[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 32320]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12065]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14773-000]

Swanton Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On April 1, 2016, Swanton Hydro, LLC (Swanton Hydro) filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Lower Swanton Dam Hydroelectric Project (project) to be located on the
Missisquoi River in the Village of Swanton, Franklin County, Vermont.
The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the
permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit
term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to
perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or
waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) An existing 335-foot-
long, 12-foot-high concrete gravity dam (Swanton dam) with a 331-foot-
long spillway with 2-foot-high wooden flashboards; (2) an existing 170-
acre impoundment with a normal water surface elevation of 112 feet
above mean sea level; (3) a new 35-foot-long, 55-foot-wide intake
structure with trashracks; (4) a new 100-foot-long, 55-foot-wide, 25-
foot-high powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a
total installed capacity of 850 kilowatts; (5) a new 45-foot-long, 45-
foot-wide, 18-foot-deep tailrace and 50-foot-long training wall; (6) a
new 210-foot-long, 12.47-kilovolt transmission line and transformer;
and (7) appurtenant facilities. The project would produce an estimated
average annual generation of 3,580 megawatt-hours. There are no federal
lands associated with the project.
    Applicant Contact: William F. Scully, P.O. Box 338, North
Bennington, Vermont 05257; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Tom Dean<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14773-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14773) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: May 17, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12065 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 95 (Friday, May 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28561-28564]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11295]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72152; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-32]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding
the Limitation on Entering Electronic Limit Orders From Off the Floor
of the Exchange

May 12, 2014.
    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 May 2, 2014, 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, II,
and III 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Phlx
Rule 1080 (Phlx XL and Phlx XL II) to change the limitation on Exchange
members entering, or facilitating entry of, electronic limit orders in
the same option series from off the floor of the Exchange, so that the
limitation does not apply to off floor broker dealers or Professionals
as defined in Rule 1000(b)(14).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As discussed in the proposal, the limitation will continue
to apply to Professional all-or-none orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 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, 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Phlx Rule
1080(j) to change the limitation on Exchange members entering, or
facilitating entry of, electronic limit orders in the same option
series from off the floor of the Exchange (known as ``limitation'' or
``limitation on orders''), so that the limitation does not apply to off
floor broker dealers or Professionals as defined in Rule
1000(b)(14).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Per Rule 1000(b)(14), the term ``Professional'' means any
person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities,
and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on
average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal will align the Exchange with other options markets
that do not limit the entry of off floor broker dealer and Professional
limit orders, and effectively acting as market makers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See subsection (b) of International Securities Exchange
(``ISE'') Rule 717 (Limitations on Orders). As discussed, while the
language of the ISE Rule 717 and Exchange Rule 1080(j) is different,
as a result of this filing the practical effect of the rules will be
similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are, along with specialists, several types of Registered
Option Traders (``ROTs'') on the Exchange. These include market makers
that are Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs''),\6\ Directed Streaming
Quote Traders (``DSQTs''), Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'')
\7\ and Directed Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``DRSQTs'').\8\
Specialists may function

on the floor of the Exchange as well as off floor (``Remote
Specialists'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ An SQT is an ROT who has received permission from the
Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically in
eligible options to which such SQT is assigned. An SQT may only
submit such quotations while such SQT is physically present on the
floor of the Exchange. See Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A).
    \7\ An RSQT is an ROT that is a member or member organization
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically in eligible options to which such RSQT has been
assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations electronically
from off the floor of the Exchange. See Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B). As
many as three RSQTs may be affiliated with an RSQT Organization.
    \8\ A DSQT is an SQT and a DRSQT is an RSQT that receives a
Directed Order. Exchange Phlx Rule 1080(l)(i)(A) defines Directed
Order as any customer order (other than a stop or stop-limit order
as defined in Phlx Rule 1066) to buy or sell which has been directed
to a particular specialist, RSQT, or SQT by an Order Flow Provider
and delivered to the Exchange via its electronic quoting, execution
and trading system.
    \9\ A Remote Specialist is an options specialist in one or more
classes that does not have a physical presence on an Exchange floor
and is approved by the Exchange pursuant to Phlx Rule 501. Phlx Rule
1020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Phlx Rule 1080 developed from a decades-old pilot program
to operate the Exchange's Automated Options market (``AUTOM'') system
to allow electronic delivery of options orders from member firms
directly to the appropriate specialist on the Exchange options trading
floor (with electronic confirmation of order executions).\10\ The AUTOM
order delivery system grew over the years into the current fully
automated Phlx options trading system XL II \11\ that is codified in
Phlx Rule 1080. In addition to XL II, Phlx Rule 1080 deals with, among
other things, eligibility and processing of electronic orders, how PIXL
works, complex PIXL orders,\12\ qualified contingent cross orders,\13\
and acceptable trade range.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25540, 53 FR 11390
(April 6, 1988) (SR-Phlx-88-10) (order granting approval of pilot
program establishing AUTOM). See also Phlx Rule 1080(a) discussing
AUTOM: (a) AUTOM is the Exchange's electronic order delivery and
reporting system, which provides for the automatic entry and routing
of Exchange-listed equity options, index options and U.S. dollar-
settled foreign currency options orders to the Exchange trading
floor. Orders delivered through AUTOM may be executed manually, or
certain orders are eligible for AUTOM's automatic execution feature,
AUTO-X, in accordance with the provisions of this Rule. Equity
option, index option and U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option
specialists are required by the Exchange to participate in AUTOM and
its features and enhancements. Option orders entered by Exchange
member organizations into AUTOM are routed to the appropriate
specialist unit on the Exchange trading floor. AUTOM and AUTO-X were
replaced by the Phlx XL System, such that references to both terms
refer to Phlx XL.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50100 (July 27,
2004), 69 FR 46612 (August 3, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2003-59) (order
granting approval of the Exchange's new electronic trading system
Phlx XL, now known as XL II). The electronic trading system has
continued being enhanced. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 63027 (October 1, 2010), 75 FR 62160 (October 7, 2010) (SR-
Phlx-2010-108) (order granting approval of Price Improvement XL,
PIXL); and 69845 (June 25, 2013), 78 FR 39429 (July 1, 2013) (SR-
Phlx-2013-46) (order granting approval of Complex Order PIXL).
    \12\ Phlx Rule 1080(n). This section allows six-legged complex
orders into PIXL.
    \13\ Phlx Rule 1080(o).
    \14\ Phlx Rule 1080(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsection (j) of Phlx Rule 1080 sets forth the limitation on
orders. Subsection (j) states that members \15\ shall not enter, or
facilitate entry into AUTOM, as principal or agent, limit orders in the
same options series from off the floor of the Exchange, for the account
or accounts of the same or related beneficial owners, in such a manner
that the off-floor member or the beneficial owner(s) effectively is
operating as a market maker by holding itself out as willing to buy and
sell such options contract on a regular or continuous basis.\16\ The
current restriction on all limit orders is no longer needed or
advisable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Phlx Rule 900.2 indicates how potential members may seek
admission to the Exchange.
    \16\ In determining whether an off-floor member or beneficial
owner effectively is operating as a market maker, the Exchange will
consider, among other things: The simultaneous or near-simultaneous
entry of limit orders to buy and sell the same options contract; the
multiple acquisition and liquidation of positions in the same
options series during the same day; and the entry of multiple limit
orders at different prices in the same options series. Phlx Rule
1080(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to change the limitation in subsection (j) of
Phlx Rule 1080 so that it is not applicable to off floor broker dealer
limit orders or Professional limit orders (except Professional all-or-
none orders). Specifically, the Exchange proposes at the end of
subsection (j) to state that the limitation set forth in this rule
1080(j) does not apply to the accounts of off floor broker dealers or
Professionals as the term is defined in Rule 1000(b)(14).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the limitation set forth in Rule 1080(j)
will continue to apply to all-or-none orders submitted by Professionals
to the Exchange.\17\ This is because Professionals are treated in the
same manner as off-floor broker dealers for purposes of priority, but
would have priority akin to customers in terms of all-or none order
submitted to the Exchange.\18\ Moreover, non-Professional, non-broker-
dealer customer orders have priority over Professional orders.\19\ The
proposed language change would make the Exchange limitation similar to
that found on another options market, namely ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Post filing, in addition to Professional all-or-none orders
submitted to the Exchange, the limitation would continue to apply to
non-Professional customer orders. The Exchange defines customer per
Rule 1083(f) as an individual or organization that is not a broker
dealer; non-Professional customer refers to an individual or
organization that is neither a Professional nor a broker dealer.
    \18\ See, e.g., Rule 1014(g).
    \19\ Rule 1014(g)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsection (j) of Phlx Rule 1080, as amended, is substantially
similar in its practical effect to ISE Rule 717, which disallows entry
of Priority Customer \20\ limit orders in the same options series. In a
similar manner, the Exchange proposal in subsection (j) disallows entry
of limit orders in the same options series from off the floor of the
Exchange, except for off floor broker dealers and Professionals. As
such, the proposal is pro-competitive because it would allow entry of
orders on the Exchange similar to those that are allowed on other
markets. Changing the limitation to exclude off floor broker dealers
and Professionals, being competitive in nature, is beneficial for
market participants and investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Unlike ISE, the Exchange does not currently have a separate
category called Priority Customer. However, as discussed, after this
filing the practical effect of the ISE and Exchange rules will be
similar. As proposed herein the limitation would not be applicable
to broker dealer orders and Professional Orders, similarly to ISE.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63017 (September 29, 2010),
75 FR 61795 (October 6, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-95) (ISE does not believe
necessary to impose ISE Rule 717 limitations on Priority Orders,
which exclude broker dealers, and Voluntary Professionals because
they are not subject to priority that is any better than market
makers). In note 7 of its filing, ISE noted that the Commission has
previously found that it is consistent with the Act for an options
exchange not to prohibit a user of its market from effectively
operating as a market maker by holding itself out as willing to buy
and sell options contracts on a regular or continuous basis without
registering as a market maker. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 57478 (March 12, 2008), 73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-
2007-004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the current limitation for all limit orders is no longer
needed or desirable. The limitation was added more than a dozen years
ago \21\ when Exchange options trading was rooted in the on-floor
auction model with a traditional open outcry trading floor. When the
limitation was added for all limit orders, electronic market makers
such as Remote Specialists, SQTs, and RSQTs (together known as
``electronic market makers'') did not exist; \22\ the options trading
floor was principally populated by on-floor trading crowds. At the time
of the limitation filing, when rules and processes for electronic
market makers were not yet fully established, there was a concern that
certain off-floor traders had the ability to engage in simultaneous or
near-simultaneous entry of limit orders, thereby effectively
functioning as market makers from off the floor of the Exchange.\23\
Over the last eight years, however, the traditional open outcry trading
floor on the Exchange has evolved into a robust, predominantly

electronic trading environment, with significantly fewer on-floor
traders than off-floor traders and electronic market makers working
through the Exchange's electronic trading system, XL II. As such,
although the limitation was developed for a traditional trading floor
that was only beginning to introduce electronic trading, the limitation
on all limit orders from off the floor no longer makes sense in the
current well-developed, predominantly electronic trading environment on
the Exchange, where electronic market makers (and electronic market
making including from off the floor) are no longer the exception but
rather the norm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43939 (February 7,
2001), 66 FR 10547 (February 15, 2001) (SR-Phlx-2001-05) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness adopting Phlx Rule 1080(j)) (the
``limitation filing'').
    \22\ Electronic market makers including RSQTs and Remote
Specialists were introduced, and became prevalent, in the last eight
years. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51126 (February 2,
2005), 70 FR 6915 (February 9, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2004-90) (approval
order relating to establishment of RSQTs); and 63717 (January 14,
2011), 76 FR 4141 (January 24, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2010-145) (approval
order relating to establishment of options Remote Specialists).
    \23\ See 66 FR 10547, 10548.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to change the word ``AUTOM'' to
``Phlx XL'' to conform subsection (j) of Phlx Rule 1080 to the language
of Rule 1080.\24\ Because AUTOM does not exist anymore, this change is
done for purposes of clarity and to minimize potential confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that changing the limitation as proposed would
ensure that the current limitation against all members and market
participants entering limit orders into Phlx XL in the same options
series from off the floor of the Exchange, does not apply to off floor
broker dealers or Professionals. This makes sense in the current
highly-developed electronic trading environment that operates alongside
the traditional on-floor trading system.\25\ Off-floor electronic
market makers, including those that are broker dealers or
Professionals, are now a known and time-tested component of the
Exchange that adds significant liquidity and depth to the benefit of
market participants. The Exchange believes that changing the limitation
should result in tighter bid ask spreads for all market participants
wishing to access posted liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Exchange notes that like other older options markets
(e.g., Chicago Board Options Exchange), it continues to operate a
hybrid trading system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \26\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \27\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by changing the current order limitation so that the
limitation no longer applies to off floor broker dealers or
Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, although the limitation on orders was added more than a
dozen years ago when Exchange options trading was rooted in the on-
floor auction model with a traditional open outcry trading floor, the
Exchange trading system has developed into the robust, predominantly
electronic trading system where most orders, whether limit or other
orders, are entered from off the floor of the Exchange. The current
expansive limitation is no longer needed, and is counter-productive in
its current form. Second, because broker dealer and Professional
orders, which tend to increase liquidity, are not subject to priority
on the Exchange that is any better than other market makers, or, for
that matter, non-Professional customers (except for Professional all-
or-none orders), the Exchange does not believe that it is necessary to
impose the Rule 1080(j) restrictions on the entry of off floor broker
dealer or Professional limit orders (except for Professional all-or-
none orders). In that non-Professional customer orders are provided
with certain benefits such as priority on the Exchange, see Phlx Rule
1014(g) and 1080(n)(ii)(E), the Exchange believes that the limitation
applicable to non-Professional customers is counterbalanced by their
priority and it is proper for the limitation to continue to apply. The
Exchange believes that the removal of the limitation on off floor
broker dealers and Professionals, while continuing to apply the
limitation to all-or-none orders submitted by Professionals to the
Exchange \28\ will permit entry of orders on both sides of the market
more freely, resulting in more orders on the Exchange book and
therefore increase liquidity on the Exchange market, all to the benefit
of investors. And third, changing the limitation is competitive vis a
vis other options exchanges that have a limitation that, as proposed
herein, effectively does not apply to off floor broker dealers or
Professionals. By promoting competition, the proposal may also lead to
tighter, more efficient markets to the benefit of market participants
including public investors that engage in trading and hedging on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra notes 18 and 19 and text regarding priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the proposal
further promotes competition on the Exchange which should lead to
tighter, more efficient markets to the benefit of market participants
including public investors that engage in trading and hedging on the
Exchange, and thereby make the Exchange a desirable market vis a vis
other options exchanges.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) [sic] of the Act \29\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a) [sic].
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-32 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-32. 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 offices 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 available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-32,
and should be submitted on or before June 6, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-11295 Filed 5-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 114 (Thursday, June 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 27478]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR17-45-000.
    Applicants: Liberty Utilities (Midstates Natural Gas) Corp.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: Application for
Revised Rates Filing to be effective 6/10/2016; Filing Type: 980.
    Filed Date: 6/2/17.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>56.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-803-001.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.205(b): Amendment to Filing in RP17-803-000 to be effective 6/
1/2017.
    Filed Date: 06/02/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170602-5040.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 14, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-817-001.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits tariff filing per
154.205(b): Amendment to RP17-817-000 to be effective 6/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 06/02/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170602-5148.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 14, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-821-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt (FPL 41618-27) to be effective
6/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 06/02/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170602-5041.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 14, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-822-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Amendments to Neg Rate Agmts (ExGen 43197-6, 43198-7) to
be effective 6/2/2017.
    Filed Date: 06/05/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170605-5029.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 19, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-823-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Negotiated Rate--Range to Calpine--contract 8946298 to be
effective 6/3/2017.
    Filed Date: 06/05/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170605-5193.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 19, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-824-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Fuel Retention and Cash-Out Adjustment to be
effective 7/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 06/05/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170605-5194.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 19, 2017.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 6, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12394 Filed 6-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


   List of Documents Included in Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0744 for Final Rule
           Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Regional Haze Progress Report

Docket Index Table of Contents
A. U.S. EPA Guidance Documents, Policies, and Rulemakings
B. State Plans, Rules, Support Documents, Reports, and Correspondence
C. Public Comments Received on Proposed Rule

 EPA Policy, Guidance, Rulemaking Documents, and Correspondence
   Note: Federal Register notices published 1994 and after are readily available online at www.govinfo.gov. Links to individual notices are included in this index below.
    Regional Haze Regulations; Final rule. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
    Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements; Final Rule. 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
    Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements; Final Rule. 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001).
    Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel; Final rule. 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004).
    Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations; Final Rule. 70 FR 39103 (July 6, 2005).
    Regional Haze Regulations; Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternative to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations; Final Rule. 71 FR 60611 (October 13, 2006).
    Technical Support Document for the Proposed Action on the Federal Implementation Plan for the Regional Haze Program in the State of Hawaii, U.S. EPA Region 9, May 14, 2012.
    Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan; Hawaii; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan, Proposed rule. 77 FR 31692 (May 29, 2012).
    Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan; Hawaii; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Final rule. 77 FR 61478 (October 9, 2012).
    Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Final Rule. 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
    EPA gasoline sulfur standards web page: https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-sulfur
    Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Regional Haze Progress Report, Proposed Rule. 84 FR 14634. (April 11, 2019).
    Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Regional Haze Progress Report, Final Rule. 84 FR 14634. (August 12, 2019).

B. State Plans, Rules, Support Documents, Reports, and Correspondence
Letter dated October 20, 2017 from Virginia Pressler, M.D., Director of Health, Hawaii DOH, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, with enclosures:
       5-Year Regional Haze Progress Report for Federal Implementation Plan, submitted October 20, 2017, with Appendices.
Letter dated November 15, 2018, from Bruce S. Anderson, Ph.D., Hawaii DOH, to Mr. Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, with enclosure.
       Hawaii State Department of Health Support Documents for 5-Year Regional Haze Progress Report, November 2018.
Electronic mail dated May 12, 2017, from Michael Madsen, Hawaii DOH, to Susan Johnson and Patricia Brewer, National Park Service.
Letter dated July 6, 2017, from Patricia Brewer, National Park Service, to Michael Madsen, Hawaii DOH.

C. Public Comments Received on Proposed Rule
C-1. Anonymous Comment received April 22, 2019, Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0744-0010.
C-2. Anonymous Comment received April 22, 2019, Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0744-0011.
C-3. Anonymous Comment received April 22, 2019, Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0744-0012.
C-4. Anonymous Comment received April 22, 2019, Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0744-0013.
C-5. Anonymous Comment received April 22, 2019, Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0744-0014.


[Federal Register: December 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 76371-76372]
[DOCID:fr16de08-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1799-DR]

New Hampshire; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-1799-DR), dated October 3, 2008,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: December 5, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance

Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New Hampshire is hereby amended to include the
following area among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of October 3, 2008.

    Merrimack County for Public Assistance.

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

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-29762 Filed 12-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14814-14817]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05545]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2022 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0904]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; 2022 Horsepower on the Hudson, Hudson
River, Castleton, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish temporary special
local regulations on certain waters of the Hudson River in the vicinity
of Castleton-on-the-Hudson, New York, in support of the Horsepower on
the Hudson event on August 8, 2022. This action is necessary to ensure
the safety of participants, participant vessels, spectators, and
mariners transiting the area from the dangers associated with vessels
operating at high-speeds during the Horsepower on the Hudson event.
This proposed rulemaking would allow the Coast Guard to enforce vessel
movements within three regulated areas and temporarily restrict vessel
traffic in a portion of the Hudson River between Hudson River Lighted
Buoy 202 (LLNR 38905) to Hudson River Light 204 (LLNR 38910). We invite
your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 15, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0904 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email MST2 T. Whitley, Waterways Management Division, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port New York
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LLNR Light List Number
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On October 10, 2021, the Coast Guard received an Application for
Marine Event from the Castleton Boat Club for the Horsepower on the
Hudson event. The event will take place on the Hudson River vicinity of
Castleton-on-the-Hudson, on August 8, 2022. The Captain of the Port New
York (COTP) has determined that this event in close proximity to marine
traffic poses a significant risk to public safety and property. The
event will consist of approximately 36 participating vessels that will
transit by the Castleton Boat Club at speeds exceeding 100 mph. The
participating vessels are expected to maneuver at high speed along the
eastern shore of the Hudson River from Hudson River Lighted Buoy 202
(LLNR 38905) to Hudson River Light 204 (LLNR 38910) outside of the
navigable channel. The event is also expected to have approximately 20
spectator crafts on the opposite side of the river from Hudson River
Lighted Buoy 201 (LLNR 38903) to Hudson River Lighted Buoy 205 (LLNR
38915) outside of the navigable channel.
    The combination of the vessels operating at high speeds during the
event and anticipated number of spectator crafts has the potential to
result in serious injuries or fatalities. In order to protect the
safety of all waterway users including event participants and
spectators, this proposed rule would establish three regulated areas
and temporarily restrict vessel traffic for the duration of the
event.The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to ensure the safety
of participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels on the
navigable waters in the vicinity of the high speed race route and the
spectator zone before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast
Guard proposes this rulemaking under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70041.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary special local
regulation in the vicinity of Castleton-on-the-Hudson, NY, encompassing
all navigable waters of the Hudson River from Hudson River Lighted Buoy
202 (LLNR 38905) to Hudson River Light 204 (LLNR 38910) from 10 a.m. to
4 p.m. on August 8, 2022. The high speed demonstration will consist of
approximately 36 vessels that will transit by the Castleton Boat Club
at speeds exceeding 100 mph. The special local regulation will include
the following areas: (1) A high speed area, all navigable waters of the
Hudson River from Hudson River Lighted Buoy 202 (LLNR 38905) to Hudson
River Light 204 (LLNR 38910) east of the navigable channel shoreward
where all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels
participating in the high speed boat demonstration event, are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, or remaining within.
Additionally, no participant may transit at high speed inside this zone
when vessels are transiting through the transit area; (2) A transit
area, all navigable waters of the main navigation channel of the Hudson
River from Hudson River Lighted Buoy 202 (LLNR 38905) to Hudson River
Light 204 (LLNR 38910); and (3) A spectator area, all navigable waters
of the Hudson River from Hudson River Lighted Buoy 201 (LLNR 38903) to
Hudson River Lighted Buoy 205 (LLNR 38915) west of the navigable
channel shoreward.
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16MR22.039

BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
    The duration of the areas are intended to ensure the safety of
vessels, participants, spectators, and those transiting the area during
the Horsepower on the Hudson event. Navigation rules shall apply at all
times within the areas. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the
special local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice
to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize out
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This proposed rule has not been designated a
``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, this proposed rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the temporary special local regulation. With
this special local regulation, the Coast Guard intends to allow marine
traffic to transit via the main navigable channel. The special local
regulation is limited in duration and to a narrowly tailored geographic
area with designated and adequate space for transiting vessels to pass
via the main navigation channel when permitted by the COTP or
designated representative. In addition, although this rule restricts
access to the waters encompassed by the local regulation, the effect of
this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will
be notified in advance via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to
ensure the special local regulation will result in minimum impact as
the main navigation channel will be maintained allowing vessels to
transit Hudson River outside of the high speed area or the spectator
area. Mariners will therefore be able to plan ahead and either transit
through the available transit area or outside the periods of
enforcement of the special local regulation. Additionally, mariners may
be able to transit the high speed area or spectator areas with approval
from the COTP or

designated representative. The entities most likely affected are
commercial vessels and pleasure craft engaged in recreational
activities.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator. While the special local
regulation is in effect, vessel traffic can pass safely using the main
ship channel of the Hudson River. The maritime public will be advised
in advance of this special local regulation via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of
this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a
regulated area lasting 5 hours that would limit persons or vessels from
transiting certain regulated areas during the scheduled event. Normally
such actions are categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-
001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2021-0904 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of

the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate,
or duplicate comments that we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T01-0904 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T01-0904  Special Local Regulation; 2022 Horsepower on the
Hudson, Hudson River, Castleton, NY.

    (a) Regulated areas. The regulations in this section apply to the
following regulated areas: (1) High speed area. All navigable waters of
the Hudson River from Hudson River Lighted Buoy 202 (LLNR 38905) to
Hudson River Light 204 (LLNR 38910) east of the navigable channel
shoreward.
    (2) Transit area. All navigable waters of the main navigation
channel of the Hudson River from Hudson River Lighted Buoy 202 (LLNR
38905) to Hudson River Light 204 (LLNR 38910).
    (3) Spectator area. All navigable waters of the Hudson River from
Hudson River Lighted Buoy 201 (LLNR 38903) to Hudson River Lighted Buoy
205 (LLNR 38915) west of the navigable channel shoreward.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Designated Representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port New York (COTP) in
the enforcement of the safety zone.
    Participant means all persons and vessels registered with the event
sponsor as a participants in the race.
    Spectator means any vessel in the vicinity of the event with the
primary purpose of witnessing the event. Spectator vessels can observe
the marine event from the designated spectator area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All non-participant persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the regulated areas described in paragraph (a) of this
section unless authorized by the COTP or their designated
representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the designated
representative via VHF-FM Marine Channel 16 or by contacting the Coast
Guard Sector New York command center at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF 16 to
obtain permission. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful
orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 10 a.m.
through 4 p.m. on August 6, 2022.
    (e) Information broadcasts. The COTP or the designated
representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notice to
Mariners of any changes in the planned schedule.

    Dated: March 10, 2022.
Z. Merchant,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2022-05545 Filed 3-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


EPA Federal Plan - CO 2005

Competency Standards

EPA Category

Applicator

Recertified

New Applicators

Valid Applicators

Agricultural--Plant (1i)

Commercial

0

0

0

Private

0

0

0

Agricultural--Animal (1ii)

Commercial

0

0

0

Private

0

0

0

Forest (2)

Commercial

0

0

0

Private

0

0

0

Ornamental and Turf (3)

Commercial

0

0

0

Private

0

0

0

Seed Treatment (4)

Commercial

0

0

0

Private

0

0

0

Aquatic (5)

Commercial

0

0

0

Private

0

0

0

Right-of-Way (6)

Commercial

0

0

0

Private

0

0

0

Indust, Instit, Struct and Health Related (7)

Commercial

0

0

0

Private

0

0

0

Public Health (8)

Commercial

0

0

0

Private

0

0

0

Regulatory (9)

Commercial

0

0

0

Private

0

0

0

Demonstration and Research (10)

Commercial

0

0

0

Private

0

0

0

NON-COMPARABLE

Commercial

0

0

0

Private

0

0

0

Private Applicator

Commercial

0

0

0

Private

1461

1193

11744


[Federal Register: October 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 207)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66187-66192]
[DOCID:fr26oc11-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0538; FRL-8891-3]

Bacteriophage of Clavibacter Michiganensis Subspecies
Michiganensis; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of lytic bacteriophage of Clavibacter
michiganensis subspecies michiganensis produced in Clavibacter
michiganensis subspecies michiganensis in or on tomato when applied as
a bactericide in accordance with good agricultural practices. On behalf
of OmniLytics, Inc., Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA) requesting an exemption from

the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of lytic
bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis
produced in Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis under
the FFDCA.

DATES: This regulation is effective October 26, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 27, 2011,
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-2009-0538. 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 Office of Pesticide Programs (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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Greenway, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 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:
     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 provides
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 get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://
ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2009-0538 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
December 27, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQOPP-2009-0538, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: 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. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48556) (FRL-
8434-7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 9E7552) by IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East,
Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540 (on behalf of OmniLytics, Inc., 9100
South 500 West, Sandy, UT 84070). The petition requested that 40 CFR
part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of bacteriophage of Clavibacter
michiganensis subspecies michiganensis. This notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner, IR-4, which is
available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance exemption 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. * * *''
    Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires that EPA
consider ``available information concerning the cumulative effects of
[a particular pesticide's] * * * residues and other substances that
have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability
and the relationship of this information 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.

A. Bacteriophage Overview

    Bacteriophage, the most abundant group of biological entities on
the planet, are naturally occurring viruses that are found in soil and
water and in association with plants and animals, including humans
(Refs. 1 through 8). Bacteriophage are obligate parasites of bacteria,
which means they attach to, infect, and reproduce in bacteria, and are
host-specific for bacteria, with specific bacteriophage attacking only
one bacterial species and most frequently only one strain within a
bacterial species (Refs. 9 through 11). As such, bacteriophage do not
attack other beneficial bacteria. In addition, there is no evidence for
bacteriophage infecting any other life form, including humans, except
bacteria (Refs. 7, 12, and 13). Humans and other animals commonly
consume bacteriophage as they are abundantly found in water, on plant
surfaces, and in foods such as ground beef, pork sausage, chicken,
oysters, cheese, mushrooms, and broccoli (Refs. 3, 4, and 14 through
19). In addition, bacteriophage are common commensals of the human gut
and likely play an important role in regulating populations of various
bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract (Ref. 7). As cited in public
literature, bacteriophage have been used for more than 80 years as
therapeutic agents with no ill effects and are active against bacteria
that cause many infections and human diseases (Refs. 7, 20, and 21).
    Since 2005, bacteriophage have also been used in a pesticide
product (Agriphage; EPA Reg. No. 67986-1), without reported incidents,
to control particular bacterial diseases (Xanthomonas campestris pv.
vesicatoria and Pseduomonas syringae pv. tomato) of tomato and pepper.
In conjunction with registration of the aforementioned pesticide
product, EPA established an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of bacteriophage of Xanthomonas campestris pv.
vesicatoria and Pseud[oacute]monas syringae pv. tomato in or on tomato
and pepper (see the Federal Register of December 28, 2005 (70 FR 76704)
(FRL-7753-6)). Much like the previously registered bacteriophage,
OmniLytics, Inc. is proposing that bacteriophage of Clavibacter
michiganensis subspecies michiganensis be applied as a pesticide for a
very limited use-to control bacterial canker disease on tomato.

B. Microbial Pesticide Toxicology Data Requirements

    All mammalian toxicology data requirements supporting the request
for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis in
or on tomato have been fulfilled with submission of valid studies from
the public literature (Refs. 22 and 23).
    As mentioned in Unit III.A., bacteriophage are viruses that only
infect specific bacteria, a basic fact supported by both information
presented in public literature and the absence of reported adverse
effects to humans even with commonplace exposure to bacteriophage.
Literature submitted established that bacteriophage have been used
historically and through modern times in lieu of or to assist the
action of antibiotics. Clinical uses encompass all manner of
administration from injection/intravenous and surgical wound
applications to topical and ingestible preparations. There have been no
reports of adverse effects from such administrations and in other
similar cases using controlled scientific studies. Also submitted were
literature citations showing that bacteriophage are common and abundant
in soils, are in a wide range of plant materials, and are generally
present in high numbers in the environment (e.g., up to 1010 plaque-
forming units (PFU) per liter may be found in non-polluted waters). Yet
again, no adverse effects to humans have been reported with these types
of potential exposure. Moreover, bacteriophage presence reported in
foods and feeds ranges from 101 to 105 PFU/100 grams (g) of meat and up
to 107 PFU/100 g of cheese without any known harmful effects after
consumption of such materials. Finally, the petitioner noted that,
during an extensive history of bacteriophage laboratory and pesticidal
usage, adverse reports in the literature have not been documented and
episodes of hypersensitivity have not occurred.
    Because bacteriophage are obligate bacterial parasites and are not
known to infect humans, the only human health risk associated with use
of bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis
as a bactericide is potential for acquisition and production of
microbial toxins. This acquisition occurs through lysogeny, which is
when bacteriophage integrate into the genome of toxigenic bacterial
host strains and pick up and transmit those genetic traits to other
bacteria that otherwise would not produce toxic substances. Therefore,
bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis
that meet the following two conditions do not present this risk issue:
    1. Bacteriophage produced in Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies
michiganensis, which has been sequenced and determined to be an
atoxigenic host bacteria, and
    2. Bacteriophage possessing the capability to lyse host bacteria,
i.e., completely destroy host cells during the viral production
process, which precludes genetic transfer of possible toxins to other
bacteria (Ref. 22).

IV. Aggregate Exposure

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

    1. Food exposure. Published literature submitted by the petitioner,
as well as other publicly available literature, indicate that
bacteriophage are commonly associated with food and are therefore
regularly consumed by humans. According to Ackermann (1997), these
viruses have been found in association with ``buds, leaves, root
nodules (leguminous plants), roots,

rotting fruit, seeds, stems, and straw; crown gall tumors * * * healthy
or diseased alfalfa, barley, beans, broccoli, Brussels sprouts,
buckwheat, clover, cotton, cucumber, lucerne, mulberry, oats, peas,
peach trees, radish, rutabaga, ryegrass, rye, timothy, tobacco,
tomatoes, [and] wheat'' (Ref. 14). Moreover, bacteriophage have been
isolated from a wide range of food products, including ground beef,
pork sausage, chicken, farmed freshwater fish, common carp, marine
fish, oil sardines, raw skim milk, and cheese (Refs. 15, 16, and 24
through 27). In fact, several studies have suggested that 100% of the
ground beef and chicken meat sold at retail stores contain various
levels of bacteriophage. For instance, bacteriophage were recovered
from 100% of examined fresh chicken and pork sausage samples and from
33% of delicatessen meat samples analyzed; the levels ranged from 3.3 x
1010 to 4.4 x 1010 PFU/100 g of fresh chicken, up to 3.5 x 1010 PFU/100
g of fresh pork, and up to 2.7 x 1010 PFU/100 g of roast turkey breast
samples (Ref 16). Other studies similarly showed the widespread
occurrence of bacteriophage in certain foods:
    a. 38 bacteriophage-host systems were isolated from 22 of 45
refrigerated products (Ref 27);
    b. Bacteriophage infecting fire blight pathogen (Erwinia amylovora)
were isolated from apple, pear, and raspberry tissues and from soil
samples collected at sites displaying fire blight symptoms (Ref 5); and
    c. Shellfish, which filter large quantities of seawater,
concentrated both bacteria and bacteriophage (Ref 6).
    Because lytic bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies
michiganensis produced in Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies
michiganensis are intended to be applied to tomatoes, it is likely that
dietary exposure will occur; however, no adverse effects are expected
to occur. Despite constant and direct food exposure to bacteriophage
(examples provided in the preceding paragraph and in Unit III.), no
adverse effects to humans have been reported in publicly available
literature. Indeed, no such effects are expected given that
bacteriophage, including the one at issue in this action, are not
capable of infecting eukaryotic cells and are host specific, attacking
only bacteria.
    2. Drinking water exposure. Published literature submitted by the
petitioner, as well as other publicly available literature, indicate
that, much like food, bacteriophage are commonly associated with water
and are therefore regularly consumed by humans. According to Demuth et
al. (1993), ``Bacteriophage * * * have been isolated from all types of
bacteria and from virtually any aquatic or terrestrial habitat where
bacteria can exist. However, only in the last few years has it been
recognized that viruses (phage) are extremely abundant in ocean and
fresh water and may exceed the concentration of bacteria by up to 100-
fold'' (Ref. 3). Other studies showed that bacteriophage of Erwinia
carotovora and Erwinia ananas were isolated from certain freshwater
lakes in Florida and Texas (Ref. 4) and that coliphage were present in
some samples of drinking water (Ref 28).
    When lytic bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies
michiganensis produced in Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies
michiganensis are applied to tomato as a bactericide in accordance with
good agricultural practices, exposure of humans to residues of these
bacteriophage in consumed drinking water may occur. Although lytic
bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis
produced in Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis are not
expected to reach surface water because the proposed use patterns do
not include direct application to aquatic sites, it is possible that
this microbial pest control agent could make it into ground water.
Nonetheless, if oral exposure to lytic bacteriophage of Clavibacter
michiganensis subspecies michiganensis produced in Clavibacter
michiganensis subspecies michiganensis occurs through consumed drinking
water (e.g., due to surface water contamination by microbial pesticide
spray drift or runoff or contact with ground water), for the many
reasons enumerated in Unit III. and Unit IV.A.1., EPA concludes there
is reasonable certainty that this type of drinking water exposure, or
any level of drinking water exposure for that matter, will not result
in harm to humans.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    Dermal and inhalation non-occupational exposures to lytic
bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis
produced in Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis are not
expected as all proposed pesticide applications will take place in
distinct agricultural settings. Even if dermal and inhalation non-
occupational exposures were to occur inadvertently (e.g., through spray
drift) or due to an eventual expansion of use sites, such exposures
would not be of concern given the information presented in Unit III.
and Unit IV.A.

V. 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 exemption, EPA
consider ``available information concerning the cumulative effects of
[a particular pesticide's] * * * residues and other substances that
have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found lytic bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis
subspecies michiganensis produced in Clavibacter michiganensis
subspecies michiganensis to share a common mechanism of toxicity with
any other substances, and lytic bacteriophage of Clavibacter
michiganensis subspecies michiganensis produced in Clavibacter
michiganensis subspecies michiganensis do not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite against the target pest. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has assumed that lytic bacteriophage of
Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis produced in
Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis do not have a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Therefore, section
408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA does not apply. For information regarding
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Determination of Safety for United States (U.S.) Population,
Infants and Children

    FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall assess the
available information about consumption patterns among infants and
children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide
chemical residues, and the cumulative effects on infants and children
of the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. In addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) 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 that a different margin of safety
will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety
is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety
Factor. In

applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10x or
uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available
to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    As previously discussed in Unit III. and Unit IV., humans,
including infants and children, have been exposed to bacteriophage
through food and water, where they are commonly found, and through
decades of therapeutic use with no known or reported adverse effects.
Based on this, as well as all the other reasons enumerated repeatedly
in this unit, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and
children, from aggregate exposure to the residues of lytic
bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis
produced in Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis. Such
exposure includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other
exposures for which there is reliable information. EPA has arrived at
this conclusion because, considered collectively, the public literature
available on bacteriophage, including the one at issue in this action,
do not demonstrate toxic, pathogenic, and/or infective potential to
mammals. Thus, there are no threshold effects of concern and, as a
result, an additional margin of safety is not necessary.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for
the reasons stated above and because EPA is establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

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

C. Revisions to Requested Exemption

    In its petition, the petitioner requested generally that the Agency
issue an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis in
or on tomato. The petitioner's supporting materials indicated that the
actual pesticide that would be used would be safe because the
bacteriophage were lytic and produced in Clavibacter michiganensis
subspecies michiganensis. The Agency believes both that these two
conditions are necessary to make the safety finding and the petitioner
was only requesting a narrow exemption; therefore, the Agency is
modifying the tolerance exemption regulatory text to include such
criteria.

VIII. Conclusions

    EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children,
from aggregate exposure to residues of lytic bacteriophage of
Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis produced in
Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis. Therefore, an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of lytic bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies
michiganensis produced in Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies
michiganensis in or on tomato when applied as a bactericide in
accordance with good agricultural practices.

IX. References

1. Keel C, Ucurum Z, Michaux P, Adrian M, Haas D. 2002. Deleterious
impact of a virulent bacteriophage on survival and biocontrol
activity of Pseudomonas fluorescens strain CHAO in natural soil.
Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 15:567-576.
2. Liew KW, Alvarez AM. 1981. Biological and morphological
characterization of Xanthomonas campestris bacteriophages.
Phytopatholoy 71:269-273.
3. Demuth J, Neve H, Witzel K-P. 1993. Direct electron microscopy
study on the morphological diversity of bacteriophage populations in
Lake Plussse. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 59:3378-3384.
4. Eayre CG, Bartz JA, Concelmo DE. 1995. Bacteriophages of Erwinia
carotovora and Erwinia ananas isolated from freshwater lakes. Plant
Disease 79:801-804.
5. Schnabel EL, Jones AL. 2001. Isolation and characterization of
five Erwinia amylovora bacteriophages and assessment of phage
resistance in strains of Erwinia amylovora. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 67:59-64.
6. Denis FA. 1975. Contamination of shellfish with strains of
Pseudomonas aeruginosa and specific bacteriophages. Canadian Journal
of Microbiology 21:1055-1057.
7. Merril CR, Scholl D, Adhya SL. 2003. The prospect for
bacteriophage therapy in Western medicine. Nature 2:489-497.
8. Rohwer F. 2003. Global phage diversity. Cell 113:1-2.
9. Stocker BAD. 1955. Bacteriophage and bacterial classification.
Journal of General Microbiology 12:375-381.
10. Duckworth DH, Gulig PA. 2002. Bacteriophage: potential treatment
for bacterial infections. Biodrugs 16:57-62.
11. Summers WC. 2001. Bacteriophage therapy. Annual Review of
Microbiology 55:437-451.
12. Lorch A. 1999. Bacteriophage: an alternative to antibiotics?
Biotechnology and Development Monitor 39:14-17.
13. Petricciani JC, Hsu TC, Stock AD, Turner JH, Wenger SL, Elisberg
BL. 1978. Bacteriophages, vaccines, and people: an assessment of
risk. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and
Medicine. 58:378-382.
14. Ackermann H-W. 1997. Bacteriophage ecology. Pp. 335-339 in:
``Progress in Microbial Ecology (Proceedings of Seventh
International Symposium on Microbial Ecology)''. Martins MT, Sato
MIZ, Tiedje JM, Hagler LCN, D[ouml]bereiner J, Sanchez PS, eds.
Brazilian Society for Microbiology.
15. Kennedy JE Jr, Wei CI, Oblinger JL. 1986. Methodology for
enumeration of coliphages in foods. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology 51:956-962.
16. Kennedy JE Jr, Oblinger JL, Bitton G. 1984. Recovery of
coliphages from chicken, pork sausage and delicatessen meats.
Journal of Food Protection 47:623-626.
17. DePaola A, Motes ML, Chan AM, Suttle CA. 1998. Phages infecting
Vibrio vulnificus are abundant and diverse in oysters (Crassostrea
virginica) collected from the Gulf of Mexico. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 64:346-351.
18. Quiberoni A, Tremblay D, Ackermann H-W, Moineau S, Reinheimer
JA. 2006. Diversity of Streptococcus thermophilus phages in a large-
production cheese factory in Argentina. Journal of Dairy Science
89:3791-3799.
19. Guillaumes J, Houdeau G, Germain R, Olivier JM. 1988.
Improvement of the biocontrol of Pseudomonas tolaasii using
bacteriophages associated with an antagonistic bacterium. Bulletin
OEPP 18:77-82.
20. Radetsky P. 1996. The good virus. Discover 17:50-58.
21. Chanishvili N, Chanishvili T, Tediashvili M, Barrow PA. 2001.
Phages and their

application against drug-resistant bacteria. Journal of Chemical
Technology and Biotechnology 76:689-699.
22. U.S. EPA. 2011. Bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis
subsp. michiganensis--AgriPhage CMM. Memorandum from J.V. Gagliardi,
Ph.D. to A. Gross dated June 30, 2011.
23. U.S. EPA. 2011. Bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis
subspecies michiganensis Biopesticides Registration Action Document
dated August 25, 2011 (available as ``Supporting & Related
Material'' with docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP2009-0539 at http://
www.regulations.gov).
24. Atterbury RJ, Connerton PL, Dodd CER, Rees CED, Connerton IF.
2003. Isolation and characterization of Campylobacter bacteriophages
from retail poultry. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69:4511-
4518.
25. Gautier M, Rouault A, Sommer P, Briandet R. 1995. Occurrence of
Propionibacterium freudenreichii bacteriophages in swiss cheese.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61:2572-2576.
26. Greer GG. 2005. Bacteriophage control of foodborne bacteria.
Journal of Food Protection 68:1102-1111.
27. Whitman PA, Marshall RT. 1971. Isolation of psychrophilic
bacteriophagehost systems from refrigerated food products. Applied
Microbiology 22:220-223.
28. El-Abagy MM, Dutka BJ, Kamel M. 1988. Incidence of coliphage in
potable water supplies. Applied and Environmental Microbiology
54:1632-1633.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance exemption under section
408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to EPA. 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
exemption 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. As a result, this
action does not 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, EPA 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, EPA 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) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require EPA 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).

XI. 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: September 30, 2011.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.1307 is added to subpart D to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1307  Bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies
michiganensis; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of lytic bacteriophage of Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies
michiganensis produced in Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies
michiganensis in or on tomato when applied as a bactericide in
accordance with good agricultural practices.

[FR Doc. 2011-27042 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P