[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19031-19034]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07183]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69218; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Exchange Rule 3100

March 22, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on March 11, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend
Exchange Rule 3100 to establish rules to comply with the requirements
of the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility submitted to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change 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. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 3100 to establish
rules to comply with the requirements of the Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility submitted to the Commission pursuant to
Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (the ``Plan'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68953 (Feb. 20,
2013) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Second
Amendment to the National Market System Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility, File No. 4-631).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Since May 6, 2010, when the markets experienced excessive
volatility in an abbreviated time period, i.e., the ``flash crash,''
the equities exchanges and FINRA have implemented market-wide measures
designed to restore investor confidence by reducing the potential for
excessive market volatility. Among the measures adopted include pilot
plans for stock-by-stock trading pauses \4\ and

related changes to the equities market clearly erroneous execution
rules \5\ and more stringent equities market maker quoting
requirements. On May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the Plan, as
amended, on a one-year pilot basis.\6\ In addition, the Commission
approved changes to the equities market-wide circuit breaker rules on a
pilot basis to coincide with the pilot period for the Plan.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., PSX Rule 3100.
    \5\ See, e.g., PSX Rule 3312.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631) (Order Approving,
on a Pilot Basis, the National Market System Plan To Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-2011-
025; SR-BX-2011-068; SR-CBOE-2011-087; SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-2011-
30; SR-EDGA-2011-31; SR-EDGX-2011-30; SR-FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-
2011-61; SR-NASDAQ-2011-131; SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-NYSE-2011-48; SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-73; SR-NYSEArca-2011-68; SR-Phlx-2011-129).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan is designed to prevent trades in individual NMS Stocks
from occurring outside of specified Price Bands.\8\ As described more
fully below, the requirements of the Plan are coupled with Trading
Pauses to accommodate more fundamental price moves (as opposed to
erroneous trades or momentary gaps in liquidity). All trading centers
in NMS Stocks, including both those operated by Participants and those
operated by members of Participants, are required to establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to comply with the requirements specified in the
Plan.\9\ As set forth in more detail in the Plan, Price Bands
consisting of a Lower Price Band and an Upper Price Band for each NMS
Stock are calculated by the Processors.\10\ When the National Best Bid
(Offer) is below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price Band, the Processors
shall disseminate such National Best Bid (Offer) with an appropriate
flag identifying it as non-executable. When the National Best Bid
(Offer) is equal to the Upper (Lower) Price Band, the Processors shall
distribute such National Best Bid (Offer) with an appropriate flag
identifying it as a Limit State Quotation.\11\ All trading centers in
NMS Stocks must maintain written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to prevent the display of offers below the Lower
Price Band and bids above the Upper Price Band for NMS Stocks.
Notwithstanding this requirement, the Processor shall display an offer
below the Lower Price Band or a bid above the Upper Price Band, but
with a flag that it is non-executable. Such bids or offers shall not be
included in the National Best Bid or National Best Offer
calculations.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are based on the defined terms of the Plan.
    \9\ The Exchange is a Participant in the Plan.
    \10\ See Section (V)(A) of the Plan.
    \11\ See Section VI(A) of the Plan.
    \12\ See Section VI(A)(3) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trading in an NMS Stock immediately enters a Limit State if the
National Best Offer (Bid) equals but does not cross the Lower (Upper)
Price Band.\13\ Trading for an NMS stock exits a Limit State if, within
15 seconds of entering the Limit State, all Limit State Quotations were
executed or canceled in their entirety. If the market does not exit a
Limit State within 15 seconds, then the Primary Listing Exchange would
declare a five-minute Trading Pause pursuant to Section VII of the LULD
Plan, which would be applicable to all markets trading the
security.\14\ In addition, the Plan defines a Straddle State as when
the National Best Bid (Offer) is below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price
Band and the NMS Stock is not in a Limit State. For example, assume the
Lower Price Band for an NMS Stock is $9.50 and the Upper Price Band is
$10.50, such NMS stock would be in a Straddle State if the National
Best Bid were below $9.50, and therefore non-executable, and the
National Best Offer were above $9.50 (including a National Best Offer
that could be above $10.50). If an NMS Stock is in a Straddle State and
trading in that stock deviates from normal trading characteristics, the
Primary Listing Exchange may declare a Trading Pause for that NMS
Stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Section VI(B)(1) of the Plan.
    \14\ The primary listing market would declare a trading pause in
an NMS Stock; upon notification by the primary listing market, the
Processor would disseminate this information to the public. No
trades in that NMS Stock could occur during the trading pause, but
all bids and offers may be displayed. See Section VII(A) of the
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendment to Rule 3100
    The Exchange is required by the Plan to establish, maintain, and
enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to
comply with the limit up-limit down and trading pause requirements
specified in the Plan. In response to the new Plan, the Exchange
proposes to amend its Rules accordingly.
    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 3100(a)(5)(A)(1) to define that
``Plan'' means the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility
Submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission Pursuant to Rule
608 of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Exhibit A to Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012),
77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012). In addition, proposed Rule 3100(a)(5)(A)(2)
provides that all capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Rule
shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan or Exchange rules, as
applicable.
    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 3100(a)(5)(C) to provide that
Exchange members shall comply with the applicable provisions of the
Plan. The Exchange believes that this requirement will help ensure the
compliance by its members with the provisions of the Plan as required
pursuant to Section II(B) of the Plan.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Section II(B) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 3100(a)(5)(D) to provide that
Exchange systems shall not display or execute buy (sell) interest above
(below) the Upper (Lower) Price Bands, unless such interest is
specifically exempted under the Plan. The Exchange believes that this
requirement is reasonably designed to help ensure the compliance with
the limit up-limit down and trading pause requirements specified in the
Plan, by preventing executions outside the Price Bands as required
pursuant to Section VI(A)(1) of the Plan.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Section VI(A)(1) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes Rules regarding the treatment of certain
trading interest on the Exchange in order to prevent executions outside
the Price Bands and to comply with the new LULD Plan. In particular,
the Exchange proposes to add Rule 3100(a)(5)(E) to provide that
Exchange systems shall re-price or cancel buy (sell) interest that is
priced or could be executed above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price Band.
Any interest that is repriced pursuant to this Rule shall receive a new
time stamp and new execution priority.\17\ Specifically, the Exchange
proposes the following provisions regarding the repricing or canceling
of certain trading interest:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ PSX believes it is appropriate for re-priced orders to
receive a new time stamp and new execution priority rather than jump
ahead of previously-entered orders. In effect, an adjustment in
price is equivalent to the entry of a new order; that function is
simply being automated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Market Orders. If a market order with a time in force
other than Immediate or Cancel cannot be fully executed at or within
the Price Bands, Exchange systems shall post the unexecuted portion of
the buy (sell) market order at the Upper (Lower) Price Band.
     Limit-priced Interest. Both displayable and non-
displayable incoming limit-priced interest to buy (sell) that is priced
above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price Band shall be

repriced to the Upper (Lower) Price Band. The treatment of limit-priced
interest will depend upon its order entry protocol. For limit-priced
orders entered via the OUCH protocol, the order shall be re-priced upon
entry only if the Price Bands are such that the price of the limit-
priced interest to buy (sell) would be above (below) the upper (lower)
Price Band. Once slid, the treatment of that interest will further
depend upon whether it becomes passive or aggressive interest.
Specifically, if the order becomes passively priced such that the Price
Bands move and the price of the order to buy (sell) would be below
(below) the lower (upper) Price Band, the order will not be re-priced
again. Rather, the order will either remain on the book at the same
price or be cancelled back to the entering party, depending on how the
entering party has configured its order entry port. If the interest
becomes aggressively priced such that the Price Bands move and the
price of the order to buy (sell) would be above (below) the upper
(lower) Price Band, the order will not be re-priced again. Rather, the
order will be cancelled.
     For limit-priced orders entered via RASH or FIX protocols,
the order shall priced upon order entry and then shall be eligible to
be repriced by the system multiple times if the Price Bands move such
that the price of resting limit-priced interest to buy (sell) would be
above (below) the upper (lower) Price Band. Once slid, if the Price
Bands move such that the price of resting limit interest to buy (sell)
would be below (above) the upper (lower) Price Band the order will
continue to be repriced either to its original limit price or to the
new price bands, whichever is less aggressive.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The NASDAQ system will treat limit-priced orders
differently depending upon whether the entering firm uses the OUCH
protocol on one hand or the RASH or FIX protocols on the other. This
different treatment stems from the ultimate destination for orders
entered via those protocols. Orders entered via OUCH are destined
for direct entry to the NASDAQ matching engine. As such, they are
not eligible for special treatments or calculations, including re-
pricing. Orders entered via RASH (short for ``routing and special
handling'') and FIX are destined for the indirect entry into the
matching engine. They are eligible for special treatments and
calculations, including re-pricing. This difference in the protocols
is longstanding and well-known to NASDAQ members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     IOC Orders. If an IOC order cannot be fully executed at or
within the Price Bands, Exchange systems shall cancel any unexecuted
portion of the IOC Order.
     Routable Orders. Exchange systems shall not route buy
(sell) interest to an away market displaying a sell (buy) quote that is
above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price Band. Orders that are eligible to
be routed to away destinations will be price slid before routing if the
buy (sell) is priced above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price Band.
     Sell Short Orders. During a Short Sale Price Test, as
defined in Rule 4763(b), Short Sale Orders priced below the Lower Price
Band shall be repriced to the higher of the Lower Price Band or the
Permitted Price, as defined in Rule 4763(b).
    The Exchange believes these provisions are reasonably designed to
prevent executions outside the Price Bands as required by the limit up-
limit down and trading pause requirements specified in the Plan.
    The Exchanges also proposes to amend Rule 3100(a)(4) regarding
Trading Pauses to correspond with the LULD Plan. The proposed change
clarifies that the Exchange will continue to follow pauses called by
the primary listing market for each security until such time as the
LULP Plan is fully implemented. As a result, during Phase 1 of the LULD
Plan, a Trading Pause in Tier 1 NMS Stocks shall be subject to the
requirements of the LULD Plan and a Trading Pause in Tier 2 NMS Stocks
shall be subject to the requirements set forth in Exchange 3100(a)(4).
Once the Plan has been fully implemented and all NMS Stocks are subject
to the Plan, a Trading Pause under the Plan shall be subject to
Exchange Rule 3100(a)(5). These proposed changes are designed to comply
with Section VIII of the LULD Plan to ensure implementation of the
Plan's requirements.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Section VIII of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \20\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5),\21\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f (b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal will ensure that the Exchange systems will not display
or execute trading interest outside the Price Bands in a manner that
promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes impediments
to, and perfects the mechanism of, a free and open market and a
national market system.
    The proposal will also ensure that the trading interest on the
Exchange is either repriced or canceled in a manner that is consistent
with just and equitable principles of trade and removes impediments to,
and perfects the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national
market system. Specifically, when trading interest is re-priced to
comply with the requirements of the Plan, that trading interest will
receive a new timestamp and new execution priority. Re-pricing is the
automated equivalent of the entry of a new order which would, if done
manually, result in a new timestamp and placement in the execution
queue. The proposal will help market participants to continue to trade
NMS Stocks within Price Bands in compliance with the Plan with
certainty on how orders and trading interest will be treated. Reducing
uncertainty regarding the treatment and priority of trading interest
with the Price Bands should help encourage market participants to
continue to provide liquidity during extraordinary market volatility.
    The proposal will also ensure that orders in NMS Stocks are not
routed to other exchanges in situations where an execution may occur
outside Price Bands, and thus promotes just and equitable principles of
trade and removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of, a free
and open market and a national market system.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the
proposal is specifically designed to ensure cooperation between and
among all national securities exchanges and FINRA to promote uniform
and effective regulation of the national market system. The proposal is
specifically aimed at reducing competition among exchanges that is
based on differences in regulations, otherwise known as regulatory
arbitrage. In actuality, the proposal is pro-competitive because it
promotes fair and orderly markets and investor protection, which in
turn will restore investor confidence and attract more investors into
U.S. equities markets.

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\23\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \24\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\25\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to designate an operative date of April 8, 2013. The
Commission believes that waiving the operative delay and designating
April 8, 2013 as the operative date of the proposed rule change is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because such waiver would allow the proposed rule change to be
operative on the initial date of Plan operations. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and designates an
operative date of April 8, 2013.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \26\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-Phlx-2013-26 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-Phlx-2013-26. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-26 and should be
submitted on or before April 18, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority. \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07183 Filed 3-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                                	OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND
                                                           POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

Date: 	May 3, 2021

SUBJECT:	Spirodiclofen: Tier I Update Review of Human Incidents and Epidemiology for Draft Risk Assessment

PC Code: 124871
DP Barcode: D461604
Decision No.: 571861
Registration No.: NA
Petition No.: NA
Regulatory Action: NA
Risk Assessment Type: NA
Case No.: NA
TXR No.: NA
CAS No.: 148477-71-8
MRID No.: NA
40 CFR: NA
		              									Ver.Apr.08

FROM:	Shanna Recore, Industrial Hygienist
		Elizabeth Evans, Environmental Protection Specialist
		Erin Jones, Epidemiologist
		Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch
		Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	David J. Miller, Branch Chief
		Chemistry and Exposure Branch
		Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO: 		Abiy Mohammed, Risk Assessor
		Risk Assessment Branch I
		Health Effects Division (7509P)
			and
            Veronica Dutch, Chemical Review Manager
		Risk Management & Implementation Branch 5
		Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

Summary and Conclusions

Spirodiclofen incidents were previously reviewed in 2014 (E. Evans and S. Recore, D422435, 10/23/14).  At that time, based on the low frequency and severity of spirodiclofen incident cases reported to Incident Data System (IDS) and NIOSH Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR)-Pesticides further investigation was not warranted.

In the current IDS analysis from January 1, 2014 to April 19, 2021, one spirodiclofen incident was reported to Main IDS. This incident involved multiple active ingredients.  There were five spirodiclofen incidents reported to Aggregate IDS.  A query of SENSOR-Pesticides 1998-2017 identified 31 cases involving spirodiclofen.

The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) is a federally-funded study that evaluates associations between pesticide exposures and cancer and other health outcomes and represents a collaborative effort between the US National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), CDC's National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the US EPA. The Agency conducted a search of the AHS publications and the available open literature (PubMED, PubMED Central, and Science Direct) and identified one epidemiological publication that reported on the potential association between spirodiclofen exposure and health effects, specifically childhood leukemia.

Based on the continued low frequency of spirodiclofen incidents reported to both IDS and SENSOR-Pesticides, there does not appear to be a concern at this time. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that a clear associative or causal relationship exists between spirodiclofen and childhood leukemia.

Detailed Review

 ACTION REQUESTED

Spirodiclofen is being considered under the FQPA-mandated Registration Review program established to review, on a 15-year cycle, pesticides for which a Re-registration Eligibility Decision has been made.  HED's RAB I has requested that CEB conduct a Tier I Update review summary of recent incident data from IDS and SENSOR and any available epidemiological literature as per standard protocol under the Agency's Registration Review Program. One component of the Agency's Registration Review Program is consideration of human incident and epidemiological data.  In conjunction with a human health risk assessment based on other data sources, such human incident and epidemiological data can assist the Agency in better defining and characterizing the risk of pesticides/pesticide products.

It is important to remember that reports of adverse health effects allegedly due to a specific pesticide exposure (i.e., an "incident") are largely self-reported and therefore, generally speaking, neither exposure to a pesticide or reported symptom (or the connection between the two) is validated or otherwise confirmed.  Typically, causation cannot be determined based on incident data, and such data should be interpreted with caution.  Nonetheless, incident information can be an important source of feedback to the Agency:  incidents of severe outcome, or a suggested pattern or trend among less severe incidents, can signal the Agency to further investigate a particular chemical or product. Epidemiology studies can also be useful and relate the risk of disease, e.g., cancer, and exposure to an agent such as a pesticide product in the general population or specific sub-groups like pesticide applicators.

 BACKGROUND

Spirodiclofen is an insecticide/miticide in the tetronic acid chemical class.  The mode of action is inhibition of lipid synthesis.  It controls mites and San Jose scale in citrus, grapes, pome fruit, stone fruit, and tree nut crops.  The method of application is ground boom.

For this evaluation, both OPP Incident Data System (IDS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH) Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk-Pesticides (SENSOR) databases were consulted for pesticide incident data on the active ingredient spirodiclofen (PC Code: 124871).  The purpose of the database search is to identify potential patterns in the frequency and severity of the health effects attributed to spirodiclofen exposure. In addition, a search for available epidemiological publications was also conducted.

 RESULTS/DISCUSSION
 IDS (Incident Data System)

OPP's IDS includes reports of alleged human health incidents from various sources, including mandatory Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 6(a)(2) reports from registrants, other federal and state health and environmental agencies, and individual consumers. Since 1992, OPP has compiled these reports in IDS.  IDS contains reports from across the U.S. and most incidents have all relevant product information recorded. Reports submitted to the IDS represent anecdotal reports or allegations only, unless otherwise stated in the report.

IDS records incidents in one of two modules: Main IDS and Aggregate IDS:

 Main IDS generally contains incidents resulting in higher severity outcomes and provides more detail with regard to case specifics.  This system stores incident data for death, major and moderate incidents, and it includes information about the location, date and nature of the incident.  Main IDS incidents involving only one pesticide are considered to provide more certain information about the potential effects of exposure from the pesticide.

 Aggregate IDS contains incidents resulting in less severe human incidents (minor, unknown, or no effects outcomes). These are reported by registrants only as counts in what are aggregate summaries.
For the Main IDS for the seven years from January 1, 2014 to April 19, 2021, there was one incident reported that involved the active ingredient spirodiclofen.  This incident involved multiple active ingredients and was classified as minor severity.
For Aggregate IDS for the five years from January 1, 2014 to April 19, 2021, there were five incidents reported involving spirodiclofen.  These incidents were classified as minor severity.

 SENSOR-Pesticides

The Center for Disease Control's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH) manages a pesticide surveillance program and database entitled the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR)-Pesticides.  All cases must report at least two adverse health effects.  Evidence for each case is evaluated for its causal relationship between exposure and illness based on the NIOSH case classification index.  Using standardized protocol and case definitions, SENSOR-Pesticides state coordinators, operating out of the state's department of health, receive state pesticide incident reports from local sources, then follow up with case sources to get incident scenario to obtain medical records and verify exposure scenario information.  This database includes pesticide illness case reports from multiple states from 1998-2017.

A query of SENSOR-Pesticides 2010-2017 identified 31 cases involving spirodiclofen.  All 31 cases involved multiple pesticide active ingredients, including spirodiclofen.  Five cases were moderate in severity and 26 cases were low in severity.  All cases were occupational.
One event led to the exposure and illness of 25 of the 31 cases.  The (single) event that lead to 25 case reports occurred in Washington State in 2013.  The 25 cases were all agricultural workers who were thinning apples in an orchard when they were exposed to off-target spray drift from a nearby application of azinphos methyl and spirodiclofen.  Depending upon their location in the orchard, several workers only smelled the pesticide, several workers however felt the pesticide mist on their face and skin, and they also saw the application underway; which continued for more than 30 minutes while the workers remained in the orchard.  The Washington State Department of Agriculture investigated this event (WSDA Case CJS-0021-13) and violations against the applicator were issued.  Three of these cases from this event were moderate in severity and 22 cases were low in severity.  The three moderate severity cases in this event were treated in a doctor's office for adverse health effects including: headache, chest pain, abdominal pain, nausea, and ocular irritation.

The two other moderate severity cases also involved apple orchard workers.  One case was applying pesticides and he removed his PPE at the end of the row and became ill.  The other case was thinning apples in an orchard and saw the spray applicator about 50 to 80 meters away from him. He smelled the pesticide and could see the mist from the top of the trees and the wind pushed the mist toward him.

The symptoms most frequently reported among the 31 cases were primarily nausea and headache, followed by dizziness, eye pain, abdominal pain, vomiting, upper respiratory pain/irritation, and cough.

 Agricultural Health Study (AHS)

The AHS is a federally-funded study that evaluates associations between pesticide exposures and cancer and other health outcomes and represents a collaborative effort between the US National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), CDC's National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the US EPA. The AHS participant cohort includes more than 89,000 licensed commercial and private pesticide applicators and their spouses from Iowa and North Carolina. Enrollment occurred from 1993  -  1997, and data collection is ongoing. The AHS maintains a list of publications resulting from AHS studies. If there are AHS findings in the published literature relevant to a pesticide undergoing registration review, the Agency will ensure these findings are considered during the registration review process and, if appropriate, fully reviewed in the risk assessment phase of the process. For this Tier I Update Review of Human Incidents and Epidemiology for Draft Risk Assessment, EPA reviewed the AHS publications listed on the AHS publication website. As of
April 2021, four AHS epidemiological studies included the word "spirodiclofen" however no epidemiological studies on the AHS prospective cohort population that included effect size measures for the association between spirodiclofen and health outcomes were listed.

 Open Literature Search (PubMed, PubMed Central, ScienceDirect)

In creating the Tier I Update memorandum, a search of the available literature completed on April 15, 2021 returned a total of 216 publications, with 69, 57, 90 publications from each PubMed, PubMed Central, and Science Direct, respectively. Upon further review of the retrieved publications, one publication (Park et al., 2020) contained an effect size measure for the association between spirodiclofen and the health outcome of childhood leukemia. No other publications retrieved contained effect size measures for the association between spirodiclofen and other health outcomes.

Park et al. (2020) conducted a records-based case-control study to examine the association between prenatal pesticide exposure, including spirodiclofen, and childhood leukemia. Cases were identified via the California Cancer Registry and included all cases of childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) diagnosed between 1986 and 2011 in children <6 years of age, born in California. Controls were identified via LinkPlus (CDC), a probabilistic linkage program, by linking cases to California birth certificates and were randomly selected from California birth records for the same time period and frequency-matched to cases by birth year (1998-2011). Authors state the controls had no record of cancer diagnosis in California before age 6 years, however authors did not specify the method they used to determine this information. Pesticide exposure was measured using statewide pesticide use reporting records from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) data and land use information from California's Public Land Survey System (PLSS) to align pesticide use data to crop cover data based on location using GIS. For each case/control, pesticide exposure (monthly and annual application rates- total pounds applied/acre over a time period) was assigned based on residential proximity to agricultural pesticide applications using a 4,000 meter buffer around the residential address. The residential address was obtained from the address at time of birth listed on the child's birth certificate. Demographic information on parents and children, including gestational age, was obtained from birth certificates and the year 2000 census. Children were excluded if: their residential address was outside of California (n = 632); were controls who died before 6 years old (n = 1,202);  data were missing for gestation length (n = 12,786); displayed implausibly long gestations (determined based on last reported menses, >45 weeks, n = 2,729); or were likely non-viable births (birth weight <500g or gestational age < 20 weeks, n = 32). Cases and controls were further restricted to rural residents using rural-urban commuting area codes (RUCA) determined through Census Tract information. The final study population included 162 childhood leukemia cases (132 ALL, 30 AML) and 9,805 controls. Of these, 10 ALL cases, 0 AML cases, and 787 matched controls reported exposure to spirodiclofen. Unconditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between ever exposure to pesticides during pregnancy and ALL and AML in children, adjusted for birth year, mother's race (Black, White non-Hispanic, Other race/refused to report), any other carcinogenic pesticide exposure, and neighborhood socioeconomic index. Variables were selected based on literature review and 10% change in estimate criterion. Crude ORs were adjusted for birth year. Adjusted ORs were adjusted for birth year, mother's race, and SES-index variable. HLM OR was adjusted for birth year, mother's race, SES-index variable, and overall pesticide effect in the hierarchical model. No evidence of a significant positive association was reported between spirodiclofen exposure during pregnancy and childhood ALL (Crude  -  OR = 1.36; 95% CI: not reported; n = 10 exposed cases; Adjusted  -  OR = 1.28; 95% CI: 0.62, 2.62; n = 10 exposed cases; HLM  -  OR = 1.35; 95% CI: 0.63, 2.89; with n = 10 exposed cases). We note the very small number of exposed cases. No risk estimates were reported by the study authors for spirodiclofen and AML in children.

 CONCLUSION

Based on the continued low frequency of spirodiclofen incidents reported to both IDS and SENSOR-Pesticides, there does not appear to be a concern at this time. In creating the Tier I Update memorandum, EPA reviewed the AHS publications listed on the AHS publication website and searched the open literature. As of April 2021, one publication reporting on the potential association between spirodiclofen exposure and health outcomes was identified and reviewed: the single identified study (Park et al, 2020) found no evidence of a significant positive relationship between spirodiclofen exposure and the health outcome of childhood leukemia. The Agency will continue to monitor the incident and epidemiological information through Registration Review.

 Citations

Park, A. S., Ritz, B., Yu, F., Cockburn, M., & Heck, J. E. (2020). Prenatal pesticide exposure and childhood leukemia  -  A California statewide case-control study. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 226, 113486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113486

RDI: 4/25/2021


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58496-58498]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18463]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31504; Amdt. No. 4076]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These
regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised
criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace
System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities,
adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These
changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective August 28, 2023. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of August 28, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination:
    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
    For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email

[email protected] or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    Availability: All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic
Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg 26, Room 217,
Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending
the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP
is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National
Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is
incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14
CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the
need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction
on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the
advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication
of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form
documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with
their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the
airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97
of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria
contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures
(TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions
existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule
have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency
action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published
aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2023.
Thomas J. Nichols,
Aviation Safety, Flight Standards Service, Manager, Standards Section,
Flight Procedures & Airspace Group, Flight Technologies & Procedures
Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part
97 is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates
specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,
40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      AIRAC date           State              City              Airport name        FDC No.      FDC date                  Procedure name
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Oct-23.............  WV             Charleston..........  West Virginia Intl         3/0120      8/11/23  ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Orig-A.
                                                             Yeager.
5-Oct-23.............  PA             Reading.............  Reading Rgnl/Carl A        3/2093      8/10/23  RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig.
                                                             Spaatz Fld.
5-Oct-23.............  OH             Washington Court      Fayette County......       3/2336      8/11/23  RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1A.
                                       House.
5-Oct-23.............  OH             Coshocton...........  Richard Downing.....       3/2817      8/11/23  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig.
5-Oct-23.............  WI             Mosinee.............  Central Wisconsin...       3/3041      7/27/23  RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1C.
5-Oct-23.............  GA             Americus............  Jimmy Carter Rgnl...       3/3101      6/21/23  RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1C.
5-Oct-23.............  AR             Fayetteville........  Drake Fld...........       3/7177       8/9/23  RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1B.

5-Oct-23.............  AR             Fayetteville........  Drake Fld...........       3/7180       8/9/23  LOC RWY 16, Orig.
5-Oct-23.............  AR             Fayetteville........  Drake Fld...........       3/7182       8/9/23  RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1C.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-18463 Filed 8-25-23; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 26389-26390]
[DOCID:fr02jn09-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

May 27, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP09-602-000.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Trans. LLC.
    Description: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC submits
notice to Mid-America Agri Products/Horizon LLC on 5/19/09 that firm
transportation service agreement 551784, relating to service under
KMIGT Rate Schedule FT etc.
    Filed Date: 05/19/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090520-0092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 01, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-603-000.
    Applicants: Centra Pipelines Minnesota.
    Description: Centra Pipelines Minnesota Inc submits Fifth Revised
Sheet 35 the Index of Shippers, for

which Centra Minnesota requests an effective date of 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 05/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090520-0098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 01, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-604-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC submits a Negotiated
Rate Agreement with Eni USA Gas Marketing, LLC for which Cameron
Interstate requests an effective date 6/30/09.
    Filed Date: 05/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090520-0097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 01, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-605-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Penalty Crediting Report for calendar year 2008 of El
Paso Natural Gas Company.
    Filed Date: 05/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090520-5093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 01, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-606-000.
    Applicants: Vector Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Vector Pipeline, LP submits Substitute Sixth Revised
Sheet 159 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective
8/1/09.
    Filed Date: 05/21/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090521-0051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 02, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-607-000.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline GP.
    Description: Northwest Pipeline GP submits First Revised Sheet 201
et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 05/21/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090521-0050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 02, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-608-000.
    Applicants: North Baja Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: North Baja Pipeline, LLC submits Second Revised Sheet
No. 117 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 05/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090522-0103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 03, 2009.
    Docket Numbers: RP09-609-000.
    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.
    Description: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP submits
Twenty-Third Revised Sheet 4 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised
Volume 1 to be effective 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 05/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090522-0102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 03, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-611-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation.
    Description: Carolina Gas Transmission Corp submits Second Revised
Sheet 212 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, effective 8/1/09 under
RP09-611.
    Filed Date: 05/26/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090527-0026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 08, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-612-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy-Mississippi River Transmission
Corporation.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy-Mississippi River Transmission
Corporation submits Second Revised Sheet 0 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff,
Third Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 05/26/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090527-0025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 08, 2009.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12737 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P