[Federal Register: January 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2486]
[DOCID:fr15ja08-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER08-110-000, ER08-110-001, ER08-110-002]

Starwood Power-Midway, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

January 7, 2008.
    Starwood Power-Midway, LLC (Starwood Midway) filed an application
for market-based rate authority, with accompanying tariff. The proposed
market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy, capacity
and ancillary services at market-based rates. Starwood Midway also
requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular,
Starwood Midway requested that the Commission grant blanket approval
under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by Starwood Midway.
    On December 19, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the
Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the
requests for blanket approval under part 34 (Director's Order). The
Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a
separate notice in the Federal Register establishing a period of time
for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be
heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability by Starwood Midway, should file a protest with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214
(2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
January 22, 2008.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Starwood Midway is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Starwood Midway compatible with
the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for
such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Starwood Midway's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http:// www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-511 Filed 1-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18160-18161]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06218]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0179]

National Towing Safety Advisory Committee; April 2023 Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Towing Safety Advisory Committee (Committee) will
meet to review and discuss matters relating to shallow-draft inland
navigation, coastal waterway navigation, and towing safety. The meeting
will be open to the public.

DATES:
    Meeting: The Committee will hold a meeting on Wednesday, April 12,
2023, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). Please note
the meeting may close early if the Committee has completed its
business.
    Comments and supporting documentation: To ensure your comments are
received by Committee members before the meeting, submit your written
comments no later than March 29, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Crowley Maritime Corporation
Headquarters located at 9487 Regency Square Boulevard, Jacksonville, FL
32225 (https://www.crowley.com/?utm_source=gmb&utm_medium=jacksonville&utm_campaign=corporate&utm_content=office).
    The National Towing Safety Advisory Committee is committed to
ensuring all participants have equal access regardless of disability
status. If you require reasonable accommodation due to a disability to
fully participate, please email Mr. Matthew D. Layman at
[email protected] or call at<PHONE_NUMBER> as soon as possible.
    Instructions: You are free to submit comments at any time,
including orally at the meeting as time permits, but if you want
Committee members to review your comment before the meeting, please
submit your comments no later than March 29, 2023. We are particularly
interested in comments regarding the topics in the ``Agenda'' section
below. We encourage you to submit comments through Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the
individual in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. You must include the docket number [USCG-2023-0179].
Comments received will be posted without alteration at https://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided. You
may wish to review the Privacy and Security notice available on the
homepage of https://www.regulations.gov, and DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). If you encounter
technical difficulties with comment submission, contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
    Docket Search: Documents mentioned in this notice as being
available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov, and can be viewed by following
that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online
docket and sign-up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments
are posted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matthew D. Layman, Designated
Federal Officer (DFO) of the National Towing Safety Advisory Committee,
2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-
7509, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is in compliance with
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Pub. L. 117-286, 5 U.S.C., ch.
10). The National Towing Safety Advisory Committee is authorized by
section 601 of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of
2018, (Pub. L. 115-282, 132 Stat. 4190), and is codified in 46 U.S.C.
15108. The Committee operates under the provisions of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act and 46 U.S.C. 15109. The National Towing Safety
Advisory Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary
of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on
matters related to shallow-draft inland navigation, coastal waterway
navigation, and towing safety.

Agenda

    The agenda for the National Towing Safety Advisory Committee is as
follows:

I. Opening
    a. Call to Order and DFO Remarks
    b. Committee Chairperson Remarks
    c. Roll Call and Determination of Quorum
    d. U.S. Coast Guard Leadership Remarks
II. Administration
    a. Adoption of Meeting Agenda
    b. Approval of Meeting Minutes for Sept. 21, 2022 Committee
Meeting
III. Old Business
    a. Update from Subcommittees:
    [cir] Task 21-03: Report on the Anticipated Challenges Expected
to Impact the Towing Vessel Industry;
    [cir] Task 21-04: Report on the Challenges Faced by the Towing
Vessel Industry as a Result of the Covid-19 Pandemic;
    [cir] Task 22-01: Recommendation to the Coast Guard for
Rulemaking Improvements to Subchapter M;
    [cir] Task 22-02: Recommendation for Training and Instruction
for Crewmembers Working Aboard Subchapter M Inspected Towing Vessels
    b. Vetting Subcommittee Update
IV. New Business
    a. Committee Planning
V. Information Session
    a. USCG Sector Jacksonville Overview
    b. CG-ENG, Autonomous Vessels
    c. CG-REG, Regulations Policy
    d. National Maritime Center
    e. Crowley Maritime Corp.
VI. Committee Discussion
VII. Public Comment Period
VIII. Closing Remarks and Plans for Next Meeting
IX. Adjournment of Meeting

    A copy of all pre-meeting documentation will be available at
https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Commercial-Regulations-standards-CG-5PS/Office-of-Operating-and-Environmental-Standards/vfos/TSAC/no later than March
29, 2023. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Matthew Layman as noted
above in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
    There will be a public comment period at the end of the meeting.
Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please
note that the public comment period may end before the period allotted,
following the last call for comments. Please contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to register as a
speaker.

    Dated: March 13, 2023.
Jeffrey G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2023-06218 Filed 3-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 77839-77841]
[DOCID:fr27de06-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54968; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-058]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Permit Orders to Peg to the Midpoint of the Best Bid and Best Offer

December 19, 2006.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') is filing 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 Nasdaq. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change
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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    Nasdaq is proposing to enable orders to peg to the midpoint between
the best bid and best offer (``Midpoint Peg''). The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.nasdaq.complinet.com
), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,

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, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq proposes to modify the rule language pertaining to pegged
orders (``Pegged Orders'') to enable orders to peg to the midpoint of
the best bid and best offer. Nasdaq currently offers pegged
functionality, adjusting the price of the order based upon changes in
the best bid and offer in the national market system (``National Market
System'').
    A market participant entering a Pegged Order currently can specify
that its price will equal the inside quote on

the same side of the market (``Primary Peg'') or the opposite side of
the market (``Market Peg''). The Primary Peg and Market Peg Orders may
establish their pricing relative to the appropriate bids or offers by
the selection of one or more offset amounts that will adjust the price
of the order by the offset amount selected. Additionally, a new
timestamp is created for the order each time it is automatically
adjusted.
    The proposed rule change is in accordance with Rule 612 of
Regulation NMS,\5\ which governs sub-penny quoting of National Market
System stocks \6\ (the ``Sub-Penny Rule''). The proposed rule change
would not result in the display, rank, or acceptance of a bid or offer,
an order, quotation, or indication of interest in any NMS stock that is
priced in an increment smaller than $0.01 per share, unless the price
of the bid or offer, order, indication of interest is priced less than
$1.00 per share.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 242.600 et seq. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005)
(``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'').
    \6\ An NMS stock is any non-option security for which
transaction reports are collected, processed, and made available
pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan. See 17 CFR
242.600(b)(46) and (47).
    \7\ If the bid or offer, order, or indication of interest is
priced less than $1.00 per share, the minimum allowable increment is
$0.0001 per share. See 17 CFR 242.612(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples illustrate how the proposed rule change
would operate (note that the price of the order updates in response to
changes in the best bid and best offer, excluding the order's own
impact on the best bid or best offer):

Example 1

    The best bid is $20.00 and the best offer is $20.06.
    The Midpoint Peg Order to buy will be priced at $20.03.
    The best offer updates to $20.08.
    The price of the Midpoint Peg Order will update to $20.04.

Example 2

    The best bid is $20.00 and the best offer is $20.03.
    The price of the Midpoint Peg Order to buy will be $20.01. The true
midpoint would be $20.015, but to avoid pricing the order in a sub-
penny increment the bid is rounded down. However, if the order instead
was a sell order the offer would be rounded up.
    The best offer updates to $20.08.
    The price of the Midpoint Peg Order will be $20.04.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq 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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder \11\ in
that it: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors
or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ As required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), on November 28, 2006,
Nasdaq provided 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule changed filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\13\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \14\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Nasdaq has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, which would make the rule
change operative immediately. The Commission believes that waiving the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest because the proposed rule change provides a
potentially useful enhancement for investors to utilize in executing
their trades.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ 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 a rule change pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act, the Commission may summarily
abrogate the 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-NASDAQ-2006-058 in 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-NASDAQ-2006-058.
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 Nasdaq. 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-NASDAQ-2006-058 and should
be submitted on or before January 17, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-22081 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 87470-87472]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8457]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some

of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the
community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary
action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Effective date
                                                authorization/
                                  Community     cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
      State and location             No.         sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                 insurance in                               available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region IV

Georgia: Monroe, City of,             130227  March 26, 1975,     Dec. 8, 2016..........  Dec. 8, 2016
 Walton County.                                Emerg; February
                                               16, 1990, Reg;
                                               December 8, 2016,
                                               Susp.

           Region V

Indiana: Brown County,                185174  October 22, 1971,   ......do *............   Do.
 Unincorporated Areas.                         Emerg; April 13,
                                               1973, Reg;
                                               December 8, 2016,
                                               Susp.
    Nashville, Town of, Brown         180018  October 22, 1971,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; January
                                               24, 1976, Reg;
                                               December 8, 2016,
                                               Susp.
Wisconsin: Boaz, Village of,          550357  November 28, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
 Richland County.                              Emerg; September
                                               6, 1989, Reg;
                                               December 8, 2016,
                                               Susp.
    Lone Rock, Village of,            550359  July 7, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     Richland County.                          Emerg; September
                                               29, 1986, Reg;
                                               December 8, 2016,
                                               Susp.
    Richland Center, City of,         555576  March 19, 1971,     ......do..............   Do.
     Richland County.                          Emerg; June 1,
                                               1973, Reg;
                                               December 8, 2016,
                                               Susp.
    Richland County,                  550356  June 16, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; September
                                               27, 1991, Reg;
                                               December 8, 2016,
                                               Susp.
    Viola, Village of,                550460  December 5, 1974,   ......do..............   Do.
     Richland and Vernon                       Emerg; June 4,
     Counties.                                 1990, Reg;
                                               December 8, 2016,
                                               Susp.
    Yuba, Village of, Richland        550362  August 25, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 1,
                                               1987, Reg;
                                               December 8, 2016,
                                               Susp.

           Region X

Oregon: Albany, City of, Linn         410137  July 2, 1974,       ......do..............   Do.
 and Benton Counties.                          Emerg; April 3,
                                               1985, Reg;
                                               December 8, 2016,
                                               Susp.
    Benton County,                    410008  April 18, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; August 5,
                                               1986, Reg;
                                               December 8, 2016,
                                               Susp.

    Linn County,                      410136  April 9, 1974,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; September
                                               29, 1986, Reg;
                                               December 8, 2016,
                                               Susp.
    Millersburg, City of, Linn        410284  July 21, 1982,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 21,
                                               1982, Reg;
                                               December 8, 2016,
                                               Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: November 21, 2016.
Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-29036 Filed 12-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: September 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 178)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47445-47451]
[DOCID:fr16se09-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0002; FRL-8434-1]

Acetochlor; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
acetochlor, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on cotton,
gin byproducts; cotton, undelinted seed; soybean, meal; and soybean,
seed. Monsanto Company requested these tolerances under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This regulation also removes the
existing tolerance for indirect or inadvertent residues of acetochlor
on soybean, seed.

DATES: This regulation is effective September 16, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 16, 2009,
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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0002. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Stanton, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations
at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite
at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the OPPTS Harmonized
Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines
at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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-
2009-0002 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All
requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the
Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before November 16,
2009.
    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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0002, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 8, 2009 (74 FR 15971) (FRL-8407-
4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP
8F7443 and PP 8F7448) by Monsanto Company, 1300 I St., NW., Suite 450
East, Washington DC 20052. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.470
be amended by establishing tolerances for combined residues of the
herbicide acetochlor, 2-chloro-2'-methyl-6'-ethyl-N-
ethoxymethylacetanilide, and its metabolites containing either the 2-
ethyl-6-methyl-aniline (EMA) or the 2-(1-hydroxyethyl)-6-methyl-aniline
(HEMA) moiety, to be expressed as acetochlor equivalents, in or on
cotton, gin byproducts; and cotton, undelinted seed at 4.0 parts per
million (ppm) and 0.6 ppm, respectively (PP 8F7443); and soybean, seed
at 1.0 ppm (PP 8F7448). That notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Monsanto Company, the registrant, which is
available to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.
There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that a tolerance for residues of acetochlor and its
metabolites is also required on soybean, meal at 1.2 ppm. EPA has also
revised the tolerance expression for acetochlor to clarify the chemical
moieties that are covered by the tolerances and specify how compliance
with the tolerances is to be measured. The reasons for these changes
are explained in Unit IV.C.

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 section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, 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 the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of acetochlor, including its metabolites and
degradates, on cotton, gin byproducts at 4.0 ppm; cotton, undelinted
seed at 0.6 ppm; soybean, meal at 1.2 ppm; and soybean, seed at 1.0
ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
establishing tolerances 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.
    Acetochlor has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes of exposure and is mildly irritating to the eyes. The
results of two dermal irritation studies indicate that it is a mild to
strong skin irritant. Acetochlor is also a strong dermal sensitizer.
    Evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity screening studies in rats, developmental toxicity studies
in rats, and subchronic and chronic studies in dogs. In addition to the
nervous system, the major target organs affected in subchronic and
chronic studies in rats, dogs and mice exposed to acetochlor are the
liver, thyroid (secondary to liver), kidney, testes, and erythrocytes.
Species-specific target organs include the nasal olfactory epithelium
in rats and the lungs in mice.
    There is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative
susceptibility of fetuses or offspring to acetochlor exposure in the
developmental and reproduction toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. In
two developmental toxicity studies in rats, fetal effects (increased
early resorptions, postimplantation loss, and decreased fetal weight)
occurred at doses that also resulted in maternal toxicity (mortality,
clinical signs of toxicity, and decreased maternal body weight gain).
In two rabbit developmental toxicity studies there were no adverse
fetal effects at the highest doses tested (HDT) (190 milligrams/
kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) and 300 mg/kg/day); whereas maternal toxicity
(body weight loss) was seen at 50 mg/kg/day in one study. In three
reproduction toxicity studies in rats, offspring effects (decreased pup
weights in the first two studies; decreased pup weights, decreased F2
litter size at birth, and focal hyperplasia and polypoid adenomata in
nasal epithelium of adult F1 offspring at study termination in the
third study) occurred at the same or higher doses than those resulting
in parental toxicity (decreased body weight or weight gain in the first
two studies; focal hyperplasia and polypoid adenomata in nasal
epithelium of adult F1 offspring at study termination in the third
study). There was no evidence of reproductive toxicity observed at any
dose tested in two of the three reproductive toxicity studies in rats.
The third reproduction study in rats showed a decreased number of
implantations at the HDT of 1,750 ppm.

    There was evidence of carcinogenicity in studies conducted with
acetochlor in rats and mice. A 23-month mouse carcinogenicity study
showed weak evidence for increased benign lung tumors in females, and a
78-week study showed weak evidence for increased benign lung tumors in
males. The increases were considered equivocal, based on increases in
benign tumors only, inconsistent dose-responses between the two
studies, inconsistencies in the responses of males and females between
the two studies, lack of pre-neoplastic lung lesions in the 23-month
study (while the 78-week study showed an increase in bronchiolar
hyperplasia), and the variable incidence of lung tumors known to occur
in older mice.
    Two carcinogenicity studies in rats showed an increase in nasal
epithelial tumors and thyroid follicular cell tumors. Thyroid tumor
incidence was relatively low, and there was evidence that the tumors
were due to disruption of thyroid-pituitary homeostasis. There are
acceptable mode of action data for the rat tumors (nasal olfactory
epithelial tumors and thyroid follicular cell tumors) which are
adequate to support a non-linear, margin of exposure (MOE), approach
for assessment of cancer risk. The data show that, like the related
compounds, alachlor and butachlor, tumor formation is dependent upon
local cytotoxicity secondary to oxidative damage by a reactive quinone
imine intermediate. The mechanistic data on nasal tumorigenesis of
acetochlor in the rat, when considered together with the mutagenicity
data on acetochlor and consistent findings in mechanistic and
mutagenicity studies on the closely related compound alachlor, are
considered adequate to demonstrate a cytotoxic, non-mutagenic mode of
tumor induction.
    Because a clear mode of action was demonstrated for the rat tumors,
EPA based the cancer classification on the data from the mouse. Given
the weakness of these data (benign lung tumors in male and female mice
and histiocytic sarcomas in female mice), EPA has classified acetochlor
as having ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential'' and
determined that linear quantification of carcinogenic potential would
not be appropriate for the mouse tumors. The rat nasal tumors, with a
point of departure (POD) of 10 mg/kg/day, are the most sensitive effect
for cancer risk. The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD), based on
the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of 2.0 mg/kg/day from the
chronic dog study, will be protective of both non-cancer and cancer
effects, including rat nasal tumors, thyroid tumors, and mouse tumors.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by acetochlor as well as the NOAEL and the
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document Acetochlor
Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed New Use of Acetochlor on
Cotton and Soybeans, page 41 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0002.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological POD is identified as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. The POD may be
defined as the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed
(the NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use
in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the
lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the
LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach is sometimes used for risk
assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs) are used in conjunction
with the POD to take into account uncertainties inherent in the
extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the
variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well
as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic dietary
risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the pesticide
to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the POD by all applicable UFs.
Aggregate short-term, intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are
evaluated by comparing food, water, and residential exposure to the POD
to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs
is not exceeded. This latter value is referred to as the level of
concern (LOC).
    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
greater than that 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://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for acetochlor used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the
document Acetochlor Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed New Use
of Acetochlor on Cotton and Soybeans page 25 in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2009-0002.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to acetochlor, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing acetochlor tolerances in 40 CFR
180.470. EPA assessed dietary exposures from acetochlor 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.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed that residues are
present in all commodities at the tolerance level and that 100% of
commodities are treated with acetochlor. Dietary Exposure Evaluation
Model 7.81 (DEEM\TM\ 7.81) default concentration factors were used to
estimate residues of acetochlor in processed commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed that residues
are present in soybeans and cotton at the tolerance level and that 100%
of cotton and soybeans are treated with acetochlor. For existing uses
of acetochlor, EPA assumed average field trial levels and 100 percent
crop treated (PCT). DEEM\TM\ 7.81 default concentration factors were
used to estimate residues of acetochlor in processed commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the results of carcinogenicity studies in
rats and mice, EPA classified acetochlor as having ``Suggestive
Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential'' but determined that the chronic
risk assessment will be protective of both non-cancer and cancer
effects. Therefore, a separate exposure assessment to evaluate cancer
risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA used anticipated
residues derived from the results of field trials in the chronic
dietary exposure assessment. EPA did not use PCT

information in the acute or chronic exposure assessments.
    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.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for acetochlor in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of acetochlor. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS), the estimated drinking water concentration (EDWC)
of acetochlor for acute exposures is estimated to be 75 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water. The EDWC for chronic exposures for
non-cancer assessments is estimated to be 4.8 ppb for surface water.
Residues of parent acetochlor in ground water are expected to be
insignificant compared to residues in surface water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 75 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 9.5 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. This value is higher than the
modeled EDWC for chronic exposures (4.8 ppm) and was derived from
preliminary modeling that was subsequently refined. Since chronic
exposure estimates using the higher value are below EPA's LOC, EPA did
not revise the dietary exposure assessment to reflect the final modeled
EDWC.
    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). Acetochlor is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    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.''
    The chloroacetanilides have been evaluated by the Agency and the
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) as a related group of chemicals
for this purpose. Acetochlor is included in a Cumulative Assessment
Group (CAG) of Chloroacetanilide pesticides. Structurally related
chloroacetanilides include acetochlor, alachlor, butachlor, propachlor
and metolachlor. For purposes of a cumulative risk assessment, it was
determined that the common mechanism of toxicity group consists of
alachlor, acetochlor and butachlor. Butachlor is excluded from the
group for risk assessment purposes at present since there are no
registered uses or tolerances for this chemical in the United States.
The group was selected based on common endpoints of:
    i. Nasal turbinate tumors in rats, and a known mechanism of
toxicity for development of these tumors.
    ii. Induction of hepatic UDP-Glucuronosyl Transferase (UDPGT),
which results in increased incidence of thyroid follicular cell tumors
secondary to disruption of pituitary-thyroid homeostasis. Thyroid
effects were not included in the final cumulative assessment of the
chloroacetanilide herbicides because they were determined to occur at
excessively toxic dose levels, and therefore were not considered
relevant to human risk assessment. Nasal tumors represent the most
sensitive endpoint for both compounds.
    An updated cumulative risk assessment of the Chloroacetanilide CAG
pesticides, acetochlor and alachlor, was conducted in April 2007. The
risk assessment ``ACETOCHLOR/ALACHLOR: Revised Cumulative Risk
Assessment for the Chloroacetanilides to Support the Proposed New Uses
on Alachlor and Acetochlor''. PP 8F05000 and 8F5025 (Alachlor), PP
6F4791, 1F6263 and 5F6918 (Acetochlor) is available in the docket
established for this action (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0002). Based on the most
recent Chloroacetanilide CAG cumulative risk assessment, cumulative
risk is not of concern. A revised quantitative cumulative assessment
was not conducted for the current assessment of proposed new uses for
acetochlor, because the proposed new uses on cotton and soybeans would
not affect the cumulative risk results. Acetochlor is a very minor
contributor to cumulative risk when compared to alachlor, and the
proposed new uses (cotton and soybeans) are minor contributors to
acetochlor dietary risk.
    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 website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

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 SF when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicity database for acetochlor includes two rat and two rabbit
developmental toxicity studies and three reproduction toxicity studies
in rats. As discussed in Unit III.A., there was no evidence of
qualitative or quantitative susceptibility of fetuses or offspring to
acetochlor exposure in any of these studies.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that the FQPA safety factor of
10X must be retained as a database UF for acetochlor acute risk
assessment. This decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for acetochlor is incomplete. Additional
data pertaining to acetochlor's potential to cause developmental
neurotoxicity (DNT) or immunotoxicity are outstanding.
    ii. Evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity screening studies in rats,

developmental toxicity studies in rats, and subchronic and chronic
studies in dogs. Frank neuropathology was seen in a chronic study in
the dog. EPA has required a DNT study in rats to assess susceptibility
of offspring to neurotoxic effects relative to adult animals. Results
of the DNT study could impact the current dose selected for assessing
acute oral exposure, since the NOAEL used for acute dietary risk
assessment (150 mg/kg/day) is greater than the NOAEL from a
reproductive toxicity study (21 mg/kg/day) for acetochlor, and the DNT
study will likely be conducted at dose levels similar to those of the
reproductive toxicity study. The results of the DNT study are not
expected to impact the dose selected for chronic risk assessment, which
is based on the lower NOAEL of 2.0 mg/kg/day from the chronic dog
study.
    iii. In accordance with 40 CFR part 158 Toxicology Data
requirements, an immunotoxicity study (870.7800) is required for
acetochlor. In the absence of specific immunotoxicity studies, EPA has
evaluated the available acetochlor toxicity data to determine whether
an additional database UF is needed to account for potential
immunotoxicity. There are no indications in the available studies that
organs associated with immune function, such as the thymus and spleen,
are affected by acetochlor, and acetochlor does not belong to a class
of chemicals (e.g., the organotins, heavy metals, or halogenated
aromatic hydrocarbons) that would be expected to be immunotoxic.
    iv. There is no evidence that acetochlor results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in offspring in the 2-generation reproduction
studies.
    v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% crop treated and tolerance-level residues or average residue
levels derived from reliable field trials. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to acetochlor in drinking water. Residential
exposure to acetochlor is not expected. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by acetochlor.
    After weighing this evidence, EPA retains significant uncertainty
regarding potential neurotoxic effects in infants and children but does
not have such concerns for immunotoxicity. Given the findings of
neurotoxicity and the uncertainty regarding the sensitivity of fetal
and neonatal animals to neurotoxic effects, EPA has concluded that it
lacks reliable data to remove the FQPA 10X safety factor for acute
exposures. For chronic exposures, EPA concludes that reliable data show
that removal of the FQPA 10X factor will be safe for infants and
children. Three factors predominate here. First, given the expected
dosing in the DNT study, that study is unlikely to affect the cPAD,
even if effects were seen at the lowest dose tested. Second, there is
no evidence of increased susceptibility in multiple studies in multiple
species. Third, although neurotoxic effects have been observed in the
database, at lower doses the more significant effects are not related
to neurotoxicity.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE
called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to
acetochlor will occupy 11% of the aPAD for infants less than 1 year
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
acetochlor from food and water will utilize 6% of the cPAD for infants
less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for acetochlor.
    3. Short-term/intermediate-term risk. Short-term and intermediate-
term aggregate exposure take into account short-term or intermediate-
term residential exposure plus chronic exposure from food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Acetochlor is not
registered for any use patterns that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the short-term or intermediate-term aggregate risk
is the sum of the risk from exposure to acetochlor through food and
water and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As explained in Unit
III.A., risk assessments based on the endpoint selected for chronic
risk assessment are considered to be protective of any potential
carcinogenic risk from exposure to acetochlor. Based on the results of
the chronic risk assessment discussed above in Unit E.2., EPA concludes
that acetochlor is not expected to pose a cancer risk.
    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 acetochlor residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC) method with oxidative coulometric electrochemical
detection (OCED)) 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>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There are no CODEX, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue limits
established for residues of acetochlor on cotton or soybean
commodities.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The registrant proposed a tolerance for residues of acetochlor and
its metabolites on soybean, seed at 1.0 ppm. Based on processing data
for soybean showing the potential for residues of acetochlor to
concentrate in soybean meal (1.2X), EPA determined that a tolerance is
also needed for soybean, meal at 1.2 ppm.
    Tolerances for acetochlor are currently expressed in terms of
``residues of acetochlor; 2-chloro-2'-methyl-6-ethyl-N-
ethoxymethylacetanilide, and its metabolites containing the ethyl
methyl aniline (EMA) moiety and the hydroxyethyl methyl aniline (HEMA)
moiety, to be analyzed as acetochlor and expressed as acetochlor
equivalents.'' EPA is revising the tolerance expression

for existing tolerances and the new tolerances on cotton and soybeans
to clarify the chemical moieties that are covered by the tolerances and
specify how compliance with the tolerances is to be measured. The
revised tolerance expression makes clear that the tolerance covers
``residues of acetochlor, including its metabolites and degradates,''
and that compliance with the tolerance levels will be determined by
measuring only ``acetochlor, 2-chloro-2'-methyl-6-ethyl-N-
ethoxymethylacetanilide, and its metabolites containing the EMA moiety
and the HEMA moiety. Both parent and the named metabolites shall be
determined as EMA and HEMA, and calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalents of acetochlor.''
    EPA has determined that it is reasonable to make this change final
without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because public
comment is not necessary, in that the change has no substantive effect
on the tolerance, but rather is merely intended to clarify the existing
tolerance expression.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of acetochlor,
including its metabolites and degradates, on cotton, gin byproducts at
4.0 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.6 ppm; soybean, meal at 1.2 ppm;
and soybean, seed at 1.0 ppm. Compliance with these tolerance levels is
to be determined by measuring only acetochlor, 2-chloro-2'-methyl-6-
ethyl-N-ethoxymethylacetanilide, and its metabolites containing the EMA
moiety and the HEMA moiety. Both parent and the named metabolites shall
be determined as EMA and HEMA, and calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalents of acetochlor.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA 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 final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule 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 final rule 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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, 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 final rule 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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 final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    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 of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule 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: August 31, 2009.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
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. Section 180.470 is amended by revising the introductory text in
paragraphs (a) and (d); alphabetically adding the entries cotton, gin
byproducts; cotton, undelinted seed; soybean, meal; and soybean, seed
to the table in paragraph (a), and by removing the entry for ``soybean,
seed'' from the table in paragraph (d) to read as follows.

Sec.  180.470  Acetochlor; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of acetochlor,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in
the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below
is to be determined by measuring only acetochlor, 2-chloro-2'-methyl-6-
ethyl-N-ethoxymethylacetanilide, and its metabolites containing the
ethyl methyl aniline (EMA) moiety and the hydroxyethyl methyl aniline
(HEMA) moiety. Both parent and the named metabolites shall be
determined as ethyl methyl aniline (EMA) and hydroxyethyl methyl
aniline (HEMA), and calculated as the stoichiometric equivalents of
acetochlor, in or on the following commodities:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Commodity                                            Parts per million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    * * * * *
Cotton, gin byproducts...........................................                                            4.0
Cotton, undelinted seed..........................................                                            0.6
                                                    * * * * *
Soybean, meal....................................................                                            1.2
Soybean, seed....................................................                                            1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. Tolerances are established
for indirect or inadvertent residues of acetochlor, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the raw agricultural commodities
in the table to this paragraph when present therein as a result of
application of acetochlor to the growing crops in the table to
paragraph (a) of this section. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only acetochlor, 2-
chloro-2'-methyl-6-ethyl-N-ethoxymethylacetanilide, and its metabolites
containing the ethyl methyl aniline (EMA) moiety and the hydroxyethyl
methyl aniline (HEMA) moiety. Both parent and the named metabolites
shall be determined as ethyl methyl aniline (EMA) and hydroxyethyl
methyl aniline (HEMA), and calculated as the stoichiometric equivalents
of acetochlor, in or on the following commodities.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-21845 Filed 9-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7652-7655]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3214]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66341; File No. SR-ICEEU-2012-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Proposed Rule Change To Revise Rules and Procedures Related to
Certain Technical and Operational Changes Relating to Credit Default
Swap Contracts

February 7, 2012.
    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 January 24, 2012, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule changes described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by ICE Clear Europe. 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

    ICE Clear Europe is in regular communication with representatives
of its Clearing Members, as that term is defined in the Rules of ICE
Clear Europe \3\ (the ``Rules''), in relation to the operation of
clearing processes and arrangements. ICE Clear Europe has published
these proposed rule and procedural changes, has carried out a public
consultation process in respect of all of the changes described below,
and has presented and agreed to the changes described below with its
Clearing Members. These changes seek to improve drafting and cross-
references within the ICE Clear Europe Rules and CDS Procedures, and to
clarify the timing and operation of various clearing

processes, for existing clearing activities. ICE Clear Europe takes the
view that the proposed rule changes are improvements in operational
services that are administrative in nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ICE Clear Europe Rule 101. The Rules of ICE Clear Europe
are available on-line at: https://www.theice.com/Rulebook.shtml?clearEuropeRulebook=.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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 III below. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant
aspects of these statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Per discussions with Shearman & Sterling, LLP, counsel to
ICE Clear Europe, the staff has made minor modifications to the text
of the summaries prepared by ICE Clear Europe to (1) incorporate
information from the form filed by ICE Clear Europe addressing the
statutory basis for the proposed rule change, (2) remove conclusory
language from the description of the rule changes, and (3) revise
the description of certain of ICE Clear Europe's existing rules and
processes solely for purposes of clarification. Telephone conference
between Russell Sacks and Michael Blankenship, Shearman & Sterling
LLP, and Andrew Bernstein, Securities and Exchange Commission,
Division of Trading and Markets, on February 6, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. Purpose
    The proposed changes were set out in revisions to the Rules and CDS
Procedures that were published in circular no. C11/170 published on
November 25, 2011 (available on the Internet Web site of ICE Clear
Europe at: https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/clear_europe/circulars/C11170_att1.pdf and https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/clear_europe/circulars/C11170_att2.pdf). ICE Clear Europe makes these rule changes
for the purpose of specifying technical operational changes relating to
CDS Contracts (as defined at ICE Clear Europe Rule 101), principally
those that arise under its rules on an occasional basis as part of the
end-of-day price submission process by Clearing Members.
    Specifically, these changes can be grouped into three categories:
    First, under the current Rules, CDS Contracts that arise following
the end-of-day pricing process give rise to non-cleared transactions
that may later be submitted for clearing. However, since the applicable
CDS Contract is typically intended to be cleared between the parties,
and since trades that arise following end-of-day pricing arise at the
direction of the clearing house, ICE Clear Europe believes that it is
more efficient and reduces risk for such CDS Contract to arise upon
notice by ICE Clear Europe, rather than to require the applicable
parties to submit the CDS Contract later. Once ICE Clear Europe has
notified the two affected clearing members of a contract under Rule
401(a)(xi), the contract will stand, unless it is voidable under Rule
404 (for example due to illegality or manifest error). The first change
therefore establishes Rule 401(a)(xi) to permit ICE Clear Europe to
specify the time and terms of entry into a CDS Contract arising
following the submission of end-of-day prices by a Clearing Member.
This change gives rise to the majority of the proposed rule changes in
the text of the ICE Clear Europe Rules and the CDS Procedures. As a
practical matter, this change operationalizes a technical service by
which the terms of a CDS Contract entered into following submission of
end-of-day prices can be promptly cleared by ICE Clear Europe. In order
to operationalize this change, certain conforming changes are required.
For example, various Rules establishing procedures for other
automatically effective CDS Contracts are amended to include new Rule
401(a)(xi). Also, a corresponding amendment amends Rule 602 to provide
for Rule 602(c), which deems Clearing Members not to be in violation of
Position Limits (as defined in the Rules) as a result of CDS Contracts
that arise by notice of ICE Clear Europe. During consultations with
Clearing Members, it was pointed out that such CDS Contracts could
otherwise cause a breach of Position Limits, if any are in place (which
they currently are not). Rule 602(c) provides a procedure under which
the Clearing Member can close out such a position within five business
days of the applicable Position Limit adoption or determination date.
In this manner, both the policy of ensuring the pricing process through
automatically effective trades and the policy of ensuring Position
Limits are respected. ICE Clear Europe notes that these provisions
relating to accommodation of Clearing Members in respect of Position
Limits that may be applicable to CDS Contracts that are automatically
effective applies not only to Rule 401(a)(xi), but also to Rules
401(a)(v), (vi), and (x). In the case of Rule 401(a)(v), new Rule
602(c) would apply to CDS Contracts that arise from transactions
generated by ICE Futures Europe or the ICE OTC Operator as a result of
the operation of their contra trade, error trade, invalid trade,
cancelled trade, error correction or similar policies and rules and
procedures relating thereto or otherwise. In the case of Rule
401(a)(vi), new Rule 602(c) would apply to CDS Contracts that form as a
result of another Contract being invoiced back by ICE Clear Europe.
Finally, in the case of Rule 401(a)(x), new Rule 602(c) would apply to
CDS Contracts arising pursuant to Rule 903(a)(xii), which generally
governs the creation of new CDS Contracts between ICE Clear Europe and
non-defaulting Clearing Members to replace any remaining CDS Contracts
of a defaulting Clearing Member.
    Second, settlement and coupon payments under CDS Contracts will,
under the Rule changes, take place through the ICE Clear Europe's
payment banking network used for other cleared products, and not
through the CLS Bank International (``CLS'') system. At present,
Section 8.9 of the CDS Procedures provides that where a CDS Contract is
to be settled in circumstances in which Rule 1514 (CDS Alternative
Delivery or Settlement Procedure) does not apply, relevant cash
payments between ICE Clear Europe and CDS Clearing Members will take
place through The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation using CLS,
unless otherwise specified by ICE Clear Europe in a circular prior to
the date on which such cash payments are due. However, following
consultation with Clearing Members, ICE Clear Europe has determined it
is more efficient if settlement and coupon payments are effected
through ICE Clear Europe's current payment system (which is also
permitted by the current CDS Procedures). ICE Clear Europe has
determined to harmonize the system described at Section 8.9 of the CDS
Procedures into a single payment system. This is achieved through the
deletion of Section 8.9 of the CDS Procedures. It should be noted that
this proposed change also serves to further harmonize the ICE Clear
Europe Rules and CDS Procedures with those of ICE Clear Credit LLC, the
U.S.-based clearing agency affiliate of ICE Clear Europe.
    Third, various immaterial other cross-reference and typographical
amendments to the processes for submission of CDS Contracts are made.
The typographical changes are as follows: (i) Section 4.2 of the CDS
Procedures, the words ``Bilateral CDS Contract'' are changed to
``Bilateral CDS Transaction'', and (ii) Section 8.4 of the

CDS Procedures, the words ``submission of'' are added. These changes
are made solely to correct typographical and cross-reference drafting
in the text of the Rules and make no substantive changes to the Rules.
    As noted above, the proposed rule changes consist of technical rule
changes that are designed to implement operational improvements that
have been published for public consultation by ICE Clear Europe and
discussed with and approved by the Clearing Members of ICE Clear
Europe. In each case, the principal purpose of the proposed rule change
is for the rule or procedural provisions to be updated to reflect such
improvements, in particular relating to (i) CDS Contracts that arise as
a result of the end-of-day pricing process and (ii) to settlement and
to coupon payments under CDS Contracts that will, under the rule
changes, take place solely through ICE Clear Europe's payment banking
network used for other cleared products, not through either such
payment network or through third-party systems.
    As regards the changes relating to CDS contracts, ICE Clear Europe
has engaged in extensive private consultation with its CDS Clearing
Members involving both operational and legal consultation groups and
has presented the changes to its CDS Risk Committee, which approved the
changes. ICE Clear Europe has also engaged in a public consultation
process in relation to all the changes, pursuant to the Circulars
referred to above, and as required under applicable U.K. legislation.
This public consultation involved the publication of such Circulars on
a publicly accessible portion of the Internet Web site of ICE Clear
Europe. ICE Clear Europe has received no opposing views from its
Clearing Members in relation to the proposed rule amendments and
received no responses to its public consultations during the
consultation period.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule amendments incorporate changes that seek to
improve drafting and cross-references within the ICE Clear Europe Rules
and CDS Procedures, and to clarify the timing and operation of various
clearing processes, for existing clearing activities. The proposed rule
changes are improvements in the services of ICE Clear Europe that are
administrative in nature. In particular, the changes relating to CDS
Contracts arising following end-of-day pricing are being implemented to
provide a more efficient mechanism for the clearing of CDS Contracts
already agreed to by the applicable parties, and do not relate to the
safeguarding of funds or securities or to the rights or obligations of
ICE Clear Europe or its Clearing Members in relation to such CDS
Contracts. The timing improvements arising from the faster processing
of such agreed-to CDS Contracts does not impact the consistency of the
services of ICE Clear Europe with applicable requirements and standards
under the Act. Similarly, the harmonization of payment systems for
settlement and coupon payments does not impact the custody of
securities or funds, nor does it impact the rights or obligations of
ICE Clear Europe or its Clearing Members or the consistency of the
payment systems with statutory requirements and standards. This is
particularly so since the harmonized system is already operative and
eligible for use under ICE Clear Europe Rules and CDS Procedures.
Further, the changes do not change the substantial provisions of the
Rules or CDS Procedures, or the rights and obligations of ICE Clear
Europe Clearing Members, in relation to the underlying CDS Contracts,
nor do they impact the guarantee fund or custody functions of ICE Clear
Europe.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Europe 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 been
solicited by ICE Clear Europe pursuant to public consultation processes
in the Circular referred to above. No comments have been received. The
time period for the public consultation required by U.K. law has
closed, and ICE Clear Europe does not expect to receive any further
written comments as a result of this process.

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 (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date 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-ICEEU-2012-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2012-01. 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 Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe. 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-ICEEU-2012-01 and should be
submitted on or before March 5, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3214 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P