[Federal Register: July 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 40907-40908]
[DOCID:fr25jy07-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56090; File No. SR-Amex-2007-73]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Extension of the iShares[supreg] Russell 2000[supreg] Index
Fund Option Pilot Program Until January 18, 2008

July 18, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 11, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Amex. The
Exchange has filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the existing pilot program that
increases the position and exercise limits for options on the
iShares[supreg]Russell 2000[supreg]Index Fund (``IWM'') traded on the
Exchange (``IWM Pilot Program''). The text of the proposed rule change
is available at Amex, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
http://www.amex.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend the IWM Pilot Program and to make
non-substantive changes to simplify the rule text describing the IWM
Pilot Program. The IWM Pilot Program will allow position and exercise
limits for options on IWM to remain at 500,000 contracts on a pilot
basis, for an additional six-month period through January 18, 2008.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ January 18, 2008 is the third Friday of the month (or
expiration Friday), which is the day on which the January 2008 IWM
options will expire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange established the IWM Pilot Program in January 2007.\6\
As noted in that filing, in June 2005, as a result of a 2-for-1 stock
split, the position limit for IWM options was temporarily increased
from 250,000 contracts (covering 25,000,000 shares) to 500,000
contracts (covering 50,000,000 shares). At the time of the split, the
furthest IWM option expiration date was January 2007. Therefore, the
temporary increase of the IWM position limit would have reverted to the
pre-split level (as provided for in connection with the Rule 904 Pilot
Program) of 250,000 contracts after expiration in January 2007, or on
January 22, 2007.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55163 (January 24,
2007), 72 FR 4547 (January 31, 2007).
    \7 \ See Amex Information Circular 05-0397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange continues to believe that a position limit of 250,000
contracts is too low and may be a deterrent to the successful trading
of IWM options. Importantly, options on IWM are \1/10\th the size of
options on the Russell 2000[supreg]Index (``RUT''), which have a
position limit of 50,000 contracts.\8\ Traders who trade IWM options to
hedge positions in RUT options are likely to find a position limit of
250,000 contracts in IWM options too restrictive and insufficient to
properly hedge. For example, if a trader held 50,000 RUT options and
wanted to hedge that position with IWM options, the trader would need--
at a minimum--500,000 IWM options to properly hedge the position.
Therefore, the Exchange continues to believe that a position limit of
250,000 contracts is too low and may adversely affect market
participants' ability to provide liquidity in this product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Amex Rule 904C; see also Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 45236 (January 2, 2002), 67 FR 1378 (January 10, 2002)
(increase of position and exercise limits to 300,000 for QQQ
options); and 51043 (January 14, 2005), 70 FR 3402 (January 24,
2005) (accelerated approval granted to increase position and
exercise limits for options on Standard and Poor's Depositary
Receipts[supreg]from 75,000 to 300,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Exchange also described in the proposal that established the
IWM Pilot Program, IWM options have grown to become one of the largest
options contracts in terms of trading volume. For example, through July
9, 2007, year-to-date industry volume in IWM options has averaged over
513,344 contracts per day, for a total of 61,167,982 million contracts.
In addition, through July 9, 2007, Amex volume in IWM options has
averaged 25,852 contracts per day for a total of 3,231,466 contracts.
    As a result, the Exchange proposes that options on IWM continue to
be subject to position and exercise limits of 500,000 contracts on a
pilot basis to run through January 18, 2008.\9\ The Exchange believes
that maintaining the increased position and exercise limits for IWM
options will lead to a more liquid and more competitive market
environment for IWM options that will benefit customers interested in
this product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Pursuant to Amex Rule 905, the exercise limit established
for IWM options shall be equivalent to the position limit prescribed
for IWM options in Commentary .07 to Amex Rule 904. The increased
exercise limits would only be in effect during the pilot period, to
run from June 22, 2007 through January 18, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will require that each member or member organization
that maintains a position on the same side of the market in excess of
10,000 contracts in the IWM option class, for its own account or for
the account of a customer report certain information.\10\ This data
would include, but would not be limited to, the option position,
whether such position is hedged and if so, a description of the hedge
and if applicable, the collateral used to carry the position. Exchange
Registered Options Traders and specialists would continue to be exempt
from this reporting requirement as market-maker information can be
accessed through the Exchange's market surveillance systems. In
addition, the general reporting requirement for customer accounts that
maintain a position in excess of 200 contracts will remain at this
level for IWM options.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Amex Rule 906(b).
    \11\ See Amex Rule 906(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in
that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and

open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
    Because the forgoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30 days
after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act\13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\15\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \16\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would permit position and exercise limits for options on IWM to
continue at 500,000 option contracts for a six-month pilot period. For
this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing with the Commission.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-Amex-2007-73 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-73. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of Amex. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-73 and should be
submitted on or before August 15, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14312 Filed 7-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 184)]
[Notices]
[Page 55470-55471]
[DOCID:fr22se06-85]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8221-8; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0756]

Evaluation of the Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 30-day public comment period for the draft
document titled, ``Evaluation of the Carcinogenicity of Ethylene
Oxide'' (EPA/635/R-06/003). The document was prepared by the National
Center for Environmental Assessment within EPA's Office of Research and
Development.
    EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of
seeking public comment and for review by the EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB) via a meeting to be held later in 2006 (time and place to be
specified in a separate Federal Register notice). This document has not
been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not
be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. EPA will
consider any public comments submitted in accordance with this notice
when revising the document.

DATES: The 30-day public comment period begins September 22, 2006, and
ends October 23, 2006. Technical comments should be in writing and must
be received by EPA by October 23, 2006.

ADDRESSES: The draft ``Evaluation of the Carcinogenicity of Ethylene
Oxide'' is available primarily via the Internet on the National Center
for Environmental Assessment's home page under the Recent Additions and
the Data and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited

number of paper copies are available from the Technical Information
Staff, NCEA-W; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you
are requesting a paper copy, please provide your name, your mailing
address, and the document title, ``Evaluation of the Carcinogenicity of
Ethylene Oxide.'' Please provide your name, your mailing address, the
title, and the EPA number of the requested publication.
    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov,

by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/courier. Please follow the
detailed instructions provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For technical information, contact Henry D. Kahn, D.Sc., NCEA;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Project/Document

    Ethylene oxide (EtO) is a gas at room temperature. It is
manufactured from ethylene and used primarily as a chemical
intermediate in the manufacture of ethylene glycol. It is also used as
a sterilizing agent for medical equipment and as a fumigating agent for
spices. The largest sources of human exposure are in occupations
involving contact with the gas in production facilities and in
hospitals that sterilize medical equipment. EtO can also be inhaled by
residents living near production or sterilizing/fumigating facilities.
    This draft assessment document characterizes the potential for a
carcinogenic health hazard from human inhalation exposure to EtO. This
is accomplished by a weight-of-evidence evaluation as to how likely EtO
is to be a human carcinogen, as well as an evaluation of related dose-
response information which leads to the development of lifetime cancer
risk estimates per unit of exposure. This assessment, when finalized,
will be posted to EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
database. The document was prepared by EPA's National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA). EPA last published a health assessment
of the potential carcinogenicity of EtO in 1985 (U.S. EPA, 1985).
    The current assessment reviews the more recently developed database
on the carcinogenicity of EtO, pertinent data from the 1985 assessment,
and several reviews and assessments issued by other organizations
(IARC, 1994; Health Canada, 2001; CalEPA, 1999; EOIC, 2001).

II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD 2006-
0756 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-
566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    If you submit comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit one
unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of
the comments. For attachments, provide an

index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an
unbound original and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2006-0756. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA

Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: September 15, 2006.
George W. Alapas,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 06-8054 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6125-6126]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2347]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

January 27, 2011.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2783-002.
    Applicants: Arthur Kill Power LLC
    Description: Arthur Kill Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Arthur Kill--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01262011 to be effective 10/8/
2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5100
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2784-002.
    Applicants: Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC
    Description: Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC submits tariff filing
per 35: Astoria--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01/26/2011 to be effective 10/
8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5106
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2795-002.
    Applicants: Conemaugh Power LLC
    Description: Conemaugh Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Conemaugh--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01262011 to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5107
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2798-002.
    Applicants: Connecticut Jet Power LLC
    Description: Connecticut Jet Power LLC submits tariff filing per
35: Connecticut Jet--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective
10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5129
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2799-002.
    Applicants: Devon Power LLC
    Description: Devon Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35: Devon--
Amendment to MBR Tariff 01/26/2011 to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5108
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2846-002.
    Applicants: Huntley Power LLC
    Description: Huntley Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Huntley--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01262011 to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5109
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2875-002.
    Applicants: Keystone Power LLC
    Description: Keystone Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5111
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2878-002.
    Applicants: Middleton Power LLC
    Description: Middleton Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Middleton--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5112
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2879-002.
    Applicants: Montville Power LLC
    Description: Montville Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Montville--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5113
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2880-002.
    Applicants: NEO Freehold LLC
    Description: NEO Freehold LLC submits tariff filing per 35: NEO
Freehold--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5115
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2888-002.
    Applicants: Norwalk Power LLC
    Description: Norwalk Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Norwalk--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5117
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2896-002.
    Applicants: NRG Energy Center Dover LLC
    Description: NRG Energy Center Dover LLC submits tariff filing per
35: ECD--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5118
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2913-002.
    Applicants: NRG Energy Center Paxton LLC
    Description: NRG Energy Center Paxton LLC submits tariff filing per
35: ECP--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5120
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2914-002.
    Applicants: NRG New Jersey Energy Sales LLC
    Description: NRG New Jersey Energy Sales LLC submits tariff filing
per 35: NJES--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/8/
2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5121
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2915-002.
    Applicants: NRG Rockford II LLC
    Description: NRG Rockford II LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Rockford II--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/8/
2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5122
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2916-002.
    Applicants: NRG Rockford LLC
    Description: NRG Rockford LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Rockford--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5123
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2932-002.
    Applicants: Somerset Power LLC
    Description: Somerset Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Somerset--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5125
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2947-002.
    Applicants: Vienna Power LLC
    Description: Vienna Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Vienna--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5126
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2969-002.
    Applicants: Oswego Harbor Power LLC
    Description: Oswego Harbor Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Oswego

Harbor--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5124
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3223-002.
    Applicants: Indian River Power LLC
    Description: Indian River Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Indian River--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/8/
2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5110
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-63-001.
    Applicants: Long Beach Peakers LLC
    Description: Long Beach Peakers LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Long Beach Peakers--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective
10/11/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5143
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-66-001.
    Applicants: Saguaro Power Company LP
    Description: Saguaro Power Company LP submits tariff filing per 35:
Saguaro--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/11/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5144
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2760-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2011-01-26 CAISO's Start-Up
and Minimum Load Amendment to be effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/26/2011
    Accession Number: 20110126-5395
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2761-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Service Agreement No. 146 under Florida Power
Corporation OATT to be effective 1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5012
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2762-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Service Agreement No. 148 under Florida Power
Corporation OATT to be effective 1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5104
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2763-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Service Agreement No. 145 under Florida Power
Corporation OATT to be effective 1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110127-5114
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2347 Filed 2-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

 Interregional Research Project #4

Pesticide Petition, PP# 4E8298

	EPA has received a pesticide petition, PP# 4E8298, from Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540
requesting, 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
establishing a tolerance for residues of methoxyfenozide, including its
metabolites and degradates. Compliance with the tolerance levels is to
be determined by measuring only the active ingredient: methoxyfenozide
3-methoxy-2-methylbenzoic acid
2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl) hydrazide. The petition
requests to establish the following tolerances in or on the raw
agricultural commodity under paragraph (a): Chive, fresh leaves at 30
parts per million (ppm); fruit, stone, group 12-12 except plum, prune,
fresh at 3.0 ppm; and nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.1 ppm.  Additionally,
the petition seeks to amend onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 5.0 ppm to
onion, green, subgroup 3-07B, except chive at 5.0 ppm; and Herb subgroup
19A, except chive at 400 ppm to Herb subgroup 19A, except chive, fresh
leaves at 400 ppm.

It is also proposed that the tolerances under paragraph (a) be removed
upon the approval of the proposed tolerances listed above: Fruit, stone,
group 12, except plum, prune, fresh at 3.0 ppm; pistachio at 0.10 ppm;
and nut, tree, group 14 at 0.1 ppm. Finally, it is proposed that the
tolerance under paragraph (d) of chive at 4.5 ppm be removed upon
approval of the proposed tolerances listed above.   EPA has determined
that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements
set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully
evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether
the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be
needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. Per the EPA analytical summary for methoxyfenozide
(D. Rate, US EPA, DP358341, June 10, 2009), the nature of the residue of
methoxyfenozide in plants has been studied in several plants (apple,
cotton, grape and rice) and is adequately understood.

	2. Analytical method. Per a recent 2012 decision on tolerances (M.
Collantes, US EPA, D388978, May 23, 2012), EPA stated adequate single
methods are available for tolerance enforcement in primary crops and
animal commodities.  Analytical methodology for the magnitude of residue
studies was based on Dow AgroSciences method GRM 02.25 “Determination
of Residues of Methoxyfenozide in High Moisture Crops by Liquid
Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry Detection“.

	3. Magnitude of residues. The proposed tolerance for chives, fresh
leaves at 30ppm is supported by magnitude of residue studies in chives
(fresh leaves). The amendment adding dried chives to complete Herb
subgroup 19A, except chive, fresh leaves, is supported by magnitude of
residue studies in chives (dried leaves). Thus, the established
tolerance of 400ppm for Herb subgroup 19A, except chive, fresh leaves is
adequately supported.

Interregional Regional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) recently completed
trials in chives with 1 day PHI (IR-4 PR No. 07240, December 20, 2013).
Residues of methoxyfenozide were determined following 4 foliar
applications of Intrepid 2F at 2 field locations in California and 1
field location in Maryland during the 2012 growing season.
Methoxyfenozide was applied at a target rate of 0.25 lb ai/A, for a
total of approximately 1.0 lb ai/A.  A surfactant was included in each
tank mix.  Marketable chives and chives for drying were collected 1 day
after the final application.  Methoxyfenozide observed residues in fresh
leaves ranged from 5.7 - 13 ppm with a HAFT of 12.5.  For the dried
leaves, methoxyfenozide observed residues ranged from 12 -118 ppm with a
HAFT of 115 ppm.  The LOD and LOQ values were calculated as 0.00160 ppm
and 0.00480 ppm, respectively for fresh chives and 0.0146 ppm and
0.0438ppm, respectively for dried chives.

IR-4 requests revisions to the following crop groups/subgroups based
upon established tolerances: stone fruit group 12-12 except plum, prune,
fresh; tree nut group 14-12.

B. Toxicological Profile The toxicological profile for methoxyfenozide
which supports this petition to revise tolerances was reviewed in 2009
(Rate, EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0012-0004, D357983, July 22, 2009) and again in
the 2012 Human Health review (Collantes, US EPA, D388978, May 23, 2012)
and the 2013 Human Health Assessment Scoping Document in Support of
Registration Review (Swartz, US EPA, D 408668), and the endpoints for
risk assessment are reiterated in EPA’s most recent dietary assessment
(EPA, Holman, D389738, March 2, 2012).  EPA has concluded “The
toxicity database is considered complete for the purposes of
characterizing the hazard associated with methoxyfenozide and for
conducting a human health risk assessment.”  EPA has not established
an acute reference dose for methoxyfenozide and the chronic RfD is
equivalent to the chronic PAD = 0.1 mg/kg/day, because the FQPA SF has
been reduced to 1X.

	1. Acute toxicity.  Per the 2009 Human Health review (Rate,
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0012-0004, D357983, July 22, 2009), no significant acute
hazards were attributable to a single exposure in the available
toxicology studies on methoxyfenozide including the acute neurotoxicity
study in rats, the developmental toxicity studying rats and the
developmental toxicity study in rabbits.  Since no acute toxicological
endpoints were established, no acute assessment is required.

	2. Genotoxicty. Per the 2009 Human Health review (Rate,
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0012-0004, D357983, July 22, 2009), methoxyfenozide
demonstrated a “lack of genotoxicity in an acceptable battery of
mutagenicity studies.”

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Per the 2009 Human Health
review (Rate, EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0012-0004, D357983, July 22, 2009),
methoxyfenozide “is not a developmental or reproductive toxicant”.
The toxicology data base available for methoxyfenozide included
acceptable developmental toxicity studies in both rats and rabbits as
well as a 2-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats.  The data
provided no indication of increased sensitivity of rats or rabbits to in
utero and/or postnatal exposure to methoxyfenozide.  EPA determined that
an additional safety factor was not needed for the protection of infants
and children (FQPA SF = 1x).

	4. Subchronic toxicity. Per the 2009 Human Health review (Rate,
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0012-0004, D357983, July 22, 2009), in subchronic and
chronic oral studies in rats, the most toxicologically significant
effects were mild anemia and mild effects on the liver, thyroid gland,
and adrenal gland. In subchronic and chronic oral studies in dogs, the
predominant toxic effect was anemia, which was often accompanied by
signs of a compensatory response.  In 2012 (Colantes, US EPA, D388978,
May 2012), new inhalation endpoints for Short-Term (1-30 days) and
Intermediate Term (1-6 months) were established with a NOAEL of 16.8
mg/kg/day for use in residential and occupational assessments.

	5. Chronic toxicity. Per the 2009 Human Health review (Rate,
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0012-0004, D357983, July 22, 2009), the chronic
population-adjusted dose (cPAD) is 0.1 mg/kg/day based on hematological
changes, liver toxicity, histopathological changes in thyroid and
possible adrenal toxicity observed at the LOAEL of 411 mg/kg/day in a
chronic toxicity study in rats.

	6. Animal metabolism. Per the 2009 Human Health review (Rate,
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0012-0004, D357983, July 22, 2009), in a metabolism
study in rats, 14C-methoxyfenozide was rapidly absorbed, distributed,
metabolized and almost completely excreted within 48 hours. The major
route of excretion was feces (86-97%) with lesser amounts in the urine
(5-13%).  Metabolism of methoxyfenozide in other animals (poultry and
ruminants) appears to be similar to its metabolism in rats.  Per the EPA
analytical summary for methoxyfenozide (D. Rate, US EPA, DP358341, June
10, 2009), the qualitative nature of methoxyfenozide residues in
livestock are adequately understood based on ruminant and poultry
metabolism studies.  The residue of concern is parent in milk and
ruminant tissues (except meat byproducts), poultry meat and fat.  The
residues of concern in meat byproducts and eggs are methoxyfenozide and
the RH-141,518 metabolite.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. Per the 2009 Human Health review (Rate,
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0012-0004, D357983, July 22, 2009), in a metabolism
study in rats, methoxyfenozide is metabolized principally by
O-demethylation of the A-ring methoxy group and oxidative hydroxylation
of the B-ring methyl groups followed by conjugation with glucuronic
acid. No significant sex-related or dose-dependent differences in
metabolic disposition were noted. The methoxyfenozide glucuronide
conjugates are considered to be less toxic than the parent compound
because glucuronide conjugation is well known to be a commonly occurring
detoxification mechanism in mammalian species since it results in the
formation of more polar, more water-soluble metabolites which are
readily and easily excreted from the body (in this case, in the bile and
urine). Further, based on similarities of chemical structure, the
non-conjugated metabolites would be expected to be no more toxic than
the parent compound. Furthermore, HED has covered potential metabolite
exposure by inclusion of RH-141,518 along with the parent
methoxyfenozide in the residue of concern for certain commodities:
ruminant liver and kidney, eggs, poultry liver and poultry meat
byproducts.

	8. Endocrine disruption. The available mammalian toxicity and
toxicokinetic studies on methoxyfenozide, including a 2-generation
reproduction study, developmental toxicity studies in two species, and
repeat dose toxicity studies ranging from 28 days to 2 year studies in
three species (rat, mouse, and dog), do not demonstrate that
methoxyfenozide possesses endocrine disrupting properties that are
relevant to humans.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. The starting point for this assessment was the
DEEM file from the 2013 EPA dietary assessment (EPA, Holman, D412460,
July 16, 2013).  The Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model™ (DEEM-FCID,
ver. 3.14) software was employed.  DEEM contains food consumption data
based on NHANES 2-day food Consumption data for 2003 to 2008 and food
translation to RACs, as indicated by EPA/USDA FCID recipe set as of
February 2012.

	i. Food. A chronic assessment was conducted to evaluate potential
chronic dietary exposure of the U.S. population subgroups to residues of
methoxyfenozide.  These analyses cover all registered crops, as well the
proposed tolerances for chives, and also includes pineapple which is
currently under review.  Additionally, the analyses include tolerances
for peas, blackeyed, seed and pea, southern, seed at 4.0ppm (these were
omitted from the DEEM file in D412460, perhaps as an oversight when crop
group 6C was revised (D412460, Table 1). The current dietary assessment
is an unrefined Tier I assessment using tolerance values and 100%
crop-treated assumption to estimate dietary exposure to methoxyfenozide
and default processing factors for all food commodities, with the
exception of a methoxyfenozide-specific processing factor for orange
juice (0.2X).

	ii. Drinking water. There are no water-related exposure data from
monitoring to complete a quantitative drinking water exposure analysis
and risk assessment for methoxyfenozide.  The previous EPA estimates of
43.4 ppb were conservatively increased by EFED based on new model
assumptions in 2013 (Milians, US EPA, D407566, April 23, 2013).  For
potential drinking water exposures, the new value of 251 ppb has been
directly incorporated in the DEEM-FCID into the food categories
“water, direct, all sources” and “water, indirect, all sources.”

Per the 2009 Human Health review (Rate, EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0012-0004,
D357983, July 22, 2009), the established chronic endpoints are cRfD =
cPAD = 0.10 mg/kg/day.  The Tier-I DEEM exposure for food and water with
revised proposed tolerances resulted in an estimated exposure of
0.031627 mg/kg/day for the US general population which is 31.6% of the
chronic RfD.  For the most highly exposed population subgroup, children
1 to 2 years old, the estimated exposure is 0.085929 mg/kg /day at 85.9%
of cPAD.  These results are conservative (health protective) risk
estimates.  Refinements such as use of percent crop-treated information
and/or anticipated residue values would yield lower estimates of chronic
dietary exposure.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. A new use in ornamentals was approved for
methoxyfenozide in 2009.  Per the 2012 review (Collantes, US EPA,
D388978, May 23, 2012), EPA made the conservative interpretation that
the label did not preclude homeowner use on ornamentals. Thus in
accordance with FQPA, EPA conducted an aggregate assessment to include
residential handler exposure for adults in the most recent review
(Collantes, US EPA, D407285, August 6, 2013).  The dietary exposure of
the general adult US population was aggregated with exposure estimates
from residential use of a backpack sprayer treatment of ornamentals.
The calculated exposure resulted in an aggregate MOE of 530, which is
significantly higher than the stated LOC of 100 for methoxyfenozide, and
thus is not of concern.  The current assessment resulted in slightly
higher estimates of adult dietary exposure but no change in the MOE for
adults which remained at 530; the risk estimate is not of concern for
adults.  It is also noted that for children, the EPA concluded that:
“there are no residential uses of methoxyfenozide that would result in
significant postapplication exposure to children, based on ornamental
use only.  Therefore the aggregate exposure and risk for children is
equivalent to those from food and water.”

D. Cumulative Effects

	Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to
establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency considers
“available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide’s residues and “other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.”  EPA does not have, at this time,
available data to determine whether methoxyfenozide has a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this
pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment.  Unlike other pesticides for
which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common
mechanism of toxicity, methoxyfenozide does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances.  For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, it is assumed that methoxyfenozide does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Using the DEEM 3.16 exposure assumptions described
above, the dietary and water exposure to methoxyfenozide from the
current and proposed new tolerances will utilize 31.6% of the chronic
RfD for the US population.  EPA generally has no concern for exposures
below 100% of the chronic RfD. It is concluded that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to US-general population
from dietary exposure to methoxyfenozide residues. When the food, water
and residential exposures are aggregated for adults, the resulting MOEs
are 530, which are well above the LOC of 100; values above the LOC are
typically not of a concern for the Agency.

	2. Infants and children. Per the 2009 Human Health review (Rate,
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0012-0004, D357983, July 22, 20090, EPA has previously
determined that an additional safety factor was not needed for the
protection of infants and children (FQPA SF = 1x).  Using the DEEM
exposure assumptions described above for the dietary and water exposure
to methoxyfenozide with the current and proposed new tolerances, the
highest exposed subpopulation is children 1-2 years at 85.9% of the
cPAD.  EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the cPAD
because the cPAD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate
dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to
human health.  The residential uses are not anticipated to result in
exposure to children, so the aggregate exposure is equivalent to the
dietary exposure, and therefore is not of concern.

F. International Tolerances

	Several governing bodies have established Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs)
for methoxyfenozide in a variety of crops.  The related international
MRLs are found in the following table based on a review of MRLs compiled
by searches in the USDA MRL database ( HYPERLINK
"http://www.mrldatabase.com/results.cfm"
http://www.mrldatabase.com/results.cfm ), Homologa ( HYPERLINK
"http://www.homologa.com/" http://www.homologa.com/ ), the EU SANCO
website ( HYPERLINK
"http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/index.cfm"
http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/index.cfm ), Japan MRL
listing ( HYPERLINK
"http://www.m5.ws001.squarestart.ne.jp/foundation/agrdtl.php?a_inq=75700
"
http://www.m5.ws001.squarestart.ne.jp/foundation/agrdtl.php?a_inq=75700
) and the Australian MRL website ( HYPERLINK
"http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014C00164/Download%20"
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014C00164/Download  ).  Homologa is a
third party database; Dow AgroSciences makes no claim regarding the
verification of these values relative to the individual national
authoritative sources.

Commoditya	Existing MRLa

(ppm)	Regulatory Authority

Chives	4	EU SANCO

Herbs	T20	Australia

‘Other herbs’	30	Japan

‘Other spices’	30	Japan

a as listed on regulatory authority websites

b A “T” denotes that the MRL or ERL, residue definition or use is
temporary to enable further experimental work to be carried out in
Australia or overseas, and will be reconsidered at some future date.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

	1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:	September 18, 2012

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document for Maryland’s Adoption of
Amendments to Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements for
Volatile Organic Compounds

				/s/

FROM:	Jacqueline Lewis, Environmental Engineer

Office of Air Program Planning

TO:		File

				/s/

THRU: 	Donna Mastro, Acting Associate Director

Office of Air Program Planning

A.  BACKGROUND

	The Clean Air Act (CAA) section 172(c)(1) provides that state
implementation plans (SIPs) for nonattainment areas must include
“reasonably available control measures” (RACM), including
“reasonably available control technology ” (RACT), for sources of
emissions.  Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment
areas, states must revise their SIPs to include RACT for sources of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions covered by a control
techniques guidelines (CTGs) document issued after November 15, 1990 and
prior to the area’s date of attainment.

	The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines RACT as
“the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of
meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility.” See 44
FR 53761 (Sept. 17, 1979).  In subsequent Federal Register notices, EPA
has addressed how states can meet the RACT requirements of the CAA.

	CAA section 183(e) directs EPA to list for regulation those categories
of products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions,
on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial products in
areas that violate the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for ozone (i.e., ozone nonattainment areas).  EPA issued the list on
March 23, 1995, and has revised the list periodically. See 60 FR 15264
(March 23, 1995); see also 71 FR 28320 (May 16, 2006), 70 FR 69759 (Nov.
17, 2005), and 64 FR 13422 (Mar. 18, 1999).

EPA develops CTGs as guidance on control requirements for specific
source categories.  The CTGs are intended to provide state and local air
pollution control authorities information that should assist them in
determining RACT for VOC.  Maryland has submitted revisions to the SIP
to address the following source categories: (1) paper, film, and foil
coatings; (2) industrial cleaning solvents; (3) miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts coatings; (4) large appliance coatings; (5) offset
lithographic printing and letterpress printing; (6) flat wood paneling
coatings; and (7) flexible package printing.

In 1977, 1978, 1993 and 1994, EPA developed CTGs for all the source
categories listed above, and in 2006, 2007 and 2008 EPA developed new
CTGs for these source categories after conducting a review of existing
state and local VOC emission reduction approaches for these industries,
reviewing the original CTGs, Alternative Control Techniques (ACTs), and
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and taking into account the
information that has become available since then.  EPA’s new CTGs are
entitled Control Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film, and Foil
Coatings (EPA 453/R-07-003, September 2007), Control Techniques
Guidelines: Industrial Cleaning Solvents (EPA 453/R-06-001, September
2006), Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic
Parts Coatings (EPA-453/R-08-003, September 2008), Control Techniques
Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings (EPA 453/R-07-004, September
2007), Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing
and Letterpress Printing (EPA-453/R-06-002, September 2006), Control
Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings (EPA 453/R-06-004,
September 2006), and Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package
Printing (EPA 453/R-06-003, September 2006).  These new CTGs include new
general requirements along with testing, work practice, and
recordkeeping requirements.

B.  STATE SUBMITTAL

On April 5, 2012, EPA received a SIP revision from the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) to address sources of VOC emissions
covered by EPA’s CTGs for seven source categories.  These categories
are (1) paper, film, and foil coatings; (2) industrial cleaning
solvents; (3) miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings; (4) large
appliance coatings; (5) offset lithographic printing and letterpress
printing; (6) flat wood paneling coatings; and (7) flexible package
printing.  This SIP revision amends Regulation .04 Testing and
Monitoring under COMAR 26.11.01 General Administrative Provisions and
Regulation .02 Applicability, Determining Compliance, Reporting, and
General Requirements under COMAR 26.11.19 for subsections (D) Test
Methods, (E) Computations, (G) Control of Major Stationary Sources of
Volatile Organic Compounds, and (I) Good Operating Practices, Equipment
Cleanup, and VOC Storage.

 COMAR 26.11.01 General Administrative Provisions

Regulation .04 Testing and Monitoring under COMAR 26.11.01 General
Administrative Provisions provides updated provisions for the test
methods that are referenced under COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>.  These amendments
are incorporated by reference under Section C. Emissions Test Methods
and now read as follows.

C. Emission Test Methods. The following test methods are incorporated by
reference:

(1) 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, as amended;

                                                         (2) The
Department's Technical Memorandum 91-01, "Test Methods and Equipment
Specifications for Stationary Sources," January 1991, as amended through
Supplement 3 (October 1, 1997); and

(3) For PM10 stack tests, the following EPA approved test methods shall
be used:

(a) Test Methods 201 A and 202 in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M, as
amended;

(b) Test Method 5 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, as amended) and Test
Method 202 in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M, as amended;

(c) Test Method 5 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, as amended) using front
half and back half procedure;

(d) EPA Conditional Test Method 39 may be substituted for Test Method
202 in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M, as amended; or

(e) Alternative test methods may be used for PM10 if they are approved
by the Department and the EPA.

COMAR  26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes

	Top of Form

 B

The amendments to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> (D), (E), and (I) apply to sources
covered by the CTG categories and other regulations and processes
involving testing, cleaning solutions, solvents, or degreasing materials
covered under COMAR 26.11.19.  These amendments make the requirements
more consistent with EPA’s CTGs guidance for alternative test methods,
calculation methods, and work practice standards.

COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>(D) (Test Methods) establishes methods, procedures and
requirements for the alternative testing of control devices.  The
revision amends COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>(D)(2) by requiring sources that use
air pollution control equipment to comply with the requirements of this
chapter make the determination in accordance with COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>(C).
The revision also adds COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>(D)(3) requiring MDE and U.S.
EPA approval if a source chooses to determine compliance using
alternative test methods.

COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>(E) (Computations) establishes the method required to
determine composite vapor pressure of solvent cleaning material.  This
revision adds sections (3), (4), and (5) to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> (E)
entitled Computations which read as follows.

 (3) The composite vapor pressure of organic compounds for any cleaning
solution, solvent, or degreasing material shall be determined as
follows:

(a) The composite vapor pressure of organic compounds shall be
determined by quantifying the amount of each compound in the blend using
gas chromatographic analysis (ASTM E 260-91) for organics and ASTM
D3792-79 for water content, as applicable, and the following equation:

∑(Wi)(VPi)/Mwi] / [Ww/Mww + ∑We/Mwe + ∑Wi/Mwi]

Where:

Ppc = VOC composite partial pressure at 200 C, in mm Hg

Wi = Weight of the “I”th VOC compound, in grams, as determined by
ASTM E 260-91

Ww = Weight of water, in grams as determined by ASTM D 3792-86

We = Weight of the “I”th exempt compound, in grams, as determined by
ASTM E 260-91

Mwi = Molecular weight of the “I”th VOC compound, in grams per
g-mole, as given in chemical reference literature

Mww = Molecular weight of water, 18 grams per g-mole

Mwe =Molecular weight of the “I”th exempt compound, in grams per
g-mole, as given in chemical reference literature

Vpi = Vapor pressure of the “I”th VOC compound at 20 C, in mm Hg, as
determined by §E(4)(b) of this regulation.

(b) The vapor pressure of each single component compound may be
determined from ASTM D2879-86, or may be obtained from a material safety
data sheet or another source approved by the Department.

(4) The mass VOC to mass solids applied for coatings, adhesives, or inks
shall be determined as follows:

(a) The VOC content, water content, density, volume solids, and weight
solids for any coating, adhesive, or ink used pursuant to the
requirements of this chapter shall be determined as specified in COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>C.

(b) The weight of coating solids shall be calculated as follows:

VOCS = Wv – Ww – Wex/ Wn

Where:

VOCS = VOC content in lb VOC/lb of coating solids or in kg VOC/kg of
coating solids

Wv = 100% - Wn

Ww = Weight percent of water

Wex = Weight percent of exempt solvents

Wn = Weight percent of solids of the as applied coating

(5) The weight of VOC in units of weight VOC per weight coating applied
(in pounds VOC/pounds coating applied or in VOC/kg coating applied) for
coatings, adhesives, or inks shall be determined as follows:

(a) The VOC content, water content, density, volume solids, and weight
solids for any coating, adhesive, or ink used pursuant to the
requirements of this chapter shall be determined as specified in COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>C.

 (b) The weight of coating solids shall be calculated as follows:

VOCM = Wv - Ww - Wex

Where:

VOCM = VOC content in lb VOC/lb of coating or in kg VOC/kg of coating

Wv = 100% - Wn

Ww = Weight percent of water

Wex = Weight percent of exempt solvents

Wn = Weight percent of solids of the as applied coating

COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>(I) (Good Operating Practices, Equipment Cleanup, and
VOC Storage) establishes requirements for the handling of solvents and
cleaning material.  This revision adds three additional good operating
practice requirements under COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>(I) (2)(b).  They include
minimizing spills of VOC-containing cleaning materials, minimizing VOC
emissions from cleaning of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment and
also require that closed containers or pipelines be used to convey
equipment and convey VOC-containing cleaning materials from one location
to another.

The amendment to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> (G) (Control of Major Stationary
Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds) exempts additional VOC RACT
regulations that had not been adopted since 1991.  This amendment makes
references to specific VOC RACT regulations and reads as follows:

G. Control of Major Stationary Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds.

(1) This section applies to a person who owns or operates any major
stationary source of VOC that is not subject to any VOC emission
standard in COMAR 26.11.10, 26.11.11, 26.11.13, 26.11.14, or Regulations
.03—.33 of this chapter.

C.  EPA EVALUATION

The State of Maryland has adopted these amendments to address sources of
VOC emissions covered by EPA’s seven CTGs listed above.  Maryland
already had regulations in place which reduced VOC emissions from these
source categories, and these amendments make the requirements more
consistent with EPA’s CTG guidance for alternative test methods,
calculations methods, and work practice standards.  Therefore the VOC
emissions reductions are expected to be minimal.

D.  PUBLIC COMMENT

	During the State’s public comment period, no comments were received.

E.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

The adoption of various test methods, calculations methods, and work
practice standards for (1) paper, film, and foil coatings; (2)
industrial cleaning solvents; (3) miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
coatings; (4) large appliance coatings; (5) offset lithographic printing
and letterpress printing; (6) flat wood paneling coatings; and (7)
flexible package printing by the State of Maryland will strengthen
Maryland SIP.  EPA approval of the SIP revision is recommended.

 PAGE

 PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25979-25981]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10359]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72066; File No. SR-FINRA-2014-022]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Delay the Implementation Date of SR-FINRA-2013-
046

May 1, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 24, 2014, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to delay the implementation date of amendments
pursuant to SR-FINRA-2013-046. The proposed rule change would not make
any changes to the text of FINRA rules.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On November 13, 2013, FINRA filed a proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-
2013-046) to amend the FINRA Rule 6700 Series and the Trade Reporting
and Compliance Engine (``TRACE'') dissemination protocols to provide
for dissemination of additional Asset-Backed Securities (``ABS'')
transactions and to reduce the reporting period for such securities.\4\
The proposed rule change also included amendments to: (1) Redefine the
term ``Asset-Backed Security'' to accurately describe the securities
for which FINRA will commence dissemination pursuant to the rule
change; and (2) make other definitional, technical and conforming
changes.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70906 (November 20,
2013), 78 FR 70602 (November 26, 2013) (Notice of Filing of File No.
SR-FINRA-2013-046) (``Proposing Release'').
    \5\ See Proposing Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change, as amended,\6\ was approved by the
Commission on February 24, 2014.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In response to comments received by the Commission, on
February 14, 2014, FINRA filed Amendment No. 1 to, among other
things, modify certain definitions in FINRA Rule 6710 (Definitions)
to revise the types of products that are to be included in the
additional ABS transactions that would be subject to dissemination
under FINRA Rule 6750 (Dissemination of Transaction Information) and
the reduced reporting times specified in FINRA Rule 6730
(Transaction Reporting).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71607 (February 24,
2014), 79 FR 11481 (February 28, 2014) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2013-046).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is filing this proposed rule change to revise the time frame
for implementation of SR-FINRA-2013-046 to provide additional time to
complete the technological changes required for the dissemination of
the additional securities. In SR-FINRA-2013-046, FINRA stated that it
would announce the effective date of the rule change in a Regulatory
Notice to be published no later than April 25, 2014, and that the
effective date would be no later than 270 days following publication of
the Regulatory Notice. However, FINRA has since discovered that the
technology changes required to implement the rule change will require
additional time and, therefore, is delaying the time frame both for the
publication of the Regulatory Notice and the implementation of the
amendments pursuant to SR-FINRA-2013-046. Specifically, FINRA will
issue a Regulatory Notice announcing the implementation date of SR-
FINRA-2013-046 no later than August 22, 2014. The implementation date
of the amendments pursuant to SR-FINRA-2013-046 will be no later than
365 days following publication of the Regulatory Notice.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that
the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the
date of the filing, so FINRA can implement the proposed rule change
immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
15A(b)(6) of the Act in that it provides the required additional time
to complete technological changes that will enable the dissemination of
the additional securities, which will improve transparency for
investors, including by facilitating the ability of investors to
identify and negotiate fair and competitive prices for ABSs.
Dissemination of ABS transactions also may assist both buy and sell-
side market participants in price discovery when pricing and trading
such securities. Thus, the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\9\ in that it will provide adequate time
for FINRA to properly implement the required technology changes such
that the launch of the new functionality will operate effectively when
dissemination is commenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Based on the characteristics of
the market, FINRA believes that additional price transparency in the
ABS market may enhance the ability of investors to identify and
negotiate fair and competitive prices for these securities. In
addition, dissemination may assist institutional and retail customers
in determining the quality of executions provided to them, which should
encourage broker-dealers to provide competitive executions in such
securities.
    Further, because the additional securities that are the subject of
SR-FINRA-2013-046 currently are not being disseminated, the delay of
the implementation does not change the status quo or involve any
disparate treatment among affected parties. Finally, FINRA believes
that providing adequate time to properly implement the required
technology changes such that the launch of the new functionality
operates effectively when dissemination is commenced will benefit all
interested parties. Thus, FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule
change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
FINRA has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay
because the deadline set forth in SR-FINRA-2013-046 for publication of
a Regulatory Notice announcing that filing's effective date would occur
during the operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest because such action would implement the
extension for FINRA's publication of a Regulatory Notice announcing SR-
FINRA-2013-046's effective date before the current

deadline for such publication expires. Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative
upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2014-022 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2014-022. 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 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-2014-022 and should be
submitted on or before May 27, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-10359 Filed 5-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 239)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 70780]
[DOCID:fr13de07-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 161 and 165

[CGD01-04-133]
RIN 1625-AB17

Regulated Navigation Area; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; Navigable
Waterways Within the First Coast Guard District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is making two technical corrections to a Final
Rule published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2007. The Final
Rule titled ``Regulated Navigation Area; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts;
Navigable Waterways within the First Coast Guard District'' contained
imprecise and potentially confusing cross references regarding the
applicability of certain regulations implemented by the rule. The
revised wording provided in this correction is intended to clarify the
intent of the final rule and eliminate any possible confusion.

DATES: This correction is effective as of December 13, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public concerning
this correction will be made part of the docket for the underlying rule
and will be available for inspection and copying at the offices of
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, East Providence
Office, 20 Risho Avenue, East Providence, RI 02914, between 8 a.m. and
3 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc at Coast Guard
Sector Southeastern New England, East Providence, RI,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 30, 2007, the Coast Guard published a Final Rule titled
``Regulated Navigation Area; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; Navigable
Waterways within the First Coast Guard District'' to amend an existing
Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) within the waters of the First Coast
Guard District. (72 FR 50052). Specifically, the Final Rule required
that certain tank vessels and tug/barge combinations transiting
Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, be accompanied by escort tugs and pilots
operating under a properly endorsed Federal pilot's license. To further
this objective, the Coast Guard also established a Vessel Movement
Reporting System (VMRS) for Buzzards Bay, and requires that vessels
subject to the Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge VHF Radiotelephone regulations
participate in the VMRS. This correction alters two potentially
confusing cross-references to regulations mentioned in the final rule.
The substantive requirements of the rule are not altered by this
technical correction.

Need for Correction

    The Final Rule amended parts 161 and 165 of Title 33 of the Code of
Regulations. As explained in the preamble to the Final Rule, the
inserted language was intended to make the general VMRS operating
requirements, set forth in subpart B of part 161, applicable to all
vessels transiting Buzzard's Bay that are subject to the Vessel Bridge-
to-Bridge Radiotelephone Regulations, set forth in 33 CFR part 26. The
Final Rule, as published, however, erroneously referred to ``Subpart B
of this chapter'' and ``Subpart B of this part'' in part 161 and part
165, respectively, instead of referring to ``Subpart B of part 161'' in
the revisions of both part 161 and part 165. The language substituted
by this correction is intended to eliminate any potential confusion
regarding what vessels are required to participate in the Buzzard's Bay
VMRS, and what is required of those vessels.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 161

    Harbors, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Vessels, Waterways.

33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR parts 161 and 165 as follows:

PART 161--VESSEL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 161 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 70114, 70117; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  161.12, revise footnote 5 of table 161.12(c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  161.12  Vessel operating requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

    \5\ In addition to the vessels denoted in Section 161.16 of this
chapter, requirements set forth in subpart B of 33 CFR part 161 also
apply to any vessel transiting VMRS Buzzards Bay required to carry a
bridge-to-bridge radiotelephone by part 26 of this chapter.

* * * * *

PART 165--WATERWAYS SAFETY; REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED
ACCESS AREAS

0
3. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
4. In Sec.  165.100, revise(d)(5)(iv) to read as follows:

Sec.  165.100  Regulated Navigation Area: Navigable waters within the
First Coast Guard District.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iv) In addition to the vessels denoted in Sec.  161.16 of this
chapter, requirements set forth in subpart B of 33 CFR part 161 also
apply to any vessel transiting VMRS Buzzards Bay required to carry a
bridge-to-bridge radiotelephone by Part 26 of this chapter.
* * * * *

    Dated: November 29, 2007.
T.V. Skuby,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E7-24128 Filed 12-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 198 (Wednesday, October 14, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61750]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26009]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0905]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River,
Dubuque, IA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Illinois Central Railroad
Drawbridge across the Mississippi River, mile 579.9, at Dubuque, Iowa.
The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner time to complete
electrical and mechanical upgrades and replace the control house
essential to the continued safe operation of the drawbridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on October 21, 2015 to 1
p.m. on October 22, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, (USCG-2015-0905) is available
at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge
Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad
requested a temporary deviation for the Illinois Central Railroad
Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 579.9, at Dubuque,
Iowa to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. to 1
p.m., on October 21 and 22, 2015 to complete electrical and mechanical
upgrades and replace the control house essential to the continued safe
operation of the drawbridge.
    The Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge currently operates in
accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement that
the drawbridge shall open on signal.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section
of the Upper Mississippi River. The bridge cannot open in case of
emergency.
    The Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge provides a vertical
clearance of 19.9 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation
position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial
tows and recreational watercraft and will not be significantly
impacted. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway
users. No objections were received.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 6, 2015.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator, Eight Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-26009 Filed 10-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P