[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48197-48200]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19992]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65015; File No. SR-MSRB-2011-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed New Rule A-11, on Municipal Advisor
Assessments, and New Form A-11-Interim

August 2, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the

``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 26, 2011, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (``Board''
or ``MSRB'') 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 MSRB. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB is filing with the SEC a proposed rule change consisting
of (i) Proposed new Rule A-11, on municipal advisor assessments, and
(ii) new Form A-11-Interim (the ``proposed rule change''). The MSRB
requests that the proposed rule change be made effective October 1,
2011.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at http://www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2011-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, 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 MSRB 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 Board 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 proposed rule change consists of new Rule A-11, on municipal
advisor assessments, and new Form A-11-Interim. The purpose of the
proposed rule change is to levy a reasonable interim assessment to
defray a portion of the costs and expenses of operating and
administering the MSRB, including in particular the increased costs and
expenses attributable to the regulation of municipal advisors that the
MSRB began to incur upon being vested with rulemaking authority in this
area under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act.\3\ The MSRB expects the interim assessment to remain in effect in
the form proposed in the proposed rule change for a limited period of
time during which the MSRB would examine the nature of the municipal
advisory activities undertaken by municipal advisors as well as the
manner and level of compensation received by municipal advisors for
such municipal advisory activities (the ``MSRB municipal advisor
study'').\4\ Based on the MSRB's findings, the MSRB would then consider
whether to replace the interim assessment with a permanent form of
assessment on municipal advisors that would, together with other MSRB
assessments payable by municipal advisors, brokers, dealers and
municipal securities dealers, provide for reasonable assessments that
are fairly and equitably apportioned among all market participants
subject to MSRB regulation and that do not impose an undue burden on
small municipal advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Public Law 111-203.
    \4\ Concurrent with the filing of this proposed rule change, the
MSRB published for comment a draft amendment to proposed Rule A-11
and draft Form A-11-Survey pursuant to which the MSRB would collect
the necessary information from municipal advisors to undertake such
examination. See MSRB Notice 2011-34 (July 26, 2011). The MSRB would
file the draft Rule A-11 amendment and draft Form A-11-Survey with
the Commission prior to undertaking such collection of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The interim assessment under proposed Rule A-11 would consist of an
annual assessment equal to $300 for each assessable professional
reported or required to be reported by a municipal advisor to the MSRB
on Form A-11-Interim for each fiscal year. Completed Form A-11-Interim
and payment of the interim assessment would be due by November 30 of
each year. Form A-11-Interim would be completed and submitted, and the
interim assessment would be paid, in the manner set forth in the
Instructions for Interim Municipal Advisor Assessment and Form A-11-
Interim.
    For purposes of the interim assessment, an assessable professional
of a municipal advisor would, pursuant to proposed Rule A-11(b)(i),
consist of any natural person who is an associated person of the
municipal advisor who has received compensation or other payments from
the municipal advisor (excluding reimbursement for out-of-pocket
expenses) includable in such person's gross income for federal income
tax purposes in the amount of $10,000 or more during the fiscal year of
the MSRB for which the municipal advisor is submitting Form A-11-
Interim and who provides services in connection with the municipal
advisor's municipal advisory activities as defined in Rule D-13. Such
services include, but are not limited to:
    (A) Engaging in municipal advisory business \5\ with a municipal
entity or obligated person;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Proposed Rule A-11(b)(ii) would define municipal advisory
business as the provision of advice to or on behalf of a municipal
entity or an obligated person with respect to municipal financial
products or the issuance of municipal securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) soliciting \6\ municipal advisory business with a municipal
entity or obligated person on its own behalf or soliciting third-party
business; \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Under proposed Rule A-11(b)(iii), an associated person of a
municipal advisor would be viewed as soliciting municipal advisory
business if the associated person undertakes any direct or indirect
communication with a municipal entity or obligated person for the
purpose of obtaining or retaining: (A) Municipal advisory business
for such municipal advisor with a municipal entity or obligated
person; or (B) third-party business.
    \7\ Proposed Rule A-11(b)(iv) would define third-party business
as an engagement by a municipal entity of another person that does
not control, is not controlled by, or is not under common control
with the person soliciting such engagement, where such other person
is: (A) A broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, or municipal
advisor engaging or seeking an engagement with such municipal entity
in connection with municipal financial products or the issuance of
municipal securities; or (B) an investment adviser (as defined in
section 202 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940) providing or
seeking to provide investment advisory services to or on behalf of
such municipal entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (C) providing research or analytical services to other personnel of
the municipal advisor engaged in the services described in paragraph
(A) or (B) above or to clients of the municipal advisor, where such
research or analytic services are related to the services described in
paragraph (A) or (B) above;
    (D) acting as supervisor of any person described in paragraph (A),
(B) or (C) above with respect to such person's services as described in
paragraph (A), (B) or (C) above;
    (E) acting as supervisor of any person described in paragraph (D)
above up through and including the Chief Executive Officer or similarly
situated official; or
    (F) serving as a member of the municipal advisor's executive or
management committee or similarly situated officials, if any.
    Notwithstanding the foregoing, a municipal advisor would not be
required to include on Form A-11-Interim as an assessable professional
any associated person (i) Who otherwise qualifies as an assessable
professional if such associated person is included on Form A-11-Interim
for such fiscal year as an assessable professional of another municipal
advisor that controls, is

controlled by, or is under common control with such municipal advisor,
or (ii) whose functions are solely clerical or ministerial.
    Proposed Form A-11-Interim would require that municipal advisors
provide information about the number of assessable professionals who,
during the fiscal year for which the assessment is calculated, were
principal/supervisory personnel or other advisory personnel. Principal/
supervisory personnel would consist of any assessable professional who
is either described in paragraph (D), (E) or (F) of the definition of
assessable professional or who is a partner or other equity owner of
the municipal advisor firm having a cumulative ownership interest
representing at least 2.5% of the firm. All other assessable
professionals would be reported as other advisory personnel. The
interim assessment would be calculated based on the sum of principal/
supervisory personnel and other advisory personnel.\8\ Because of the
gross income threshold in the definition of assessable professional,
municipal advisors that generate revenues of less than $10,000 in
connection with their municipal advisory activities during the fiscal
year typically would not have any assessable professionals to report
for such fiscal year and therefore would not be required to pay the
interim assessment.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Proposed Form A-11-Interim also would require that municipal
advisors provide information about the number of personnel at the
firm that are engaged solely in non-municipal advisory activities.
This information would be used to better understand the extent to
which municipal advisory activities represent only a portion of
firms' overall activities but would not be used to calculate the
interim assessment.
    \9\ All municipal advisors would be required to submit completed
Form A-11-Interim, even if such municipal advisors have no
assessable professionals to report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB requests that the proposed rule change be made effective
October 1, 2011, which is the first day of the MSRB's fiscal year.
Municipal advisors would be required to submit completed Form A-11-
Interim and to make payment of the interim assessment by November 30,
2011, based on information for the period from October 1, 2010 through
September 30, 2011. If in any subsequent fiscal year the MSRB has not
yet replaced the interim assessment with a permanent form of assessment
as described above, municipal advisors would be required to submit
completed Form A-11-Interim and to make payment of the interim
assessment by November 30 of such fiscal year based on information for
the prior fiscal year.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the ``Exchange Act''), which provides that the MSRB's rules shall:

provide that each municipal securities broker, municipal securities
dealer, and municipal advisor shall pay to the Board such reasonable
fees and charges as may be necessary or appropriate to defray the
costs and expenses of operating and administering the Board.

    In addition, Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Exchange Act requires
that rules adopted by the MSRB:

not impose a regulatory burden on small municipal advisors that is
not necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the
protection of investors, municipal entities, and obligated persons,
provided that there is robust protection of investors against fraud.

    The proposed rule change would establish an interim assessment on
municipal advisors that would help to defray a portion of the costs and
expenses of operating and administering the MSRB's regulatory and
related activities in connection with municipal advisors until such
time as a permanent assessment is established based on the planned MSRB
municipal advisor study described above. Although the amounts raised
through the interim assessment would not be sufficient to pay all on-
going costs of regulation of municipal advisors and also would be
insufficient to cover costs already incurred in connection with the
regulation of municipal advisors since the MSRB commenced such
regulatory activities on October 1, 2010, the MSRB believes that it is
reasonable and appropriate to impose the interim assessment pending
establishment of the final form of municipal advisor assessment.
    In approving a 2010 MSRB proposal to increase the MSRB's
transaction fee and to establish a new technology fee payable by
brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers,\10\ the Commission
recognized ``the concerns raised by some commenters that the increase
in transaction fees and the new technology fee will be used to
subsidize municipal advisor regulation'' and noted that the MSRB had
taken certain initial steps to assess municipal advisor fees \11\ and
expected to assess other fees on municipal advisors as appropriate.
Currently, under MSRB Rule A-13, brokers, dealers and municipal
securities dealers pay an underwriting fee of $.03 per $1000 par value
of municipal securities purchased in a primary offering (with certain
exceptions), a transaction fee of $.01 per $1000 par value of sale
transactions of municipal securities (with certain exceptions), and a
technology fee of $1 for each sale transaction of municipal securities,
in addition to an initial fee of $100 under MSRB Rule A-12 and an
annual fee of $500 under MSRB Rule A-14. For the MSRB fiscal year ended
September 30, 2010, the underwriting fee generated $13,984,780 and the
transaction fee generated $6,940,551.\12\ The technology fee became
effective on January 1, 2011 and therefore the MSRB did not generate
any revenue from this fee for the MSRB fiscal year ended September 30,
2010.\13\ In addition, for the MSRB fiscal year ended September 30,
2010, the initial fee generated $8,500 and the annual fee generated
$1,010,321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Act Release No. 63621 (File No. SR-MSRB-2010-
10) (December 29, 2010) (the ``2010 Dealer Fee Order'').
    \11\ See Exchange Act Release No. 63313 (File No. SR-MSRB-2010-
14) (November 12, 2010) (the ``2010 Municipal Advisor Fee Order'').
Municipal advisors pay an initial fee of $100 under MSRB Rule A-12
and an annual fee of $500 under MSRB Rule A-14, both amounts being
equal to the annual and initial fees paid by brokers, dealers and
municipal securities dealers under those rules.
    \12\ The amount of the transaction fee was increased from $.005
per $1000 par value of sale transactions to .01 per $1000 par value
of sale transactions beginning January 1, 2011. The MSRB previously
estimated that this increase in the transaction fee would generate
an estimated $7 million of additional revenue annually. See 2010
Dealer Fee Order.
    \13\ The MSRB previously estimated that the new technology fee
would generate an estimated $10 million of revenue annually. See
2010 Dealer Fee Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Municipal advisors do not pay the underwriting, transaction or
technology fee described above. The payment of the initial fee became
obligatory for municipal advisors on January 1, 2011 and, as of July
22, 2011, approximately 495 municipal advisors not previously
registered with the MSRB have paid the initial fee in connection with
registering with the MSRB as municipal advisors, generating
approximately $49,500 from these new municipal advisor registrants.\14\
The payment of the annual fee also became obligatory for municipal
advisors on January 1, 2011 and, as of July 22, 2011, these newly
registered municipal advisors have paid the annual fee in connection
with their first year as registered municipal advisors in an aggregate
amount of approximately $247,500. The MSRB expects that, together with
the initial fee and annual fee, the proposed interim assessment payable
by municipal advisors would

generate well under 10 percent of the MSRB's total annual revenue in
the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2011.\15\ Thus, the MSRB believes
that the burden on municipal advisors of the proposed interim
assessment would be reasonable and appropriate and would be relatively
small compared to the burden of fees and assessments paid by brokers,
dealers and municipal securities dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The amount generated from the initial fee is expected to be
significantly lower in future years since such fee is payable by
each municipal advisor only once upon initial registration with the
MSRB.
    \15\ Approximately 185 brokers, dealers and municipal securities
dealers previously registered with the MSRB as such have also
registered with the MSRB as municipal advisors as of July 22, 2011
and such firms also would be subject to the proposed interim
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amount of the interim assessment payable by each municipal
advisor firm would be dependent on the number of assessable
professionals of the firm and therefore would result in lower
assessments for smaller municipal advisor firms and would bear a
reasonable relationship with the level of municipal advisory activities
undertaken by each municipal advisor firm. In addition, as noted above,
because of the gross income threshold in the definition of assessable
professional, municipal advisors that generate revenues of less than
$10,000 in connection with their municipal advisory activities during
the fiscal year typically would not have any assessable professionals
to report for such fiscal year and therefore would not be required to
pay the interim assessment. Accordingly, the interim assessment would
minimize the regulatory burden on small municipal advisors.

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

    The MSRB 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 Exchange Act since it would apply equally to all
municipal advisors based on the number of assessable professionals of
each firm.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
 Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File
Number SR-MSRB-2011-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2011-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the MSRB's offices. 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-MSRB-2011-08 and should be submitted on or before August
29, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-19992 Filed 8-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 35642]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15234]

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

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 Numbers: PR15-37-000.
    Applicants: Bay Gas Storage Company, Ltd.
    Description: Submits tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2) + (g):
Petition for Approval of Rates_6.8.15 to be effective 6/8/2015 Filing
Type: 1310.
    Filed Date: 6/8/15.
    Accession Number: 20150608-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/15.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1055-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: DTI--Dekaflow
Transition to be effective 7/11/2015.
    Filed Date: 6/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150610-5236.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1056-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: DCP--Dekaflow
Transition to be effective 7/11/2015.
    Filed Date: 6/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150610-5244.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/15.

    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 comment date. 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 11, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15234 Filed 6-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


FILE NAME:   company.wpt   (1/1/2006) (xml)

Template Number P25

COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE

(1/1/2006)

EPA Registration Division contact: Shaja R. Brothers,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

	EPA has received pesticide petitions ([6E7137, 6E7139) from [IR-4],  [500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, New Jersey, 08540], proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.574 by establishing tolerances for residues of fluazinam in or on the following raw agricultural commodities:

PP# 6E7137

Vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A, except pea at 0.15 part per million (ppm); Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B 0.02 ppm; Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 0.01 ppm; and Turnip, tops at 0.02.

IR-4 has also requested to establish residues of fluazinam and its metabolite AMGT in or on Bushberry subgroup 13B; Berry, aronia; blueberry, Lowbush; currant, buffalo; guava, Chilean; Barberry, European; cranberry, highbush; honeysuckle; jostaberry; Juneberry; lingonberry; currant, native; salal; and buckthorn, sea at 4.5 ppm

PP# 6E7139

Ginseng at 3 ppm; Bean, dry at 0.01 ppm; and Pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B, except pea at 0.02 ppm

.     The residue of concern is best defined as the parent, fluazinam in most crops and as the parent, fluazinam and its metabolite, AMGT, in fruit crops (grape and blueberry).

the peanut or potatoes metabolism studies.  It is analogous to the cysteine conjugate of AMPA found in rats.  Identifiable residues in plant metabolism studies either closely resemble fluazinam in structure or are the result of re_incorporation of the fluazinam carbon pool into natural products.

    Ruminant and poultry metabolism studies demonstrated that the transmittal of residues from the feed of goats and hens through to meat, milk, and eggs was low.  Total 14C residues were below 1 ppm in all tissues, milk and eggs.  Identifiable residues were less than 2% of the administered dose in all matrices, except for chicken fat and liver.

.     i.  Ginseng. Data from 4 field trials on ginseng (4 applications at 0.8 lb a.i./A) showed that residues of fluazinam from duplicate samples at each location ranged from 0.28 to 1.4 ppm in the RAC ginseng root harvested 30 days after the last application.

    ii.  Brassica.  A total of 8 field trials were conducted on broccoli, 10 field trials on cabbage and 11 field trials on mustard greens with application of fluazinam in transplant water at 0.055 lbs a.i./1000 plants.  Crops were harvested 60 to 113 days after application for cabbage and broccoli and 25 to 78 days after application for mustard greens.  No residues of fluazinam were found in any sample of broccoli or cabbage harvested from all location (all were below the LOQ of 0.01 ppm).  The maximum residue found in mustard greens was 0.01 ppm, which is the LOQ for this matrix.

    iii.  Beans.  A total of 11 field trials were conducted on snap beans, 7 field trials on lima beans and 13 field trials on dry beans.  Two applications at 0.45 lbs a.i./A were made to snap, lima and dry beans with the first application at early bloom, however the interval between applications ranged from 2 to 6 days for snap beans, 3 to 6 days for lima beans and about 14 days for dry beans. Harvest intervals were 10-21 days, 28-71 days and 31-57 days for snap, lima and dry beans, respectively.  In snap beans, residues of fluazinam ranged from <0.02 ppm to 0.109 ppm with mean residues of 0.08 ppm.   Residues in lima beans and dry beans were all below the LOQ’s of 0.02 and 0.01 ppm, respectively.

    iv.  Blueberry.  A total of 13 field trials were conducted with fluazinam on blueberry (6 applications at 0.65 lb a.i./A).  For fruit harvested 23-32 days after the last application, residues of fluazinam in/on blueberry ranged from 0.042 to 3.0 ppm with a mean residue of 0.91 ppm.  Residues of the metabolite AMGT in/on blueberry ranged from 0.025 to 0.28 ppm with a mean residue of 0.094 ppm.  Maximum total residues of fluazinam plus AMGT in/on blueberry were 3.28 ppm.

.

    A battery of acute toxicity studies was conducted which placed technical fluazinam in Toxicity Category III for oral LD50, dermal LD50, dermal irritation, Category II for inhalation LC50 and Category I for eye irritation.  Technical fluazinam showed potential for dermal sensitization.

.

   In a two_generation reproductive toxicity study, the NOEL for reproductive effects was 100 ppm (10.1 mg/kg bw/day).  The NOEL for parental toxicity was 20 ppm (2.1 mg/kg bw/day).

    In a rat developmental study, there were no developmental effects observed at non_maternally toxic doses.  The developmental NOEL was 50 mg/kg bw/day and the LOEL was 250 mg/kg bw/day, based upon statistically significant decreased mean fetal body weight and other evidence suggestive of delayed fetal development related to maternal toxicity. The maternal NOEL was shown to be 50 mg/kg bw/day.

    The NOEL for the 13-week feeding study in rats was 50 ppm (4.1 mg/kg bw/day).  The LOEL was 500 ppm (41 mg/kg bw/day), based on periacinar hepatocellular hypertrophy and sinusoidal chronic inflammation in males, increased liver weights in males and increased lung weights in females.

    In a 13-week dog study, the NOEL was 10 mg/kg bw/day.  The LOEL was 100 mg/kg bw/day, based on ocular change observed ophthalmoscopically and liver effects consisting of increased relative liver to body weight, bile duct hyperplasia with or without cholangiofibrosis and increased plasma phosphatase levels.

    In a 21-day dermal study, the NOEL for systemic effects was 10 mg/kg bw/day.  The LOEL was 100 mg/kg bw/day, based on hepatocelluar hypertrophy and increases in AST and cholesterol levels.

    In a subchronic neurotoxicity study, no effects considered to be indicative of neurotoxicity were observed at the highest dose tested, 3000 ppm (233 mg/kg bw/day).  The NOEL for systemic toxicity (body weight differences) was 1000 ppm (74 mg/kg bw/day).

.

    Fluazinam was not carcinogenic in rats.  A NOEL of 10 ppm (0.43 mg/kg bw/day) of fluazinam was established based on the following effects at 1000 and/or 100 ppm: lower food consumption and efficiency of food utilization, slight anemia, elevated cholesterol, increased liver weights, an increased number of macroscopic liver and testes lesions and an increased incidence of microscopically observed lung, liver, pancreas, lymph node and testes lesions.

    An additional study was conducted to further define the NOEL for long_term effects in the rat.  In the second study, a NOEL of 50 ppm (2.2 mg/kg bw/day) was established based on liver and testes effects.

    Two long_term feeding studies were conducted in mice.  In the first, the NOEL for all effects was 10 ppm (1.14 mg/kg bw/day) and the LOEL was 100 ppm (11.2 mg/kg bw/day) based on the treatment_related effects observed in the liver.

    A second oncogenicity study in mice was conducted at 1000, 3000 and 7000 ppm to ensure that an MTD dose was studied.  Findings included increased female mortality, reduced body weight gains, increased brain weights and/or liver weights.  An impurity in the test material used in this study resulted in vacuolation of the white matter of the brain and cervical spinal cord in treated animals. A statistically significant higher incidence of hepatocellular adenomas was observed in the 3000 ppm dose males.  Hepatocellular adenomas are common tumors in male mice.  There was no dose relationship in the induction of the adenoma and no increase in hepatocellular carcinomas.  It is concluded that fluazinam is not carcinogenic in the mouse.

.

   The same metabolic processes occur in plants and animals but metabolism in plants is more extensive than in animals. All of the major identified metabolites in both plants and animals retain the phenylpyridinylamine structure.  Many of the metabolites resulting from fluazinam are similar in plants and animals and, therefore, have already been evaluated toxicologically.

.

    Acute Risk Tier 1 acute dietary exposure analyses were conducted for fluazinam in/on ginseng, beans (Subgroups 6A, 6B and 6C), head and stem Brassica, leafy Brassica greens, blueberry, peanuts, potatoes and imported wine grapes to determine the exposure contribution of these commodities to the diet and to ascertain the acute risk potential. The estimates were based on proposed tolerance level residues for all the crops, peanut and potato processing studies, market share assumptions of 100% crop treated (except wine grapes where it was assumed that 100% of the imported wine grapes would be treated and 23% of wine consumed in the US is imported), and consumption data from USDA’s CSFII (1994 through 1996 and 1998) continuing survey of food intake.

    Even using all of the worst-case exposure scenarios listed above, the Tier 1 95th percentile acute dietary exposure (per capita) for the U.S. population was estimated to be 0.001085 mg/kg bw/day or 0.22% of the aPAD. The highest acute exposure estimate (95th percentile) was observed in all infants (<1 year) subpopulation: 0.004921 mg/kg bw/day.  This corresponds to only 0.98% of the aPAD.

    Chronic Risk Tier 1 dietary exposure analyses were conducted for fluazinam in/on ginseng, beans (Subgroups 6A, 6B and 6C), head and stem Brassica, leafy Brassica greens, blueberry, peanuts, potatoes and imported wine grapes to determine the exposure contribution of these commodities to the diet and to ascertain the chronic risk potential. The estimates were based on proposed tolerance level residues for all the crops, peanut and potato processing studies, market share assumptions of 100% crop treated (except wine grapes where it was assumed that 100% of the imported wine grapes would be treated and 23% of wine consumed in the US is imported), and consumption data from USDA’s CSFII (1994 through 1996 and 1998) continuing survey of food intake.

    Even using all of the worst-case exposure scenarios listed above, the Tier 1 chronic dietary exposure estimates resulted in an estimated exposure for the U.S. population of 0.000215 mg/kg bw/day.  This exposure corresponds to 2.2% of the cPAD of 0.01mg/kg bw/day.  The highest exposure estimate was calculated for the children 1-2 years of age population subgroup.  This exposure was determined to be 0.000373 mg/kg bw/day (3.7% of the cPAD).

.

    Data from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit, a 2_generation reproduction study and a developmental neurotoxicity study were considered.  These studies, which were described earlier, demonstrated no increased sensitivity of rats or rabbits to in utero or gavage exposure of pups to fluazinam.  In addition, the multigeneration reproductive toxicity study did not identify any increased sensitivity of rats to in utero or postnatal exposure.  For all four studies, parental NOELs were lower than or equivalent to the developmental or offspring NOELs.  It is concluded that the standard margin of safety will protect the safety of infants and children and that an additional FQPA safety factor is not warranted.

  PAGE   8

{<HD1>}

{<HD2>}

{
}

{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

	{
}

{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{
}


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17483-17486]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06844]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-1005]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Jersey City,
NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation
regulations that govern the PATH Railroad Bridge, mile 3.0, and the
Hack-Freight Bridge, mile 3.1, across the Hackensack River, New Jersey.
The bridge owners, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) and Conrail,
submitted requests to revise the operation schedule for the PATH
Railroad Bridge and to change the Conrail Hack-Freight to operate
remotely. In addition, we will be removing obsolete unnecessary
language and requirements from the existing regulation that are now
listed under other regulations. It is expected that these changes will
continue to meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-1005 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
four methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District Bridge Program, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Tables of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2013-1005), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online
via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the
Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax,
hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having
been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket
Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2013-1005 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2013-1005) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit either the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of
Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why one would be beneficial. If

we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The PATH Railroad Bridge, mile 3.0, has a vertical clearance of 40
feet at mean high water and 45 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge
operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.723.
    The Hack-Freight Bridge, mile 3.1, has a vertical clearance of 11
feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge
operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.723.
    The waterway users are commercial operators.
    The owners of the bridges, Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation
(PATH) and Conrail, submitted requests to the Coast Guard to operate
the Conrail Hack-Freight Bridge from a remote location and to change
the drawbridge operation for the PATH Bridge.
    Under this notice of proposed rulemaking Conrail proposes to
operate its Hack-Freight Bridge at mile 3.1, across the Hackensack
River, from a remote location, the Conrail Leigh Valley Bridge Office,
at all times when a draw tender is not stationed at the bridge. A draw
tender may be stationed at the bridge at various times when it is
deemed necessary for safety purposes such as during times when bridge
maintenance is being performed.
    Conrail operates several other bridges from its Leigh Valley Bridge
Office, the Conrail Bridge at mile 2.0, across the Rahway River and the
Arthur Kill Bridge at mile 11.6, across Arthur Kill.
    Under this notice of proposed rulemaking, the Coast Guard is also
changing the drawbridge operation regulations for the PATH Railroad
Bridge.
    The owner of the PATH Railroad Bridge, the Port Authority Trans-
Hudson Corporation (PATH), asked the Coast Guard to change the
drawbridge operation schedule for its Path Railroad Bridge, to require
at least a two hour advance notice for bridge openings at all times.
    In addition, PATH requested that the PATH Railroad Bridge be
allowed to remain in the closed position during time periods when
commuter rail traffic is heaviest from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 4
p.m. to 8 p.m.
    PATH agreed to provide additional bridge openings during the
commuter closure periods for commercial vessels, from 6 a.m. to 7:20
a.m., 9:20 a.m. to 10 a.m., 4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and from 6:50 p.m. to 8
p.m., upon a two hour advance notice, to help facilitate commercial
vessel traffic. Notice may be provided by calling the number posted at
the bridge.
    As a result of all the above information, it is expected these
proposed changes to the drawbridge operation regulations will continue
to meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation
regulations at 33 CFR 117.723, to allow the Conrail Hack-Freight Bridge
at mile 3.1, across the Hackensack River to be operated from a remote
location, the Lehigh Valley Bridge Office, at all times.
    Conrail operates several other Conrail bridges from its Leigh
Valley Bridge Office and believes adding the Conrail Hack-Freight
Bridge will help with operational efficiency and safety, as well as
being a cost saving measure.
    The Coast Guard is also proposing to change the drawbridge
operation regulations for the PATH Railroad Bridge at mile 3.0, across
the Hackensack River, to allow the PATH Railroad Bridge to require at
least a two hour advance notice for bridge openings at all times.
    The PATH Railroad Bridge seldom opens for vessel traffic due to its
high vertical clearance of 40 feet at mean high water and 45 feet at
mean low water and most of the commercial vessels that normally transit
this waterway fit under the bridge without requiring a bridge opening.
    The Coast Guard was also asked by PATH to allow its PATH Railroad
Bridge to remain in the closed position from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from
4 p.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, to
help facilitate commuter train traffic during time periods when
commuter rail traffic is heaviest.
    PATH agreed to provide additional bridge openings between 6 a.m.
and 7:20 a.m., 9:20 and 10 a.m., 4 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. and from 6:50
p.m. to 8 p.m., to help facilitate commercial vessel traffic, provided
a two hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the
bridge.
    Also under this notice of proposed rulemaking we are removing
obsolete language from the existing regulation. Paragraph (a)(1),
regarding emergency bridge openings for public and local vessels in
emergency situations will be removed because it is now listed at 33 CFR
117.31 of the General Drawbridge Operation Regulations.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866, or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders. We believe that this rule is
not a significant regulatory action because the PATH Railroad Bridge
provides adequate clearance for commercial vessels in the closed
position and the commercial vessels will be able to get additional
openings provided advance notice is given by calling the number posted
at the bridge. Additionally, the Hack-Freight Bridge can be transited
at all times but will be tended remotely.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
needing to transit through the bridge.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The
high vertical clearance of the PATH Railroad Bridge of 40 feet at mean
high water should accommodate all present vessel traffic except deep
draft. Additionally, vessels may transit the bridge at all other times
with a two hour advance notice and can plan their trips accordingly
during any closure periods. As for the Hack-Freight Bridge, vessels may
transit the bridge at all times.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this 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.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    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 rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above.
    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.

4. 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).

5. Federalism

    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 does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact 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.

7. 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 will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of significant environmental
impact from the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Revise Sec.  117.723 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.723  Hackensack River.

    (a) The following requirements apply to all bridges across the
Hackensack River:
    (1) The owners of each bridge shall provide and keep in good
legible condition clearance gauges for each draw, with figures not less
than 18 inches high for bridges below the turning basin at mile 4.0,
and 12 inches high for bridges above mile 4.0. The gauges shall be
designed, installed and maintained according to the provisions of
section 118.160 of this chapter.
    (2) Train and locomotives shall be controlled so that any delay in
opening the draw shall not exceed 10 minutes. However, if a train
moving toward the bridge has crossed the home signal for the bridge
before the signal requesting the opening of the bridge is given, the
train may continue across the bridge and must clear the bridge
interlocks before stopping or reversing.
    (3) New Jersey Transit Rail Operations' (NJTRO) roving crews shall
consist of two qualified operators on each shift, each having a vehicle
which is equipped with marine and railroad radios, a cellular
telephone, and emergency bridge repair and maintenance tools. This crew
shall be split with one drawtender stationed at Upper Hack and the
other drawtender at the HX drawbridge. Adequate security

measures shall be provided to prevent vandalism to the bridge operating
controls and mechanisms to ensure prompt openings of NJTRO bridges.
    (4) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (j) of this
section, the draws shall open on signal.
    (b) The draw of the PATH Bridge, mile 3.0, at Jersey City, shall
open on signal provided at least a two hour advance notice is provided
by calling the number posted at the bridge. The draw need not open for
the passage of vessel traffic Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays, from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. Additional
bridge openings shall be provided for commercial vessels from 6 a.m. to
7:20 a.m.; 9:20 a.m. to 10 a.m.; 4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and from 6:50 p.m.
to 8 p.m. provided at least a two hour advance notice is given by
calling the number posted at the bridge.
    (c) The draw of the Hack-Freight Railroad Bridge at mile 3.1, shall
open on signal at all times, except as provided in paragraph (a) (2) of
this section. The bridge shall be operated from a remote location at
all times, except when it is tended locally. Sufficient closed circuit
television cameras, approved by the Coast Guard, shall be operated and
maintained at the bridge site to enable the remotely located bridge
tender to have full view of both river traffic and the bridge.
    (1) Radiotelephone Channel 13/16 VHF-FM shall be maintained and
utilized to facilitate communication in both remote and local control
locations. The bridge shall also be equipped with directional
microphones and horns to receive and deliver signals to vessels.
    (2) Whenever the remote control system equipment is partially
disabled or fails for any reason, the bridge shall be physically tended
and operated by local control as soon as possible, but no more than 45
minutes after malfunction or disability of the remote system.
Mechanical bypass and override capability of the remote system shall be
provided and maintained.
    (d) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the
draw of the NJTRO Lower Hack Bridge, mile 3.4, at Jersey City shall
open on signal if at least a one hour advance notice is given to the
drawtender at the Upper Hack bridge, mile 6.9, at Secaucus, New Jersey
by calling the number posted at the bridge. In the event the HX draw
tender is at the Newark/Harrison (Morristown Line) Bridge, mile 5.8, on
the Passaic River, up to an additional half hour delay is permitted.
    (e) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the
draw of the Amtrak Portal Bridge, mile 5.0, at Little Snake Hill, need
not open for the passage of vessel traffic Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays, from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 8
p.m. Additional bridge openings shall be provided for commercial
vessels from 6 a.m. to 7:20 a.m.; 9:20 a.m. to 10 a.m.; 4 p.m. to 4:30
p.m. and from 6:50 p.m. to 8 p.m., if at least a one-hour advance
notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. At all
other times the draw shall open on signal.
    (f) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the
draw of the NJTRO Upper Hack Bridge, mile 6.9 at Secaucus, N.J. shall
open on signal unless the drawtender is at the HX Bridge, mile 7.7 at
Secaucus, N.J. over the Hackensack River, then up to a half hour delay
is permitted.
    (g) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the
draw of the NJTRO HX Bridge at mile 7.7, shall open on signal if at
least one half hour notice is given to the drawtender at the Upper Hack
Bridge.
    (h) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the
draw of the S46 Bridge, at mile 14.0, in Little Ferry, shall open on
signal if at least a twenty four hour advance notice is given by
calling the number posted at the bridge.
    (i) The draw of the Harold J. Dillard Memorial (Court Street)
Bridge, mile 16.2, Hackensack, shall open on signal if at least four
hours notice is given.
    (j) The draw of the New York Susquehanna and Western Railroad
bridge, mile 16.3, and the Midtown bridge, mile 16.5, both at
Hackensack, need not be opened for the passage of vessels, however, the
draws shall be restored to operable condition within 12 months after
notification by the District Commander to do so.

    Dated: March 19, 2014.
V.B. Gifford, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2014-06844 Filed 3-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68743-68745]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27186]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73575; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-084]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

November 12, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 3, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective
November 3, 2014. The Exchange always strives for clarity in its rules
and Fees Schedule, so that market participants may best understand how
rules and fees apply. First, the Exchange proposes to remove obsolete
language in Footnotes 29 and 30. On October 1, 2014, the Exchange
submitted a rule filing to amend its Order Router Subsidy (``ORS'') and
Complex Order Router Subsidy (``CORS'') Programs (collectively
``Programs'').\3\ In the filing, among other things, the Exchange
proposed to cease making payments under both Programs with respect to
executed contracts in mini-option classes. The Exchange however,
inadvertently did not remove the following statement from Footnotes 29
and 30: ``For billing purposes, mini-options fees will be rounded to
the nearest $0.01 using standard rounding rules.'' As mini-options are
no longer part of either Program, reference to how mini-option fees
would be billed under the program is unnecessary. The Exchange proposes
to remove the obsolete language, which will prevent potential confusion
and maintain clarity in the Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73354 (October 15,
2014), 79 FR 203 (October 21, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-75).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend its OHS (Order Handling System)
Order Cancellation Fee (``Cancel Fee''). By way of background, the
Exchange had established this fee to address various operational
problems and recoup costs resulting from the practice of immediately
following orders routed through the OHS with a cancel request.
Currently, the executing Clearing Trading Permit Holder is charged
$2.00 for every public customer order (origin code ``C'') that it
cancels through the OHS in any month where the total number of
cancellations sent by the executing Clearing Trading Permit Holder is
in excess of the number of public customer orders that the executing
Clearing Trading Permit Holder executes in a month for itself or for a
correspondent firm. Additionally, this fee does not apply: (i) if an
executing Clearing Trading Permit Holder cancels less than 500 public
customer orders through OHS in a month for itself or for a
correspondent firm; (ii) to cancelled OHS orders that improve the
Exchange's prevailing bid-offer (BBO) market at the time the orders are
received; (iii) to fill and cancellation activity occurring within the
first one minute of trading following the opening of each options
class, (iv) to complex order fills and cancels, (v) to unfilled Fill-
or-Kill (FOK) orders, (vi) to unfilled Immediate-or-Cancel (IOC)
orders, and

(vii) to orders that are entered or cancelled prior to the opening,
during the opening rotation, or during a trading halt. The Exchange now
proposes to waive the cancellation fee.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \5\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitation
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which requires
that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and
other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed
clarifications to the Fees Schedule will make the Fees Schedule easier
to read and alleviate potential confusion. The alleviation of potential
confusion will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
protect investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to waive
the cancellation fee. The cancellation fee was originally introduced in
response to capacity concerns stemming from Trading Permit Holders
generating significant order traffic that did not result in executed
trades due to orders being cancelled at high rates. However, the total
number of monthly cancelled fees assessed has decreased over time. As
such, the Exchange believes the fee may no longer be necessary. The
Exchange believes it's reasonable to waive the cancellation fee because
it will merely result in Trading Permit Holders no longer being subject
to this fee. Additionally, the Exchange notes that another exchange has
similarly waived its Cancellation Fee.\8\ The Exchange does not believe
the proposed change is unfairly discriminatory as it applies equally to
all Trading Permit Holders, who will no longer be subject to any
cancellation fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72817 (August 12,
2014), 79 FR 48801 (August 18, 2014) (SR-ISE-2014-039).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. CBOE does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act because the proposed changes apply to all Trading Permit
Holders. The Exchange believes that the proposal to waive the
cancellation fee will not cause an unnecessary burden on intermarket
competition because at least one other exchange has similarly waived
its cancellation fee.\9\ To the extent that the proposed changes make
CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other
exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2014-084 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-CBOE-2014-084. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of 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-CBOE-

2014-084 and should be submitted on or before December 9, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27186 Filed 11-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46978-46979]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21730]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7569-006]

University of Notre Dame; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Application to amend 5 MW exemption from
licensing.
    b. Project No.: 7569-006.
    c. Date Filed: April 24, 2017, and supplemented on September 21,
2017.
    d. Applicant: University of Notre Dame.
    e. Name of Project: South Bend Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the St. Joseph River in St.
Joseph County, Indiana.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 4.104 (2016).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Paul A. Kempf, University of Notre Dame,
100 Facilities Building, Notre Dame, IN 46556,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Jennifer Polardino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests,
and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by
the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations 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. Please include the project number (P-7569-006) on
any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.
    k. Project as Authorized: The South Bend project consists of: (1)
An existing reservoir with a surface area of 150 acres and a storage
capacity of 800 acre-feet at a pool elevation of 680 feet mean sea
level; (2) an existing concrete and timber-crib dam approximately 18-
feet-high and 435 feet long; (3) powerhouse containing one 50-kilowatt
(kW) and two 890 kW generating units, for a total authorized capacity
of 1,830 kW; and (4) appurtenant facilities.
    l. Description of Request: The exemptee requests approval to amend
the exemption for the South Bend Hydroelectric Project with the
following modifications to the project's facilities: ten 250 kilowatt
(kW) units for a total generating capacity of 2,500 kW; a 390-foot-long
conveyance channel, a coarse trash rack at the inlet to the conveyance
channel; a secondary trash rack with a traveling brush; and a 1.5 mile
long, 1.47 kilovolt transmission line buried from the hydro site to the
tie-in point at the Notre Dame campus. The proposed modifications would
require changes to the project's boundary.
    m. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    o. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    p. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO
INTERVENE as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading, the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions
to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works

which are the subject of the license amendment. Agencies may obtain
copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any
protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an
intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to
this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: October 3, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21730 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P