UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 13, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN

DOCKETS OST-2003-15021 and OST-2001-8910

________________________________________________________________________
______

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of  American Airlines, Inc.  filed  February 3, 2004, and
supplemented

February 5, 2004, for:

XX  Limited dormancy waiver  to preserve two of American’s
Miami-Medellin, Colombia frequencies from the March 31, 2004, blanket
dormancy waiver expiration date, through June 30, 2004.

Background

Order 2003-4-18 granted U.S. passenger carriers holding limited
international route authority a blanket waiver of the dormancy
conditions applicable to their authorities through March 31, 2004.  The
order also required U.S. carriers to notify the Department in writing no
later than February 15, 2004, of the limited-entry rights that they will
not be using beginning April 1.  Finally, Order 2003-4-18 provided that
carriers are free to seek extension of the dormancy waiver beyond March
31, 2004, for specific city-pair limited-entry services where they can
demonstrate that circumstances warrant.

American filed a Notice of its intent to increase its nonstop service
between Miami and Medellin, Colombia, from five days a week to daily,
effective June 15, 2004.  It included with that Notice an application
for an interim waiver for two Miami-Medellin frequencies beyond the
March 31 date until June 15, 2004.  American stated that it would poll
all parties served with its application for non-objections.  By letter
dated February 4, 2004, American advised the Department that there are
no objections to its application.

By letter dated February 5, 2004, American requested that its waiver
request date be extended until June 30, 2004, citing the Department’s
amendment to a Delta notice of February 5, extending Delta’s request
relating to the Atlanta-Buenos Aires market.  American requests similar
treatment in regard to its Miami-Medellin application.

Applicant rep:  Carl B. Nelson, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT analyst:    Linda Senese,<PHONE_NUMBER>

DISPOSITION

XX  Granted (see Remarks below)

The above action was effective when taken   February 13, 2004, through
June 30, 2004.

2

XX  Action taken by:	Paul L. Gretch, Director

			Office of International Aviation

___________________________

Remarks:  We find that grant of American’s request, in the particular
circumstances presented, is in the public interest.  However, we are
putting American on notice that there should be no expectation that an
additional request will necessarily be granted.  Any future request to
extend the dormancy waiver for the frequencies at issue here will have
to be considered in light of any specific arguments offered and
responses thereto, and in the context of the circumstances present at
that time, including whether another carrier seeks to use the
frequencies at issue.

________________________________________________________________________
____

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that

 (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; and (2) grant of
the authority was consistent with the public interest.  To the extent
not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may
amend, modify, or revoke the action taken in this Notice at any time
without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

 American’s waiver from the dormancy condition is effective through
June 30, 2004, or until the date on which American begins service with
each of these frequencies, whichever occurs earlier.  As to any
frequency with which American does not begin service by June 30, 2004,
its frequency allocation with respect to that frequency expires
automatically.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24604-24605]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09574]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL_9944-27-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Alabama

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Alabama's
request to revise/modify its General Pretreatment Regulations for
Existing and New Sources of Pollution EPA-authorized program to allow
electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective April 26, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements. Once an authorized
program has EPA's approval to accept electronic documents under certain
programs, CROMERR Sec.  3.1000(a)(4) requires that the program keep EPA
apprised of any changes to laws, policies, or the electronic document
receiving systems that have the potential to affect the program's
compliance with CROMERR Sec.  3.2000.
    On October 14, 2014, the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) submitted an amended application titled ``Electronic
Environmental Data Exchange Reporting System'' for revision/
modification to its EPA-approved pretreatment program under title 40
CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed ADEM's request to
revise/modify its EPA-authorized Part 403--General Pretreatment
Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution and, based on
this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for
approval of authorized program revision/modification set out in 40 CFR
part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of
EPA's decision to approve Alabama's request to revise/modify its Part
403--General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of
Pollution to allow

electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 403-471 is being published in
the Federal Register.
    ADEM was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application
with respect to the authorized program listed above.

Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2016-09574 Filed 4-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 132 (Thursday, July 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39457-39458]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16284]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors
Meeting.

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

TIME AND DATE: The meeting will be held on July 31, 2014, from 12:00
Noon to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.

PLACE: This meeting will be open to the public via conference call. Any
interested person may call 1-877-422-1931, passcode<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
listen and participate in this meeting.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on: July 8, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-16284 Filed 7-8-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: February 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 7103-7106]
[DOCID:fr10fe06-132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53213; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-80]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to NYSE Rule 36, RCMMs' Ability to
Use Exchange Authorized and Issued Portable Phones on the NYSE Floor

February 2, 2006.
    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 November 22, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'' 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 prepared by the Exchange. On January
18, 2006, NYSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\
NYSE filed this proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \4\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder \5\ as non-controversial, and therefore
the proposed rule change is effective immediately upon filing. The
Commission is publishing this notice, as amended, 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\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange clarified proposed NYSE
Rule 36.22 and added in the purpose section a new footnote relating
to surveillance and examination procedures to monitor the activities
of RCMMs.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This filing amends NYSE Rule 36 to permit Registered Competitive
Market Makers (``RCMMs''), as defined in NYSE Rule 107A, to use
Exchange authorized and provided portable phones and consists of
proposed member education bulletins which describe the conditions under
which Floor brokers and RCMMs may use such phones pursuant to the
Exchange's portable phone pilot (``Pilot''). The conditions under which
a Floor broker and a RCMM may use a portable phone pursuant to the
Pilot are proposed as NYSE Rules 36.21 and 36.22.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
Background
    The Commission approved implementation of the Exchange's amendment
to NYSE Rule 36 allowing Floor brokers to use Exchange authorized and
provided portable phones on the Exchange Floor as a six-month pilot \6\
beginning no later than June 23, 2003.\7\ Since the inception of the
Pilot, the Exchange has extended the Pilot five times, with the current
Pilot expiring on January 31, 2006.\8\ In addition, the Exchange filed
for permanent approval of this rule.\9\ The Exchange represents that no
administrative or technical problems, other than routine telephone
maintenance issues, have resulted from the Pilot over the past few
months.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47671 (April 11,
2003), 68 FR 19048 (April 17, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2002-11) (``Original
Order'').
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47992 (June 5,
2003), 68 FR 35047 (June 11, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2003-19) (delaying the
implementation date for portable phones from on or about May 1, 2003
to no later than June 23, 2003).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 48919 (December 12,
2003), 68 FR 70853 (December 19, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2003-38) (extending
the Pilot for an additional six months ending on June 16, 2004);
49954 (July 1, 2004), 69 FR 41323 (July 8, 2004) (SR-NYSE-2004-30)
(extending the Pilot for an additional five months ending on
November 30, 2004); 50777 (December 1, 2004), 69 FR 71090 (December
8, 2004) (SR-NYSE-2004-67) (extending the Pilot for an additional
four months ending March 31, 2005); 51464 (March 31, 2005), 70 FR
17746 (April 7, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-20) (extending the Pilot for
additional four months ending July 31, 2005); and 52188 (August 1,
2005), 70 FR 46252 (August 9, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-53) (extending the
Pilot for an additional six months ending January 31, 2006).
    \9\ See SR-NYSE-2004-52, pending with the Commission.
    \10\ The Exchange notes that it began receiving records of
incoming telephone calls in June 2005 and will continue to receive
monthly updates. With respect to regulatory actions concerning the
Pilot, there is an open investigation into possible insider trading
in an NYSE listed security in which the trading activity of two
RCMMs has been identified and is under review. With respect to one
of these RCMMs, the use by the RCMM of an Exchange authorized and
provided portable phone in or about January 2005 is under review as
part of the investigation. Telephone conversation between Jeff
Rosenstrock, Senior Special Counsel, NYSE, and Molly M. Kim,
Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on January 27,
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NYSE Rule 36
    NYSE Rule 36 (Communications Between Exchange and Members' Offices)
governs the establishment of telephone or electronic communications
between the Exchange Floor and any other location. Today, NYSE Rule
36.20 permits a Floor broker to use an Exchange authorized and provided
portable telephone on the Exchange Floor. NYSE Rule 36.20 does not
apply to specialists who are prohibited under this rule from
communicating with off-Floor locations from the Exchange Floor.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NYSE Rule 36.30 provides that, with the approval of the
Exchange, a specialist unit may maintain a telephone line at its
stock trading post location to the off-Floor offices of the
specialist unit or the unit's clearing firm. Such telephone
connection shall not be used for the purpose of transmitting to the
Floor orders for the purchase or sale of securities but may be used
to enter options or futures hedging orders through the unit's off-
Floor office or the unit's clearing firm or through a member (on the
floor) of an options or futures exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, under the Pilot, with the approval of the Exchange, a
Floor broker is permitted to engage in direct voice communication from
the point of sale to an off-Floor location, such as a member firm's
trading desk or the office of one of the Floor broker's customers.\12\
Such

communication permit Floor brokers to accept orders consistent with
Exchange rules and provide status and oral execution reports for orders
previously received, as well as ``market look'' observations as
historically have been routinely transmitted from a Floor broker's
booth location. The use of a portable telephone on the Exchange Floor
other than one authorized and provided by the Exchange is prohibited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Floor brokers receiving orders from the public over
portable phones must be properly qualified to engage in such direct
access business under NYSE Rules 342 and 345, among others. For more
information regarding Exchange requirements for conducting a public
business on the Exchange Floor, see Information Memos 05-37 (May 27,
2005) and 01-18 (July 11, 2001) (both available on http://www.nyse.com
) and 91-25 (July 8, 1991).

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

RCMMs
    The Commission approved the Exchange's proposed rule to permit
members to register as RCMMs on May 1, 1978.\13\ Under NYSE Rule 107A,
RCMMs may trade for their own account or the account of their member
organization and may also serve as Floor brokers executing customer
orders.\14\ Currently, there are eleven (11) registered RCMMs. RCMMs
are also subject to being called by a Floor Official or a Floor broker
holding an unexecuted customer order to improve the market in any
listed stock by either bidding/offering to narrow the spread by at
least the minimum trading variation or improving the depth of the
market by at least one unit of trading (normally 100 shares).\15\
Further, a member may not act as a RCMM and a broker representing an
agency order in the same security on the same day.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 14718 (May 1,
1978), 45 FR 19738 (May 8, 1978) (SR-NYSE-78-24).
    \14\ The Exchange has developed surveillance and examination
procedures to monitor the activities of RCMMs, including their use
of Exchange authorized and provided portable phones.
    \15\ These RCMM trades are referred to as ``affirmative
obligation'' trades or ``call-in notifications.''
    \16\ See NYSE Rule 107A.B(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Changes to NYSE Rule 36
    Prior approval orders by the Commission concerning the Pilot and
the current NYSE Rule 36.20 only apply to a Floor broker's ability to
use an Exchange authorized and provided portable phone. RCMMs are non-
specialist members of the Exchange and do not have the same type of
information (i.e., access to the Display Book[reg]) that a specialist
has. As such, the Exchange believes it is appropriate for RCMMs to
participate in the Pilot so that they could communicate with their
offices in order to, among other things, enter off-Floor orders and
better monitor their positions. Therefore, in order to clarify that
NYSE Rule 36.20 would apply to RCMMs and Floor brokers, the Exchange
proposes to delete the current reference in NYSE Rule 36.20 to
``members and member organizations other than a specialist or
specialist member organization'' and replacing it with the terms
``Floor brokers and RCMMs.''
    The Exchange believes that providing portable phones to RCMMs would
increase the efficiency of their trading in accordance with NYSE Rule
107A, especially given the changes in the speed of trading.\17\
However, given their ability to trade for their own account or the
account of their member organizations without the restrictions that
apply to other non-specialist members and member organizations, the
Exchange also believes it appropriate to limit RCMMs' use of portable
phones in accordance with the Pilot, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange believes that, currently, allowing Floor
brokers to use portable phones enables the Exchange to continue to
provide more direct, efficient access to its trading crowds and
customers, increase the speed of transmittal of orders and the
execution of trades, and provide an enhanced level of service to
customers in an increasingly competitive environment. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 52188 (August 1, 2005), 70 FR 46252 (August
9, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-53).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Limit their use of the portable phone solely to
communications with their upstairs office's land line and the land line
of their clearing member organization's upstairs office to enter off-
Floor orders and discuss matters related to the clearance and
settlement of transactions;
     RCMMs, their off-Floor offices, and their member
organization's off-Floor offices would not be allowed to use portable
phones to transmit to the Floor orders for the purchase or sale of
securities by public customers or any other agency business;
     RCMMs' use of the portable phone pursuant to proposed NYSE
Rules 36.20 and 36.22 must comply with all other rules, policies, and
procedures of both the federal securities laws and the Exchange,
including the record retention requirements, as set forth in NYSE Rule
440 and Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 under the Act; \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17a-3 and 240.17a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Require that RCMMs implement procedures designed to deter
their upstairs office or their clearing member organization's upstairs
office calling their portable phone number from using caller ID block
or other means to conceal the phone number from which a call is being
made; and
     Call-forwarding or conference calling are prohibited by
RCMMs, their upstairs office personnel, and their clearing member
organization's upstairs office.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ All Exchange authorized and provided portable phones do not
have call-forwarding or conference calling capabilities and would
continue to not have such capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, no other electronic communication devices may be used
unless approved by the Exchange.\20\ Finally, RCMMs must execute a
written acknowledgement authorizing the portable phone service provider
to provide New York Stock Exchange Regulation (``NYSE Regulation'')
with data and records relating to incoming and outgoing calls.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Currently, only Exchange authorized and provided portable
phones are approved.
    \21\ This provision is being proposed as a precautionary measure
to address the privacy concerns by the portable phone service
provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A member education bulletin describing the above conditions for the
use of a portable phone by RCMMs, the acknowledgement procedure, and
the proposed rule text would be sent to all RCMMs. The Exchange also
proposes that this filing (including proposed conforming changes to
NYSE Rule 36) become incorporated into the Pilot.
RCMM Acting as a Floor Broker
    As noted above, RCMMs are permitted to serve as Floor brokers,
executing customer orders, provided they do not execute RCMM and
customer orders in the same security on the same day. However, the
Pilot permits broader portable phone usage for Floor brokers than
RCMMs. Accordingly, RCMMs would not be allowed to use a portable phone
to conduct any agency business until issues involving the use of
portable phones by a RCMM acting in a capacity of an agent have been
fully reviewed and resolved by NYSE Regulation.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In the future, the Exchange would consider allowing RCMMs
to notify NYSE Regulation in writing of their intent to conduct such
agency business, and NYSE Regulation would make a determination
whether to require that a RCMM amend his or her Form BD with the
Commission and/or file an amended membership application with NYSE
Regulation. However, allowing RCMMs acting as Floor brokers to use
portable phones would involve further discussions with the
Commission and would be the subject of a separate filing with the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Portable Phones by Floor Brokers
    As noted above, the Exchange is providing in proposed NYSE Rule
36.21 the conditions under which Floor brokers can use portable phones
during the Pilot. In addition, the Exchange has developed an
acknowledgement for Floor brokers participating in the Pilot to sign.
Floor brokers must acknowledge the following:
     They authorize the portable phone service provider to
provide NYSE

Regulation with data and records relating to incoming and outgoing
calls;
     Their use of the portable phone pursuant to NYSE Rule
36.20 complies with all other rules, policies, and procedures of both
the federal securities laws and the Exchange, including the record
retention requirements, as set forth in NYSE Rule 440 and Rules 17a-3
and 17a-4 under the Act; \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17a-3 and 240.17a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     They are required to implement procedures designed to
deter anyone calling their portable phone number from using caller ID
block or other means to conceal the phone number from which a call is
being made; members and member organizations are required to make and
retain records demonstrating compliance with such procedures; and
     No other electronic communication devices may be used
unless approved by the Exchange.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Currently, only Exchange authorized and provided portable
phones are approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A member education bulletin describing the proposed rule text and
the acknowledgement procedure would be sent to all Floor brokers
participating in the Pilot.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \25\ in general, and further the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \26\ in particular, 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. The Exchange believes that the
amendment to NYSE Rule 36 would support the mechanism of free and open
markets by providing for increased means by which communications to and
from the Floor of the Exchange could take place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \26\ 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, as
amended, would 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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change, as amended, 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 if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \27\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\28\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, as amended, 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.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \29\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on January 18, 2006, the date NYSE filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative period under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) of the Act.\30\ The
Commission believes that it is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest to waive the 30-day operative delay
and make this proposed rule change, as amended, immediately effective
upon filing on November 21, 2005. The Commission believes that the
waiver of the 30-day operative delay may increase the efficiency of the
Exchange by providing immediate use of Exchange authorized portable
phones to RCMMs. For this reason, the Commission designates the
proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the
Commission.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \31\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that proper surveillance is an essential
component of any telephone access policy to an Exchange Floor.
Surveillance procedures should help to ensure that Floor brokers and
RCMMs use portable phones as authorized by NYSE Rule 36 and that orders
are being handled in compliance with NYSE rules. The Commission expects
the Exchange to actively review these procedures and address any
potential concerns that have arisen during the Pilot. In this regard,
the Commission notes that the Exchange should address whether telephone
records are adequate for surveillance purposes.
    The Commission also requests that the Exchange report any problems,
surveillance, or enforcement matters associated with use of an Exchange
authorized and provided portable telephone by Floor brokers and RCMMs
on the Exchange Floor. As stated in the Original Order, NYSE should
also address whether additional surveillance would be needed because of
the derivative nature of the ETFs. Furthermore, in any future
additional filings on the Pilot, the Commission would expect that NYSE
submit information documenting the usage of the phones, any problems
that have occurred, including, among other things, any regulatory
actions or concerns, and any advantages or disadvantages that have
resulted.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Commission expects the information to distinguish
between Floor brokers' and RCMMs' usage of the phones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-NYSE-2005-80 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-NYSE-2005-80. 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. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE. 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-NYSE-2005-80 and should be
submitted on or before March 3, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-1839 Filed 2-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27144-27149]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12348]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0255; FRL-9961-95]

Spirotetramat; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
spirotetramat in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. In addition, this regulation removes
several previously established tolerances that are superseded by this
final rule. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) and Bayer
CropScience, requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective June 14, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 14, 2017,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0255, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The 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>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0255 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
August 14, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0255, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of Wednesday, June 22, 2016 (81 FR 40594)
(FRL-9947-32) and Monday, August 29, 2016 (81 FR 59165) (FRL-9950-22),
EPA issued documents pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3),

announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PPs) by IR-4 (PP 6E8467);
and Bayer CropScience (PP 6F8461). These petitions request that 40 CFR
180.641 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
insecticide spirotetramat, (cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-
1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl carbonate) and its metabolites cis-
3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-2-
one, cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-3-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-
azaspiro[4.5]decane-2,4-dione, cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-
oxo-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl beta-D-glucopyranoside, and cis-3-
(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]decan-2-one,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of spirotetramat, in or on
several commodities as follows:
    Pesticide petition 6E8467 submitted by IR-4 Project Headquarters,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540 requests
tolerances for carrot, roots at 0.15 parts per million (ppm); fruit,
stone, group 12-12 at 4.5 ppm; and nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.25 ppm.
    Pesticide petition 6F8461 submitted by Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box
12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
requests tolerances on sugar beet, molasses at 0.20 ppm and sugar beet,
root at 0.15 ppm.
    Summaries of the petitions prepared by the registrant, Bayer
CropScience, are available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov
under document ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0255. One comment was received in
response to the notices of filings. EPA's response to the comment is
discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has
revised the tolerance levels for several proposed commodities and
corrected several commodity listings. The reason for these changes are
explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for spirotetramat including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with spirotetramat
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The target organs of toxicity following subchronic and chronic oral
exposures to spirotetramat were different in rats and dogs. The thyroid
and thymus glands were the target organs identified in subchronic and
chronic toxicity studies in dogs while the testes were the target
organs identified in rats. The dog was the most sensitive species, and
in both rats and dogs, males were more sensitive than females. The
thyroid effects in the dog consisted of lower circulating levels of
thyroid hormones (T3 and/or T4) along with a reduction in follicle
size, a possible indication of reduced amount of colloid. In all dog
studies, thymus effects were observed (reduced size, atrophy). In the
one-year study, this was described microscopically as involution.
    In rats, reported testicular effects consisted of abnormal
spermatozoa and hypospermia in the epididymis, decreased testicular
weights, and testicular degenerative vacuolation. An investigative
subchronic study where rats were dosed with a primary enol metabolite
of spirotetramat reproduced the same testicular effects as the parent
chemical, suggesting that this metabolite is, at minimum, a primary
contributor to the observed male reproductive toxicity. Consistent with
this notion, orally administered spirotetramat was demonstrated in rats
to be extensively metabolized, and males were noted to achieve much
higher systemic exposures than their female counterparts, which helps
explain the higher sensitivity of males. Other effects reported in a
rat chronic toxicity study were associated with kidney effects
consisting of decreased organ weight and tubular dilatation.
    In one- and two-generation rat reproductive toxicity studies, male
reproductive toxicity (abnormal sperm cells and reproductive
performance) similar to that reported in subchronic toxicity studies
with adult rats was reported in the first generation (F1)
males at relatively high dose levels. In all cases, a well-defined no-
observed adverse-effect level (NOAEL) was established.
    There was evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility in the
rat developmental study with reduced fetal weight and increased
incidences of malformations and skeletal deviations observed at the
limit dose, while maternal effects at this dose consisted of only body-
weight decrements. There was no evidence of increased quantitative or
qualitative susceptibility to offspring following pre- or post-natal
exposure to spirotetramat in the rabbit developmental or two-generation
reproduction studies.
    The only evidence of neurotoxicity in the rat acute neurotoxicity
study was based on decreased motor and locomotor activity, which
occurred only at relatively high dose levels. The rat subchronic
neurotoxicity (SCN) study does not indicate a concern for
neurotoxicity, even at relatively high dose levels. The results of an
immunotoxicity study in rats do not indicate any functional deficits in
immune function.
    There is no evidence of carcinogenicity in chronic toxicity/
carcinogenicity studies performed in rats and mice. Spirotetramat has
been classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans'' based on
lack of evidence for carcinogenicity in rodent studies. Spirotetramat
was also negative for mutagenicity and clastogenicity in in vivo and in
vitro assays.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by spirotetramat as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document: ``Spirotetramat. Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Tolerance Petition for Residues in/on Sugar Beet and
Carrot and Crop Group Conversions for

Tree Nut Group 14-12 and Fruit, Stone, Group 12-12.'' at pages 25-30 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0255.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for spirotetramat used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III. B. Toxicological Points
of Departure/Levels of Concern of the final rule published in the
Federal Register of Tuesday, October 25, 2016 (81 FR 73342) (FRL-89951-
80).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to spirotetramat, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing spirotetramat
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.641. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
spirotetramat in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for spirotetramat.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA)
from 2003 through 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed
tolerance-level residues, 100 percent crop treated (PCT) information
for all commodities and Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) 7.81
default processing factors where available.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's 2003-2008
NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA used 100 PCT, average
field trial residues for some commodities, and tolerance-level residues
for the remaining commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that spirotetramat does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    The Agency did not use percent crop treated estimates.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for spirotetramat in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of spirotetramat. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground
Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
spirotetramat and its metabolites and degradates of concern for acute
exposures are estimated to be 395 parts per billion (ppb) for surface
water and 7.99 ppb for ground water.
    Chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be
395 ppb for surface water and 5.36 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For both acute and chronic
dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 395 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Spirotetramat is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Citrus trees grown in
residential areas and turf grass including sod farm and golf course
turf only. There is the potential for post-application dermal exposure
from both residential citrus tree and golf course uses. The golf course
use could result in potential post-application dermal exposure;
however, there is no dermal hazard and therefore, quantification of
dermal risk is not necessary. For the residential citrus tree use,
because the product is sold in bulk packaging for agricultural uses and
the label requires that handlers wear specific clothing (e.g., long-
sleeve shirt/long pants) and the use of personal-protective equipment
(e.g., gloves), based on current Agency policy, EPA has made the
assumption that this product is not meant for homeowner use, and
therefore, there is no need to conduct a quantitative residential
handler assessment.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''

    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to spirotetramat and any
other substances and spirotetramat does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that spirotetramat has
a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA's Web site at: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
quantitative susceptibility of offspring following pre- or postnatal
exposure to spirotetramat. There is evidence of qualitative
susceptibility in the rat developmental study, where developmental
effects, including reduced fetal weight and increased incidences of
malformations and skeletal deviations, were observed in the presence of
body weight decrements in maternal animals. However, concern is low
since effects were only seen at the limit dose and selected endpoints
are protective of the observed effects.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for spirotetramat is complete.
    ii. Although spirotetramat was shown to elicit neurotoxic response
in the acute neurotoxicity study; however, concern is low since the
effects are well-characterized with clearly established NOAEL/LOAEL
values, the selected endpoints are protective of the observed
neurotoxic effect, there are no neurotoxic effects seen in the
subchronic neurotoxicity study, and the existing toxicological database
indicates that spirotetramat is not a neurotoxic chemical.
    iii. There is no evidence of quantitative susceptibility of
offspring following pre- or postnatal exposure. There is evidence of
qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental study; however,
there is no residual uncertainty concerning these effects due to the
clear NOAEL/LOAELs in the study for these effects. Moreover, concern
for these effects is low since effects were only seen at the limit
dose, effects were seen in the presence of maternal toxicity, and
selected endpoints are protective of the observed effects.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute dietary food and drinking water exposure
assessment utilizes tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT information
for all commodities. The chronic dietary food and drinking water
exposure assessment utilizes average field trial residues for some
commodities, tolerance-level residues for the remaining commodities,
and 100 PCT. The chronic assessment is somewhat refined; however, since
it is based on reliable data, it will not underestimate exposure and
risk. There are no quantifiable potential exposure/risks from
residential citrus tree and golf course uses. The drinking water
assessments provide conservative, health-protective, high-end estimates
of water concentrations that will not likely be exceeded. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
spirotetramat.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to spirotetramat will occupy 16% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
spirotetramat from food and water will utilize 77% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure.
    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risks. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposures take into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposures plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). A short- and
intermediate-term inhalation adverse effect was identified; however,
spirotetramat is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in either short- or intermediate-term inhalation residential exposure.
In a dermal toxicity study, no evidence of dermal hazard was found;
therefore, dermal risk was not included in the aggregate assessment.
Short- and intermediate-term aggregate risks are assessed based on
short- and intermediate-term residential exposures plus chronic dietary
exposure. Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of
short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the
chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-
term risks for spirotetramat.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, spirotetramat is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to spirotetramat residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS)) is available
to enforce the tolerance expression.

    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for spirotetramat.

C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received from an anonymous source requesting that
the Agency deny IR-4's petition for use of spirotetramat on all food
items claiming it is a toxic chemical and its use would result in harm
to humans.
    The Agency's Response: The Agency recognizes that some individuals
believe that certain pesticides are ``toxic chemicals'' that should not
be permitted in our food; however, the commenter provided no
information demonstrating toxicity of spirotetramat or that EPA could
use to evaluate the safety of the pesticide. The existing legal
framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when persons
seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the
pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. When new
or amended tolerances are requested for residues of a pesticide in food
or feed, the Agency, as is required by Section 408 of the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), estimates the risk of the potential
exposure to these residues. The Agency has concluded after this risk
assessment, which includes the consideration of long-term animal
studies with spirotetramat, that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result from aggregate human exposure to spirotetramat and
that, accordingly, the use of spirotetramat on petitioned-for food
commodities is ``safe.''

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on available residue data, EPA is establishing tolerance
level on sugar beet molasses at 0.30 ppm instead of 0.20 ppm, to cover
anticipated residues. In addition, EPA corrected the commodity
terminology for ``sugar beet root'' and ``sugar beet molasses'' to
``beet, sugar, roots'' and ``beet, sugar, molasses,'' respectively, in
order to conform to terms used in the Agency's Food and Feed Commodity
Vocabulary.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
spirotetramat, (cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-1-
azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl carbonate) and its metabolites cis-3-
(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-2-one,
cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-3-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]decane-
2,4-dione, cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-1-
azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl beta-D-glucopyranoside, and cis-3-(2,5-
dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]decan-2-one,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of spirotetramat, in or on
beet, sugar, molasses at 0.30 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.15 ppm;
carrot, roots at 0.15 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 4.5 ppm; and
nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.25 ppm. In addition, EPA is revoking the
existing tolerances for fruit, stone, group 12 and nut, tree, group 14
as they are superseded by the new tolerances for groups 12-12 and 14-12
established under this final rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 8, 2017.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.641, in the table in paragraph (a)(1):
0
i. Add alphabetically the entries: ``Beet, sugar, molasses''; ``Beet,
sugar, roots''; ``Carrot, roots''; ``Fruit, stone, group 12-12''; and
``Nut, tree, group 14-12''; and
0
ii. Remove entries for ``Fruit, stone, group 12'' and ``Nut, tree,
group 14''.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.641  Spirotetramat; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Beet, sugar, molasses.......................................        0.30
Beet, sugar, roots..........................................        0.15

                                * * * * *
Carrot, roots...............................................        0.15

                                * * * * *
Fruit, stone, group 12-12...................................         4.5

                                * * * * *
Nut, tree, group 14-12......................................        0.25

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2017-12348 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 62086]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26039]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4019-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

North Carolina; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4019-DR), dated August 31, 2011,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 1, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Carolina is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of August 31, 2011.

    Halifax and Lenoir Counties for Individual Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-26039 Filed 10-4-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48280-48281]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19329]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72802; File No. SR-ICC-2014-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Provide for the Clearance of
Additional Standard Emerging European and Middle Eastern Sovereign
Single Names

August 11, 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 July 31, 2014, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by ICC. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt rules that will
provide the basis for ICC to clear additional credit default swap
contracts. Specifically, ICC is proposing to amend Section 26D of its
Rules to provide for the clearance of additional Standard Emerging
Sovereign Single Name constituents of the CDX Emerging Markets Index
(``SES Contracts''). Currently, ICC clears six SES Contracts: Four
Standard Latin America Sovereign Single Name constituents of the CDX
Emerging Markets Index and two Standard Emerging European and Middle
Eastern Sovereign Single Names that have been constituents of the CDX
Emerging Markets Index (the ``SEEME Contracts''). The proposed changes
to the ICC Rules would provide for the clearance of additional SEEME
Contracts, specifically the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of
South Africa.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

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

    The purpose of proposed rule change is to adopt rules that will
provide the basis for ICC to clear additional credit default swap
contracts. Currently, ICC clears six SES Contracts: Four Standard Latin
America Sovereign Single Name constituents of the CDX Emerging Markets
Index (the Federative Republic of Brazil, the United Mexican States,
the Argentine Republic, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) and
two SEEME Contracts (the Republic of Turkey and the Russian
Federation). ICC proposes amending Subchapter 26D of its Rules to
provide for the clearance of two additional SEEME Contracts,
specifically the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of South Africa.
ICC currently clears Series 14-21 of the CDX Emerging Markets Index. Of
the CDX Emerging Markets Indices cleared by ICC, the Republic of
Hungary is a constituent of the CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series 14-
18, and the Republic of South Africa is a constituent of the CDX
Emerging Markets Index, Series 14-21. These two additional SEEME
Contracts will initially be offered on the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives
Definitions. The addition of these SEEME Contracts will allow market
participants an increased ability to manage risk, by providing market
participants the ability to offset related index positions.
    These additional SEEME Contracts have terms consistent with the
other SEEME Contracts currently cleared by ICC and governed by
Subchapter 26D of the ICC rules, namely the Russian Federation and the
Republic of Turkey. Minor revisions to Subchapter 26D (Standard
Emerging Sovereign (``SES'') Single Name) are made to provide for
clearing the additional SEEME Contracts and described as follows.
    ICC Rule 26D-102 is also modified to include the Republic of
Hungary and the Republic of South Africa in the list of specific
Eligible SES Reference Entities to be cleared by ICC. The addition of
these products does not require any changes to ICC's Risk Management
Framework or other policies and procedures constituting rules within
the meaning of the Act.
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \3\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions. The clearance of additional SEEME Contracts will allow
market participants an increased ability to manage risk. ICC believes
that acceptance of these new contracts, on the terms and conditions set
out in the ICC Rules, is consistent with the prompt and accurate
clearance of and settlement of securities transactions and derivative
agreements, contracts and transactions cleared by ICC, the safeguarding
of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC, and the
protection of investors and the public interest, within the meaning of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearing of the additional SEEME Contracts will also satisfy the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.\5\ In particular, in terms of financial
resources, ICC will apply its existing margin methodology to the
additional SEEME Contracts. ICC believes that this model will provide
sufficient margin to cover its credit exposure to its clearing members
from clearing such contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule
17Ad-22(b)(2).\6\ In addition, ICC believes its Guaranty Fund, under
its existing methodology, will, together with the required margin,
provide sufficient financial resources to support the clearing of the
new contracts consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(3).\7\ ICC also believes that its existing operational and
managerial resources will be sufficient for clearing of the additional
SEEME Contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(4),\8\ as the new contracts are similar from an operational
perspective to existing SEEME Contracts. Similarly, ICC will use its
existing settlement procedures and account structures for the new
contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(5), (12)
and (15) \9\ as to the finality and accuracy of its daily settlement
process and avoidance of the risk to ICC of settlement failures.
Finally, ICC will apply its existing default management policies and
procedures for the new contracts. ICC believes that these procedures
allow for it to take timely

action to contain losses and liquidity pressures and to continue
meeting its obligations in the event of clearing member insolvencies or
defaults in respect of the additional SEEME Contracts, in accordance
with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(4).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(5), (12) and (15).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The additional SEEME Contracts will be available to all ICC
Participants for clearing. The clearing of these additional SEEME
Contracts by ICC does not preclude the offering of the additional SEEME
Contracts for clearing by other market participants. Therefore, ICC
does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or
impose any burden, on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-ICC-2014-13 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-ICC-2014-13. 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 such filings also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit
and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    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-ICC-2014-13
and should be submitted on or before September 5, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19329 Filed 8-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 19554-19555]
[DOCID:fr29ap09-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

April 17, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP96-200-209.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits
two negotiated rate agreements between CEGT and Chesapeake Energy
Marketing, Inc.
    Filed Date: 04/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090408-0244.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-321-001.
    Applicants: MarkWest Pioneer, L.L.C.
    Description: MarkWest Pioneer, LLC submits First Revised Sheet 5 et
al to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective 4/1/09.
    Filed Date: 04/15/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090416-0009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-410-001.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
Substitute First Revised Sheet No 47 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth
Revised Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 04/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090406-0091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-510-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company's report of the penalty
and daily delivery variance charge (DDVC) revenues for the period
November 1, 2007 through October 31, 2008 that have been credited to
shippers.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090413-5046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-511-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits Third Revised
Sheet 2708 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 5/15/09.
    Filed Date: 04/15/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090415-0101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-512-000.
    Applicants: Honeoye Storage Corporation.
    Description: Petition Of Honeoye Storage Corporation For
Confirmation Of Exemption From Part 358 Of The Commission's Regulations
Or, In The Alternative, Waiver Of Such Regulations.
    Filed Date: 04/14/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090414-5172.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-513-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Petition for temporary waiver of tariff provision and
request for expedited action of Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Filed Date: 04/15/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090415-5132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 27, 2009.

    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 dockets(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. E9-9735 Filed 4-28-09; 8:45 am]