIX....................  Nottingham, MD VORTAC...       *10000
    *1800--MOCA
    *2000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6025 VOR Federal Airway V25 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles, CA VORTAC...........  *Merma, CA FIX..........         2000
    *3000--MRA
*Merma, CA FIX...................  Exert, CA FIX...........         2000
    *3000--MRA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6031 VOR Federal Airway V31 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinny, PA FIX....................  *Suede, PA FIX..........      **12000
    *4500--MRA
    **5000--GNSS MEA
Suede, PA FIX....................  Gramo, PA FIX...........      **12000
    **5000--GNSS MEA
Gramo, PA FIX....................  Harrisburg, PA VORTAC...        *7000
    *5000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6033 VOR Federal Airway V33 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin, VA FIX....................  Nottingham, MD VORTAC...       *10000
    *1800--MOCA
    *2000--GNSS MEA
Vinny, PA FIX....................  *Suede, PA FIX..........      **12000
    *4500--MRA
    **5000--GNSS MEA
Suede, PA FIX....................  Gramo, PA FIX...........      **12000
    **5000--GNSS MEA
Gramo, PA FIX....................  Harrisburg, PA VORTAC...        *7000
    *5000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec.   95.6058 VOR Federal Airway V58 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Eared, PA FIX...................  Philipsburg, PA VORTAC..       **6000
    *4000--MRA
    **4100--MOCA
    **5000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6063 VOR Federal Airway V63 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wausau, WI VORTAC................  Rhinelander, WI VORTAC..  *4
                                                                     000
    *3500--MOCA
    USE AUW 005 RHI 185
     UNUSABLE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6091 VOR Federal Airway V91 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany, NY VORTAC................  Glens Falls, NY VORTAC..        *7000
    *5000--GNSS MEA
Glens Falls, NY VORTAC...........  Enson, VT FIX...........       *10000
    *5000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6099 VOR Federal Airway V99 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outte, CT FIX....................  Sorry, CT FIX...........       *10000
    *4000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6106 VOR Federal Airway V106 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymy, NH FIX....................  Kennebunk, ME VORTAC....        *5500
    *2200--MOCA
    *3000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6130 VOR Federal Airway V130 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany, NY VORTAC................  Stela, MA FIX...........        *6000
    *3900--MOCA
    *4000--GNSS MEA
Stela, MA FIX....................  Bradley, CT VORTAC......         3900
Bradley, CT VORTAC...............  Norwich, CT VOR/DME.....         2600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6146 VOR Federal Airway V146 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany, NY VORTAC................  Chester, MA VOR/DME.....         4100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6157 VOR Federal Airway V157 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tappa, VA FIX....................  Colin, VA FIX...........        *5000
    *1500--MOCA
    *2000--GNSS MEA
Colin, VA FIX....................  Patuxent, MD VORTAC.....        *5000
    *1400--MOCA
    *2000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6165 VOR Federal Airway V165 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles, CA VORTAC...........  *Valey, CA FIX..........         4000
    *5600--MCA VALEY, CA FIX, N
     BND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6210 VOR Federal Airway V210 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lancaster, PA VORTAC.............  Spery, PA FIX...........         2800
Spery, PA FIX....................  Yardley, PA VOR/DME.....        *3000
    *2200--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6213 VOR Federal Airway V213 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tappa, VA FIX....................  Colin, VA FIX...........        *5000
    *1500--MOCA
    *2000--GNSS MEA
Colin, VA FIX....................  Patuxent, MD VORTAC.....        *5000
    *1400--MOCA
    *2000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec.   95.6489 VOR Federal Airway V489 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany, NY VORTAC................  Glens Falls, NY VORTAC..        *7000
    *5000--GNSS MEA
Glens Falls, NY VORTAC...........  *Fairb, NY FIX..........         6000
    *8000--MRA
*Fairb, NY FIX...................  Leafy, NY FIX...........       **8000
    *8000--MRA
    **6000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     From                                         To                        MEA          MAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Sec.   95.7001 Jet Routes
                      Sec.   95.7029 Jet Route J29 Is Amended To Read in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humble, TX VORTAC.............................  El Dorado, AR VORTAC..................        18000        45000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Sec.   95.7101 Jet Route J101 Is Amended To Read in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lufkin, TX VORTAC.............................  Little Rock, AR VORTAC................        18300        45000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    Airway segment                                          Changeover points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     From                                         To                      Distance       From
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Sec.   95.8003 VOR Federal Airway Changeover Points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Is Amended To Delete Changeover Point V59:
    Beckley, WV VORTAC........................  Pulaski, VA VORTAC....................           46      Beckley
Is Amended To Add Changeover Point V59:
    Beckley, WV VORTAC........................  Parkersburg, WV VORTAC................           46      Beckley
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-5372 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P