[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42752-42755]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64883; File No. SR-OCC-2011-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Regarding Clearing and Settling a Price Differential Spread Futures
Transaction

July 14, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,\1\ notice is hereby given that on June 30, 2011, The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which items have been prepared primarily by OCC. OCC filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) thereunder \3\ so that the proposal was
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would accommodate the clearing and
settling of a transaction type called a Price Differential Spread for
purposes of effecting exchange transactions in futures contracts.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC 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 Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend OCC's By-Laws
and Rules to accommodate the proposed introduction by ELX Futures L.P.
(``ELX''), an electronic futures market that is designated as a
contract market by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC''),
of a transaction type called a Price Differential Spread (``Price
Differential Spread'') for purposes of effecting exchange transactions
in futures contracts.\4\ A Price Differential Spread is a pair of
transactions resulting from a type of order where the party placing the
order seeks to simultaneously buy and sell futures contracts on the
same underlying interest but with different contract months (each such
transaction referred to herein as a ``leg'' of the Price Differential
Spread), provided that the price at which contracts are bought in one
leg less the price at which contracts are sold in the other leg (the
``price differential'') is no greater than the limit specified by such
party (such limit referred to herein as the ``maximum price
differential''). Price Differential Spreads are principally used to
roll futures positions forward into futures with the same underlying
interest but with a later delivery date. In such a transaction, the
cost to the party rolling the positions forward is determined solely by
the difference between the prices at which the two legs of the Price
Differential Spread are executed. The price of either leg alone is not
relevant. As discussed below, by allowing a Clearing Member to use
contract prices that are based on the previous day's exchange-reported
closing price, the actual price differential is highlighted and
allocation of equivalent transactions

among different customers is facilitated. For purposes of illustration,
assume that the ``front leg'' of a Price Differential Spread (i.e., the
leg with the nearer contract month) is the sale of futures contracts
and that the ``back leg'' (i.e., the leg with the more distant contract
month) is the purchase of futures contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OCC understands that similar transactions are used by at
least one other futures exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When submitting a Price Differential Spread order to ELX, the
trader will specify the maximum price differential, and ELX will
attempt to match the two legs of the Price Differential Spread based on
available orders (not limited to Price Differential Spread orders) from
other traders. Assume that a Clearing Member submits a Price
Differential Spread order (such Clearing Member referred to herein as
the ``Price Differential Spread Executor'') to sell a March SYM
contract and buy a June SYM contract with a maximum price differential
of $1.00 and that ELX matches the front leg to counterparty A, that
buys the March SYM contract at $118.00, and the back leg to
counterparty B, that sells the June SYM contract at $118.95. In this
case, the price differential between the two legs, based on matched
trade prices, is $0.95, which is lower than the $1.00 maximum price
differential that the Price Differential Spread Executor has specified.
    Price Differential Spreads are differentiated from other futures
transactions cleared by OCC in that the Price Differential Spread
Executor may choose at the time it submits the order to (1) Record the
contract prices of both legs of a Price Differential Spread at the
prices at which the contracts are matched on the exchange (``Spread
Engine Prices'') or (2) record the contract price of the front leg at
the exchange-reported closing price on the immediately preceding
trading day for the contracts bought or sold (``prior day closing
price'') and record the contract price of the back leg at (a) the
contract price of the front leg plus the price differential, if the
front leg is the sale of futures contracts or (b) the contract price of
the front leg less the price differential if the front leg is the
purchase of futures contracts (``Spread Settle Prices'').
    After matching both legs of a Price Differential Spread, ELX will
send to OCC a pair of matched trade reports, each of which will
identify the buyer, the seller, the futures contract traded, the
exchange-assigned identification number (``Price Differential Spread
ID'') connecting the two legs of the Price Differential Spread, the
Spread Engine Price, and the Spread Settle Price. The matched trade
reports also will indicate the price type (i.e., the Spread Engine
Price or the Spread Settle Price) that OCC should use to record the
trades on behalf of the Price Differential Spread Executor.\5\
Continuing the example, assume that the prior day closing price for the
March SYM contract was $117.90. If the Price Differential Spread
Executor elects to use the Spread Engine Prices at the time it submits
the order, OCC will initially record the front leg at $118.00 and the
back leg at $118.95. Alternatively, if the Price Differential Spread
Executor elects to use the Spread Settle Prices at the time it submits
the order, OCC will initially record the front leg at $117.90 and the
back leg at $118.85 (which is the sum of the $117.90 contract price for
the front leg plus the price differential of $0.95 because the front
leg is the sale of a futures contract).\6\ In addition, after the two
legs of the Price Differential Spread have been accepted by OCC for
clearance and prior to a deadline established by OCC, which deadline
would occur before the initial variation payment, the Price
Differential Spread Executor may access OCC's systems to change its
initial election with respect to such trades as between using the
Spread Engine Prices and using the Spread Settle Prices. ELX has
informed OCC that Price Differential Spread traders require the
flexibility to choose between the prices being used for clearing their
Price Differential Spreads for purposes of allowing them to allocate
trades among multiple customers at an equitable price similar to the
average pricing functionality that already exists in OCC's trade
allocation process and that the implementation of this new post-trade
process will be consistent with existing practices in the futures
industry. ELX also has informed OCC that Price Differential Spread
transactions will not affect the prices at which trades are publicly
reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In the case where each counterparty to the trade has entered
into the trade as part of its own Price Differential Spread, the
matched trade report will identify separately with respect to each
counterparty the price to be initially recorded as the contract
price and the Price Differential Spread ID.
    \6\ Assume instead that the front leg is the purchase of a
futures contract at $118.95 and the back leg is the sale of a
futures contract at $118.00. The price differential is still $0.95.
If the Price Differential Spread Executor elects to use the Spread
Settle Prices at the time it submits the order, OCC will initially
record the front leg at $117.90 and the back leg at $116.95 (which
is the $117.90 contract price minus the price differential of $0.95
because the front leg is the purchase of a futures contract).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Except in the case where the counterparty to a leg of a Price
Differential Spread enters into the trade as part of its own Price
Differential Spread and elects to record the trade using the Spread
Settle Price, the counterparty sees the trade as an ordinary stand-
alone futures transaction, and OCC will record the trade on behalf of
the counterparty using the Spread Engine Price. Therefore, continuing
the example, in a case where the Price Differential Spread Executor
chooses to use the Spread Settle Prices for clearing a Price
Differential Spread, the trades as recorded on OCC's books and records
for the Price Differential Spread Executor will use a different set of
prices (i.e., $117.90 and $118.85) from those recorded for counterparty
A and counterparty B (i.e., $118.00 and $118.95). However, the
aggregate amount of the variation payments that the Price Differential
Spread Executor will pay to or collect from OCC will be the same
(except for very small discrepancies due to rounding differences as
described below) regardless of which set of prices is used to calculate
variation payments because the price differential between the two legs
of the Price Differential Spread is the same (i.e., $0.95).
Accordingly, and subject to the treatment of rounding differences as
described in the following paragraphs, OCC's clearing system will be in
balance because the variation payments due to or from the Price
Differential Spread Executor on the futures contracts executed as part
of the Price Differential Spread will equal the amount due to or from
the counterparties to those transactions on an aggregate basis even if
not on a contract-by-contract basis.
    When the Price Differential Spread Executor records the trades
using the Spread Settle Prices, rounding the Spread Settle Prices to
the nearest applicable minimum price increment when the initial
variation payments on the trades are calculated may result in the Price
Differential Spread Executor paying slightly more or receiving slightly
less than it would have paid or received if it had elected to record
the trades using the Spread Engine Prices. In either case the amount
will be no more than one cent per contract. The amount by which the
Price Differential Spread Executor receives slightly less or pays
slightly more than it would have otherwise paid or received with
respect to the trades will fund the amount by which other Price
Differential Spread Executors are entitled to receive more or pay less
as a result of OCC's rounding procedures.
    While all such discrepancies in variation payments due to OCC's
rounding procedures should net to zero when averaged over time, they
may not net to precisely zero on any business day. Any net excess
received by OCC on

any business day will be contributed to a ``Rounding Fund'' and will be
carried forward to fund any net amount that OCC may be required to pay
on subsequent days. In order to ensure that there is always a
sufficient positive balance in the Rounding Fund to fund any such net
amount that may be owed by OCC, a cushion is needed. Accordingly, ELX
has agreed in an amendment to the Clearing Agreement between OCC and
ELX to provide OCC an initial amount of $5,000 as a contribution to the
Rounding Fund and to contribute additional amounts as reasonably
required by OCC to provide a larger cushion should growth in product
volume indicate such additional amounts are required. The Rounding Fund
will be held by OCC in one or more bank accounts used by OCC to make
daily cash settlements with Clearing Members so that it will be
automatically available to fund variation payments as needed and to
eliminate the expense and operational risk of unnecessary funds
transfers. OCC will maintain a record of the amount held in the
Rounding Fund on OCC's own books and records. If at any time ELX ceases
to clear transactions through OCC or ceases to permit Price
Differential Spread transactions, OCC will pay any amount left in the
Rounding Fund to ELX.
    OCC proposes to make the following amendments to its By-Laws and
Rules in order to accommodate clearance of Price Differential Spreads.
OCC proposes to add a new Rule 1301A to (1) Define Price Differential
Spreads,\7\ (2) require the listing exchange to include the Spread
Engine Price and the Spread Settle Price and to identify (separately
with respect to each counterparty to the trade, if applicable) which of
the two prices is to be initially recorded as the contract price and
the Price Differential Spread ID in each of the matched trade reports
that the listing exchange sends to OCC with respect to Price
Differential Spreads, (3) permit a Clearing Member to choose post trade
the contract prices to be used for clearing its Price Differential
Spread trades, and (4) highlight the rounding situation described
above. OCC would also make a minor conforming amendment to Rule 1301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ OCC also proposes to add the term ``Price Differential
Spread'' to Article I of its By-Laws as a cross reference to Rule
1301A where the term is actually defined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, OCC and ELX would enter into Amendment 1 to the
Agreement for Clearing and Settlement Services dated December 5, 2008,
between OCC and ELX to accommodate Price Differential Spreads. A copy
of Amendment 1 is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
    OCC states that the proposed changes to OCC's By-Laws and Rules are
consistent with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Act
\8\ because they effect a change in an existing service of OCC that
does not adversely affect the safeguarding of securities or funds in
OCC's custody or control or for which OCC is responsible or
significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of OCC or
persons using its securities clearing services. The proposed rule
change is not inconsistent with any rules of OCC including any rules
proposed to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    OCC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the
proposed rule change. OCC will notify the Commission of any written
comments it receives.

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)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \10\ because it
effects a change in an existing service of a registered clearing agency
that does not adversely affect the safeguarding of securities or funds
in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible and does not significantly affect the respective rights or
obligations of the clearing agency or persons using the service. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Supra note 2.
    \10\ Supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-OCC-2011-06 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 No. SR-OCC-2011-06. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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 filings also will be available for
inspection and copying at OCC's principal office and OCC's Web site
(http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_11_06.pdf). 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 No. SR-OCC-
2011-06 and should be submitted on or before August 9, 2011.

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

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-18118 Filed 7-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 149)]
[Notices]
[Page 44986-44987]
[DOCID:fr01au08-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13194-000]

FFP Missouri 13, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

July 25, 2008.
    On April 22, 2008, FFP Missouri 13, LLC (Free Flow Power
Corporation) filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Missouri
River 13 Project, to be located in the Missouri River in Gasconade and
Montgomery Counties, Missouri.

    The proposed Missouri River 13 project consists of: (1) 3,960
proposed 20-kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 79.2-megawatts, (2) a mooring system, (3) a
proposed transmission line, and (4) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed Missouri River Project 13 would have an average annual
generation of 346,896-gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local
utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Daniel R. Irwin, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930, phone: 978/
232-3536.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis<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.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13194) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17638 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on September 13, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-99-6023 & OST-99-5076

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Applicant:  JALways Co., Ltd.		.					Date Filed:  July 8, 2005

Relief requested:

Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in scheduled foreign
air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or
points in Japan and any point or points in the United States; and
authority to conduct charters in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212.

Renew statement of authorization under 14 CFR Part 212 to (a) display
Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd.’s designator code (JL) on
flights operated by JALways between any point or points in Japan and any
point or points in the United States; and (b) wet lease aircraft to
Japan Airlines for a term coextensive with the term of the scheduled
authority described above.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  August 9, 2004, in this
docket

Applicant representatives:  William Karas & Carol Gosain<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Shelita A. Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved							Action date:  September 13, 2005

Effective dates of exemption authority granted:  September 13, 2005 –
September 13, 2006

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  1998 Memorandum
of Understanding between the United States and Japan (1998 MOU)

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

  X    Standard exemption conditions (attached), Order 92-3-24 and the
1998 MOU

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  The authority
granted to JALways, in addition to the conditions described above, is
subject to the following conditions:

(a)  To the extent that JALways is operating the service, the exemption
authority granted above is subject to the frequency limitations and
service points authorized under the 1998 MOU.

(b)  The number of weekly round-trip frequencies conducted under the
codeshare authority authorized above shall not exceed the limitations on
same country airline codeshare frequencies available for such services
under Section IV.E of the 1998 MOU.

(c)  JALways and/or Japan Airlines must notify the Department no later
than 30 days before they begin any new code-share service under the
code-share services authorized here.  Such notice shall identify the
market(s) to be served, which carrier will be operating the aircraft in
the code-share market added, and the date on which the service will
begin.  Such notices should be filed in Docket OST-99-6023.

(d)  JALways and/or Japan Airlines must promptly notify the Department
if the code-share agreement providing for the code-share operations is
no longer effective or the carriers decide to cease operating any or all
of the approved code-share services.  We expect this notification to be
received within 10 days of such non-effectiveness or of such decision.
Such notices should be filed in Docket OST-99-6023.

(e)  The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must
comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendments to the Department’s
regulations concerning code-sharing arrangements that may be adopted.
Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our
approval here is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the
subject foreign air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier
holding out such service in computer reservation systems and elsewhere;
that the carrier selling such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on
the ticket) accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share
journey for all obligations established in its contract of carriage with
the passenger; and that the passenger liability of the operating carrier
be unaffected.

(f)  The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that
neither JALways nor Japan Airlines shall give any force or effect to any
contractual provisions between themselves that are contrary to these
conditions.

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		   Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant is qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied

all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke
the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our
discretion.

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

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

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

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 212 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67638-67642]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28006]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0987]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, Oregon
Inlet, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a Regulated Navigation Area
(RNA) on the navigable waters of Oregon Inlet, NC surrounding the
Herbert C. Bonner Bridge. This RNA will allow the Coast Guard to
enforce vessel traffic restrictions within the RNA when necessary to
safeguard people and vessels from the hazards associated with potential
catastrophic structural damage that could occur due to vessel allisions
with the bridge.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 3, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments received from the public, as well as documents
mentioned in this preamble are part of Docket Number USCG-2014-0987. To
view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Open Docket Folder'' on
the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Derek Burrill, Waterways Management Division Chief,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
RNA Regulated Navigation Area

A. Regulatory Information

    On December 17, 2014, we published an interim final rule and
request for comments entitled ``Regulated Navigation Area; Herbert C.
Bonner Bridge, Oregon Inlet, North Carolina'' in the Federal Register
(79 FR 75050). We received five comments coming from two submitters on
the Interim Final Rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was
held.

B. Background and Purpose

    This rulemaking is authorized by 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter
701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6,
160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and DHS Delegation No. 0170.1.
Under these authorities the Coast Guard may establish a RNA in defined
water areas that are determined to have hazardous conditions and in
which vessel traffic can be regulated in the interest of safety. The
purpose of this RNA is to reduce the risk of a bridge strike resulting
from a vessel transiting through alternative spans of the Herbert C.
Bonner Bridge, which are not intended for navigation. In addition, this
RNA will serve to ensure vessels transiting the area are restricted to
those that may do so safely, and will not impose unnecessary risk of
harm to themselves or other maritime traffic. A bridge strike to un-
fendered or unprotected structural elements of the Bonner Bridge would
introduce a clear and present danger to stability of the bridge,
motorists, mariners, and indirect impacts on local businesses and
residents of Hatteras Island, NC. A grounded vessel in this heavily
trafficked waterway would also greatly increase the risk of a bridge
strike by another vessel.
    When shoaling is present in the vicinity of the navigation span,
vessels attempt to transit through alternate spans. Transiting through
alternate spans is hazardous. Mariners transiting near and through the
unprotected structural components increase the potential of a bridge
strike; these spans do not have fenders or other mechanisms to protect
the bridge from vessel strikes. Vessels that transit alternate bridge
spans pose a risk to safe navigation as there are no advertised

vertical and horizontal clearances for these areas.
    The Coast Guard has also considered the 2006 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NC DOT) biennial bridge inspection in
accordance with National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) for the
Herbert C. Bonner Bridge. This report takes into account the
substructure and superstructure inspections along with analysis of the
maritime navigational and motor vehicle concerns. The report noted
weakened pile supports as a result of section loss and substructure
erosion to the point of showing exposed rebar. Publically available
information provided by NC DOT indicates that the Herbert C. Bonner
Bridge has a very low sufficiency rating. The Herbert C. Bonner Bridge
is the only vehicular access to Hatteras Island for residents,
commercial vendors, and business owners transiting from Nags Head-Bodie
Island to Hatteras Island. The Bonner Bridge is subject to heavy
traffic volume, particularly during the summer tourist season. Risks to
the lives of mariners, vehicle motorist and passengers, have been
considered in the development of this rulemaking.

C. Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received a total of five comments coming from two
submitters on the Interim Final Rule. No public meeting was requested,
and none was held.

Economic Effects: Limiting Passage of Certain Vessels Pursuant to
Enforcing the RNA

    Two comments were received about the possible economic effects of
the interim rule on small entities and local economies. Specifically,
the comments expressed concern that the RNA if utilized would have
significant negative impact on commercial and recreational mariners and
the regional economy because alternate routes around Oregon Inlet are
distant.
    As noted in the Interim Final Rule, there are alternate routes for
vessels bound for Oregon Inlet, North Carolina and inland waterfront
communities, including Wanchese, NC. Those alternate routes include
transiting through Beaufort Inlet or Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway and Sounds of North Carolina. The distance from
Oregon Inlet Lighted Whistle Buoy ``OI'' to Wanchese, North Carolina
via Beaufort Inlet, the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and Pamlico
Sound is approximately 190 nautical miles. The distance from Oregon
Inlet Lighted Whistle Buoy ``OI'' to Wanchese, North Carolina via
Chesapeake Bay, the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and Albemarle Sound
is approximately 200 nautical miles.
    No change to the rule were made based on these comments because
alternate access routes exist and should significant hazardous
conditions be evident the potential risk of loss of life, damage to the
bridge, and the impact on access to Hatteras Island outweighs the
benefits of permitting navigation in the vicinity or under the Bonner
Bridge. Additionally, the Coast Guard has and will continue to use all
available resources to safely and efficiently monitor the conditions of
the designated waters of this RNA to minimize impacts to the waterway
users. Should the need arise for the Coast Guard to restrict vessel
traffic in the RNA based on shoaling, hazardous conditions or severe
weather conditions, these restrictions would be imposed for certain
vessels who, in the discretion of the COTP, pose a safety risk to the
bridge structure. Given this limited scope of restriction, any negative
economic impact would be minimal and strongly outweighed by the
associated safety concerns.

RNA Vessel Designation and Characteristics: Designation of Vessels
Allowed To Transit Through the RNA

    One comment was received that the rule does not provide sufficient
notice regarding what types of vessels will be allowed to transit
through the RNA when enforced. The comment acknowledged the Coast Guard
authority to designate vessel characteristics of vessels which may
navigate within the RNA but suggested that the RNA allow all vessels
under 65 feet in length, with a draft of less than 6 feet and a tonnage
under 50 tons to continue navigating in the vicinity of the RNA when
being enforced.
    The Coast Guard wants to impose the appropriate restrictions based
on the conditions in the inlet. The Oregon Inlet waterway is constantly
changing: Hurricanes and strong low pressure systems (e.g. Nor'easters)
exacerbate tidal current and the seasonal fluctuations of the inlet's
water depths. Also, frequent dredging and realignment of the approach
channel east of the bridge has become routine. Publically available
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) hydrographic survey data over the
past two years indicates shoaling to depths of less than 3 feet at mean
low water within the approaches to the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge on a
frequently occurring basis. Because many of these factors are
uncontrollable, having the ability to impose variable restrictions
dependent on conditions allows the Coast Guard to tailor the
restrictions to vessels which pose the most significant risk and threat
to the bridge while minimizing impacts on the commercial and
recreational waterway users.
    A change to the notification aspect of the rule was made based on
this comment. As noted in the NPRM the Coast Guard will notify the
public of restrictions via Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice
to Mariners and via other methods described in 33 CFR 165.7. Also,
Coast Guard personnel may be on-scene to advise the public of
enforcement of any restrictions on vessel navigation within the RNA. In
33 CFR 165.520(c)(3), a provision was added so that the Coast Guard
will also notify the maritime community of any imposed RNA restrictions
or impacts to navigation through the U.S. Coast Guard HOMEPORT Web site
and Marine Safety Information Bulletins. Additionally, the Coast Guard
will notify recognized commissions and/or committees appointed by the
Dare County, North Carolina elected officials who represent commercial
and recreational mariner interests in Oregon Inlet, North Carolina,
when practicable, prior to imposing restrictions pursuant to
enforcement of the RNA. The rule also allows the COTP or his/her
designated representative to permit vessel access on a case-by-case
basis should heavy vessel traffic be present.

Rule Making Process: Interim Final Rule Verse Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking

    One comment was received that stated the Coast Guard should not
have issued an Interim Final Rule as broad and restrictive as the
Herbert C. Bonner Bridge RNA without first undertaking notice and
comment procedures. The commenter felt that other Coast Guard RNA's
were established using a notice and comment period and recommended
replacing the Interim Final Rule with a temporary rule establishing a
limited duration RNA and form a working group to determine what type of
vessels and under what circumstances these vessels may navigate in
Oregon Inlet.
    No changes to the rule were based on these comments. The Coast
Guard issued this interim final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment before being enforceable pursuant to authority
under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without
prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause
finds that those procedures are

``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' The
Coast Guard maintains that good cause exists for not publishing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because
immediate action is necessary to protect the maritime public who
transit Oregon Inlet and motorist that use the Herbert C. Bonner
Bridge. The potential dangers posed by vessel strikes to the Herbert C.
Bonner Bridge resulting in catastrophic damage makes immediate action
necessary to minimize the risk of potential loss of life, damage to the
bridge, and the impact on access to Hatteras Island. The shoaling in
this area continues to worsen and the structural integrity of the
bridge continues to deteriorate, which combine to create an
unacceptable risk to the public that justified the issuance of an
interim final rule. Accordingly, waiting for a comment period to run
would be contrary to the public interest of protecting life, property
and a vital motorist transit.
    Additionally, the Interim Final Rule was issued with a 30 day
request for comments to solicit and consider information in issuing a
Final Rule from those entities that may be impacted by this rule.

Notification Process: Publicizing Enforcement of the RNA

    One comment was received stating notification of the RNA
requirements when enforced is critical due to the amount vessel traffic
which utilizes the inlet, especially in the summer months.
    One change to the rule was made based on this comment.
    As noted in the NPRM the Coast Guard will notify the public of
restrictions via Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners
and via other methods described in 33 CFR 165.7. Also, Coast Guard
personnel may be on-scene to advise the public of enforcement of any
restrictions on vessel navigation within the RNA. In 33 CFR
165.520(c)(3), a provision was added so that the Coast Guard will also
notify the maritime community of any imposed RNA restrictions or
impacts to navigation through the U.S. Coast Guard HOMEPORT Web site
and Marine Safety Information Bulletins. Additionally, the Coast Guard
will notify recognized commissions and/or committees appointed by the
Dare County, North Carolina elected officials who represent commercial
and recreational mariner interests in Oregon Inlet, North Carolina,
when practicable, prior to imposing restrictions pursuant to
enforcement of the RNA. The rule also allows the COTP or his/her
designated representative to permit vessel access on a case-by-case
basis should heavy vessel traffic be present.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This 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 Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    This regulation will restrict access within the Regulated
Navigation Area at Oregon Inlet and the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, the
effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The Coast
Guard will make extensive notifications of the regulated area to the
maritime public via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their
plans accordingly; (ii) these restrictions will only be imposed based
on the extent of shoaling, hazardous conditions and severe weather in
the area, and will only be imposed on vessels that exceed certain size
restrictions; and (iii) vessels impacted by this regulation may request
permission from Commander Coast Guard Sector North Carolina/COTP North
Carolina to transit the regulated area on a case by case basis.

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 Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The regulation may have an economic impact on vessels that normally
transit Oregon Inlet. These small entities are primarily commercial and
recreational fishing vessels. Operation of vessels of certain
characteristics in this RNA will be prohibited from transiting Oregon
Inlet by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or designated representative
when shoaling in the vicinity of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge creates
unsafe condition for vessels. The potential risk of loss of life,
damage to the bridge, and the impact on access to Hatteras Island
outweighs the benefits of permitting navigation in the vicinity or
under the Bonner Bridge.
    Although the Oregon Inlet area is used by many small entities,
including commercial and recreational fishing businesses, alternate
routes are available to vessels. The Coast Guard will make extensive
notifications of the regulated navigation area to the maritime public
via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly;
and in extreme circumstances, vessels prohibited from entry may request
permission from Commander Coast Guard Sector North Carolina/COTP North
Carolina to transit the RNA on a case by case basis. Moreover the
restrictions imposed will be based on the extent of shoaling, hazardous
conditions and severe weather in the area, and limited only to vessels
that exceed certain size restrictions.

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 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.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a 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 rule under that
Order and determined that this rule 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 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 rule will 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 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 From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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 action 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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
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 rule involves establishment of a Regulated Navigation
Area. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction.
Preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the interim rule
amending 33 CFR part 165 published at 79 FR 75050 on December 17.2014
is adopted as a final rule, with changes, as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.520 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.520  Regulated Navigation Area; Herbert C. Bonner Bridge,
Oregon Inlet, NC.

    (a) Regulated area. The following area is a Regulated Navigation
Area (RNA): All navigable waters of Oregon Inlet, North Carolina within
100 yards under or surrounding any portion of the Herbert C. Bonner
Bridge.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    (1) Captain of the Port means the Captain of the Port (COTP) North
Carolina.
    (2) Captain of the Port Representative means any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the
Captain of the Port North Carolina to act as a designated
representative of the COTP.
    (3) Hazardous Condition means any condition that may adversely
affect the safety of any vessel, bridge, structure, or shore area or
the environmental quality of any port, harbor, or navigable waterway of
the United States, as defined in 33 CFR 160.204.
    (4) Official patrol vessel means any Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessel(s) assigned and
authorized by COTP North Carolina.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing Regulated
Navigation Areas found in 33 CFR 165.10, 165.11, and 165.13, including
the Regulated Navigation Area described in paragraph (a) of this
section and the following regulations, apply.
    (2) Operation of vessels of certain characteristics in this RNA
will be prohibited by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or designated
representative in order to safeguard people and vessels from the
hazards associated with shoaling and the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge from
the potential catastrophic structural damage that could occur from a
vessel bridge strike. The COTP or designated representative will
evaluate local marine environmental conditions prior to issuing
restrictions regarding vessel navigation. Factors that will be
considered include, but are not limited to: hydrographic survey data,
vessel characteristics such as displacement, tonnage, length and draft,
current weather conditions including visibility, wind, sea state, and
tidal currents.
    (3) The Coast Guard will notify the public of restrictions via
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, electronic
mail, U.S. Coast Guard HOMEPORT Web site, Marine Safety Information
Bulletins and via other methods described in 33 CFR 165.7.
Additionally, the Coast Guard will notify recognized commissions and/or
committees appointed by the Dare

County, North Carolina elected officials who represent commercial and
recreational mariner interests in Oregon Inlet, North Carolina, when
practicable, prior to imposing restrictions pursuant to enforcement of
the RNA. Coast Guard personnel may be on-scene to advise the public of
enforcement of any restrictions on vessel navigation within the RNA.
    (4) In accordance with the general regulations, entry into,
anchoring, or movement within the RNA, during periods of enforcement,
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or
the COTP's on-scene designated representative. The ``on-scene
designated representative'' of the COTP is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the
COTP to act on the COTP's behalf. The on-scene representative may be on
a Coast Guard vessel; State agency vessel, or other designated craft;
or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM marine
band radio or loudhailer. Members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be
present to assist COTP representatives with notification of vessel
operators regarding the contents of this regulation.
    (5) Any deviation from paragraph (c)(4) of this section due to
extreme circumstances must be authorized by the Coast Guard District
Commander, the Captain of the Port (COTP) or the COTP's designated
representative. Vessels granted permission to transit the RNA must do
so in accordance with the directions provided by the COTP or COTP
representative to that vessel. To request permission to transit the
regulated navigation area, the COTP or COTP representative can be
contacted at Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, telephone number (910)
343-3880, or on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 MHz) or
channel 16 (156.8 MHz). During periods of enforcement, all persons and
vessels given permission to enter or transit within the RNA must comply
with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative. Upon
being hailed by an official patrol vessel by siren, radio, flashing-
light, or other means, the operator of a vessel must proceed as
directed.
    (d) Enforcement. The Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of the Regulated Navigation Area by other Federal, State,
and local agencies. The COTP may impose additional requirements within
the RNA due to unforeseen changes to shoaling of Oregon Inlet or
structural integrity of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge.
    (e) Notification. The Coast Guard will rely on the methods
described in 33 CFR 165.7 and paragraph (c)(3) of this section to
notify the public of the date, time and duration of any closure of the
RNA. Violations of this RNA may be reported to the COTP at (910) 343-
3880 or on VHF-FM channel 16.

    Dated: October 9, 2015.
Stephen P. Metruck,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-28006 Filed 11-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Page 1 of 16 Overview of the PCNB Risk Assessments August 18, 2004 Introduction This document summarizes EPA's human health and ecological risk findings and conclusions for the fungicide pentachloronitrobenzene ( PCNB), as presented fully in the documents, " Pentachloronitrobenzene ( PCNB): Revised HED Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( RED)," dated July 27, 2004, and the " Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Re registration of Pentachloronitrobenzene," dated July 26, 2004. The purpose of this overview is to assist the reader by identifying the key features and findings of these risk assessments and conclusions reached in the assessments. This overview was developed in response to comments and requests from the public which indicated that the risk assessments were difficult to understand, that they were too lengthy, and that it was not easy to compare the assessments for different chemicals due to the use of different formats.

The PCNB risk assessments and supporting documents are posted on EPA's Internet website ( http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/) and are available in the Pesticide Docket for public viewing. Meetings with stakeholders will be held to discuss the risk assessments and solicit input on risk mitigation strategies, if needed. This feedback will be used to complete the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) document, which will include the resulting risk management decisions. The Agency plans to conduct a close out conference call with interested stakeholders to describe the regulatory decisions presented in the RED.

Risks summarized in this document are those that result only from the use of PCNB. The Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) requires that the Agency consider " available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and " other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity." The reason for consideration of other substances is due to the possibility that low level exposures to multiple chemical substances that cause a common toxic effect by a common toxic mechanism could lead to the same adverse health effect as would a higher level of exposure to any of the substances individually. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding for PCNB and any other substances; PCNB does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that PCNB has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ cumulative/. Page 2 of 16 Use Profile $ Fungicide: PCNB is an organochlorine fungicide used to control diseases on vegetables ( predominantly cole crops and green beans), field crops ( cotton, potatoes, and peanuts), turf, ornamentals and seeds ( seed treatments of barley, beans, corn, cotton, oats, peas, peanut, potato, safflower, sorghum, soybean, sugar beet, and wheat). It is applied to soil, foliage ( for turf uses), and seeds.

$ Tolerances: There is a tolerance of 0.1 ppm established for PCNB in or on cottonseed. Regional tolerances of 0.2 ppm are established for the combined residues of PCNB and its metabolites PCA and MPCPS ( PCTA) in or on collards, kale, and mustard greens [ 40 CFR 180.291]. Interim tolerances are established for bean, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, garlic, pepper, potato, and tomato at 0.1 ppm. There is an interim tolerance of 1.0 ppm for peanuts [ 40 CFR 180.319]. The interim tolerances are in effect pending evaluation of petitions for tolerances for negligible residues.

$ Formulations: Flowable concentrate, water dispersible granular, wettable powder, emulsifiable concentrate, granular, dust, and ready to use formulations.

$ Method of Application: Seed treatment, pre plant incorporated applications, in furrow applications, broadcast applications, or banded applications using ground equipment.

$ Use Rates: The maximum application rate for turf is 33 lb. ai/ A, at two applications/ season. Maximum application rates for field and vegetable crops are 10 30 lb. ai/ A with one application/ season. Ornamental bulbs are dip treated prior to planting at 213 lb. ai./ A for the highest yearly application rate.

$ Annual Poundage: Total agricultural usage between 2000 2002 was estimated at 600,000 800,000 lbs/ year:

$ Cotton 500,000 lbs/ year, 5% crop treated $ Potatoes 200,000 lbs/ year ( increasing recently), 7% crop treated $ Green Beans 30,000 lbs/ year, 15% crop treated $ Cabbage 10,000 lbs/ year, < 1% crop treated $ Cauliflower 5,000 lbs/ year, 1% crop treated $ Peanuts 5,000 lbs/ year, < 1% crop treated $ Brussels sprouts 4,000 lbs/ year, 6% crop treated Turf use was estimated at 250,000 500,000 lbs/ year ( mostly golf courses; decreasing recently).

$ Technical Registrants: Uniroyal and Amvac are supporting registrations with soil and seed treatment applications. Gustafson is the primary seed treatment registrant. Page 3 of 16 Human Health Risk Assessment Acute Dietary ( Food) Risk ( For a compete discussion, see section <IP_ADDRESS> of the Human Health Risk Assessment)

No adverse effects attributed to a single exposure ( dose) were identified. Therefore, no acute dietary risk assessment was conducted.

Chronic Dietary ( Food) Risk ( For a compete discussion, see section <IP_ADDRESS> of the Human Health Risk Assessment)

Chronic dietary risk is calculated by using the average consumption values for food and average residue values for those foods over a 70 year lifetime. A risk estimate that is less than 100% of the chronic PAD ( the dose at which an individual could be exposed over the course of a lifetime and not expect an adverse health effect) does not exceed the Agency's level of concern.

The chronic dietary risk ( food only) for PCNB does not exceed the Agency's level of concern ( i. e., less than 100% of the chronic PAD is utilized).

$ The toxicological endpoints are liver and thyroid effects, as seen at the lowest observed adverse effect level ( LOAEL) of 150 mg/ kg/ day in the chronic/ oncogenicity feeding study in rats. The no observed adverse effect level ( NOAEL) in this study is 1.0 mg/ kg/ day.

$ The 10X special FQPA safety factor was reduced to 1X because there are no residual uncertainties for pre and/ or postnatal toxicity.

$ A database uncertainty factor of 10x ( UF DB of 10x) has been applied to the dietary and residential/ recreational risk assessments on the absence of comparative thyroid data.

$ The dietary exposure assessment for food includes the parent compound, pentachloroaniline ( PCA), and pentachlorothioanisole ( PCTA), which are also included in the tolerance expression. There is little information available on the metabolites, and toxicological equivalence to the parent was assumed.

$ The chronic PAD ( cPAD) is calculated to be 0.001 mg/ kg/ day derived from a NOAEL of 1.0 mg/ kg/ day, an Uncertainty Factor of 100 that includes 10X for interspecies extrapolation and 10X for intraspecies variation, 1X for FQPA, and 10X for database uncertainty.

$ The highest estimated risks are for children 1 2 years of age ( 34% cPAD). The major contribution to the risk came from milk fat, followed by brassica vegetables. Page 4 of 16 Cancer Dietary ( Food) Risk ( For a complete discussion, see section <IP_ADDRESS> of the Human Health Risk Assessment.)

PCNB is classified as a Group C ( possible human) carcinogen. Because evidence of carcinogenic effects is weak, a dose response assessment for cancer was not conducted.

Drinking Water Dietary Risk Drinking water exposure to pesticides can occur through groundwater and surface water contamination. Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations ( EDWCs) were calculated to estimate the potential contribution to acute and chronic dietary exposures from drinking water. EDWCs for surface water bodies were determined using the Tier II screening level simulation models PRZM ( v. 3.12)/ EXAMS ( 2.98.04). The Tier I screening model SCI GROW was used to calculate the groundwater EDWCs.

EDWCs for Drinking Water Risk Assessment Surface water drinking water sources 1 in 10 years ( chronic): 44.2 ug/ L ( ppb)

Groundwater drinking water sources 30.6 ug/ L ( ppb)

EDWCs are compared to Drinking Water Levels of Concern ( DWLOCs) to determine if drinking water exposures, when added to food exposures, exceed dietary levels of concern.

Acute water risk:

$ No adverse effects attributed to a single exposure were identified. Therefore, no acute drinking water risk assessment was conducted.

Chronic water risk:

$ In the absence of environmental fate data on the metabolites, their mobility into sources of drinking water is assumed to be the same as the parent. Only risks associated with PCNB and its metabolite pentachloroaniline ( PCA) were quantified in the drinking water assessment.

$ Results of the chronic drinking water risk assessment are captured under the section on " Aggregate Risk" below. Page 5 of 16 Residential Risk ( For a complete discussion, see section 4.5 of the Human Health Risk Assessment)

$ PCNB is registered for use on residential lawns. It is not a restricted use chemical; homeowners may obtain and apply PCNB to the lawn to treat fungal diseases. Product labels recommend no more than 2 applications per year. Screening level assumptions are incorporated into residential exposure assessments and result in high end estimates.

$ Adults may be exposed to PCNB through dermal contact with the lawn, and through application and mowing.

$ Children ( especially toddlers) may be exposed through dermal contact with the treated lawn, and through hand to mouth, object to mouth, and incidental ingestion exposures.

Dermal and Inhalation Toxicity The following endpoints and factors were used in estimating dermal and inhalation risks:

Dermal Toxicity $ Short ( 1 30 days) and intermediate term ( 1 6 months) dermal endpoints are based on a NOAEL of 300 mg/ kg/ day from a 21 day dermal toxicity study in rats in which adverse thyroid effects were observed at a LOAEL of 1000 mg/ kg/ day.

$ The long term ( 6 months lifetime) dermal endpoint is based on a NOAEL of 1.0 mg/ kg/ day from a chronic toxicity study in rats in which adverse liver and thyroid effects were observed ( same endpoint used in dietary assessment).

$ Dermal absorption was estimated at 33% based on comparison of the systemic LOAEL ( 333 mg/ kg/ day) from the subchronic oral toxicity study in male rats and the LOAEL ( 1000 mg/ kg/ day) from the 21 day dermal toxicity study in the rat. Thyroid toxicity was the common toxic effect for both routes of exposure.

Inhalation Toxicity $ No inhalation toxicity studies are available. Absorption by the inhalation route is considered to be equivalent to absorption by the oral route.

$ Short and intermediate term incidental oral and inhalation endpoints are based on a LOAEL of 1.0 mg/ kg/ day and NOAEL of less than 1.0 mg/ kg/ day, from a 90 day oral study in rats in which thyroid effects were observed.

$ The long term inhalation endpoint is based on a NOAEL of 1.0 mg/ kg/ day, from a chronic oral toxicity study in rats in which adverse liver and thyroid effects were observed. Page 6 of 16 Residential Handler ( mixer/ loading/ applying)

$ Target dermal and inhalation Margins of Exposure ( MOE) for short term exposures are both 1000. MOE's below 1000 are a concern.

$ Calculated MOEs for residential applicators using PCNB on lawns are provided in the table below.

Scenario Dermal MOE Inhalation MOE Hand application of granules 65 200 Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquids for Low Pressure Handwand application 280 3100 Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquids for Backpack sprayer application 5500 3100 Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquids for Garden hose end sprayer ( ORETF  RTU) application 490 390 Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquids for Garden hose end sprayer ( ORETF  conventional) application 120 250 Loading/ Applying Granulars for Belly Grinder application 12 69 Loading/ Applying Granulars for Push type spreader ( ORETF) application 1900 4900 Loading/ Applying Granulars for Push type spreader ( ORETF) application 1400 3700 $ Residential risks are of concern for several scenarios, including hand application of granules, mixing/ loading/ applying liquids with a low pressure handwand and hose end sprayers, and loading/ applying granules with a belly grinder.

Residential and Recreational Post application $ The scenarios likely to result in residential post application exposures are dermal contact for adults and toddlers to treated turf and lawns, and oral exposure to toddlers from ingestion of grass, soil, or hand to mouth contact. Inhalation exposure is expected to be negligible for non handlers due to its moderate volatility and dilution of vapor outdoors. Exposures are believed to be primarily of short and intermediate term because PCNB is applied no more than twice a year.

$ The target Margin of Exposure ( MOE) for residential post application is 1000. MOE's below 1000 are a concern. Page 7 of 16 $ PCNB is used on golf courses, where golfers may be exposed. Two application rates of 32.67 lbs active ingredient per acre ( ai/ A) and 43.56 lbs ai/ A were chosen. The target MOE for both dermal and oral non dietary activities is 1000.

$ MOEs for residential and recreational post application scenarios at high application rates are provided in the table below.

Activity MOE on day of application high contact lawn activities B adult 30 high contact lawn activities B toddler 80 hand to mouth transfer from treated turf B toddler 2 turfgrass mouthing B toddler 6 ingestion of soil from treated lawns B toddler 460 mowing B turf 860 golfing 575 430 $ All post application scenarios yield MOEs of concern.

Bystander Exposure Measurable levels of PCNB have been detected in an ambient air monitoring study conducted by CalEPA's Department of Pesticide Regulation ( CDPR) in Lompoc, California ( Santa Barbara County) in 2000 ( http:// www. cdpr. ca. gov/ docs/ dprdocs/ lompoc. pdf). PCNB was detected in 72% of the air samples taken between May August 2000. Since this information raised concerns for potential risks to bystanders and workers in adjacent fields, a screening level assessment was conducted by the USEPA. The Agency subsequently determined that these potential exposures result in risks that are not of concern ( i. e. > MOE 1000). It is not clear how the California data relate to other measures of volatility.

Aggregate Risk ( For a complete discussion, see section 5.0 of the Human Health Risk Assessment)

Aggregate risk combines risk estimates from exposure through food, drinking water, and residential uses of a pesticide. Generally, combined risks from these exposures must occupy less than 100 percent of the PAD to be below the Agency's level of concern.

$ For PCNB and its metabolites, quantitative aggregate exposure assessments that include dietary ( food and drinking water), and incidental dermal, inhalation, and oral exposures were not performed, since potential risks from the individual sources of non dietary Page 8 of 16 exposure were already of concern, particularly for children.

$ Chronic aggregate risk estimates which include only dietary pathways of exposure ( food + water) were calculated. The chronic dietary risk without the inclusion of water is below the Agency's level of concern; i. e., < 100% cPAD. When exposures from drinking water are added, chronic aggregate risks for most of the exposed population subgroups, particularly infants ( 313% cPAD) and children 1 2 years old ( 173% cPAD) are above the Agency's level of concern.

$ PCNB is classified as a Group C ( possible human) carcinogen. A separate assessment of aggregate cancer risk has not been conducted because the carcinogenic potential of PCNB has not been quantified.

$ Chronic dietary ( food only), as modeled using DEEM FCID, and aggregate dietary ( food + water) risks are summarized in the table below.

Population Subgroup Crops only ( no water) % cPAD Risk from all crops plus water % cPAD U. S. Population 12% 105%

All infants (< 1 yr) 7% 313%

Children 1 2 yrs 34% 173%

Children 3 5 yrs 25% 155%

Children 6 12 yrs 16% 105%

Youth 13 19 yrs 10% 78%

Adults 20 49 yrs 10% 97%

Adults 50+ yrs 10% 102%

Females 13 49 yrs 10% 96%

$ Chronic dietary risks of concern are shown in boldface.

Occupational Risk ( For a compete discussion, see section 7.0 of the Human Health Risk Assessment)

Workers can be exposed to a pesticide through mixing, loading, or applying the pesticide, treating seed with the pesticide or handling treated seed, and through reentering a treated site. Worker risk is measured by a Margin of Exposure ( MOE) which determines how close the occupational exposure comes to the NOAEL taken from animal studies. Generally, MOEs that are greater than 100 do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. Page 9 of 16 No chemical specific exposure data are available for occupational exposure scenarios for PCNB. Estimates from available databases, primarily the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database ( PHED), and standard assumptions were used to calculate potential exposures.

Agricultural Handlers ( excluding seed treatment and treated seed)

$ Potential handler exposures are assessed using the appropriate toxicological endpoints and uncertainty factors associated with the active ingredient. Exposures specific to a level of Personal Protective Equipment ( PPE) or Engineering Controls are determined independently from what is required by product labels because label requirements vary depending on the acute toxicity of the end use product.

The following exposure scenarios were modeled:

Chemigation

Ground boom sprayer

Airblast sprayer

Push type spreader

Tractor drawn spreader

Aerial application $ Handler MOEs were calculated for short and intermediate term durations. For dermal exposures, the NOAEL of 300 mg/ kg/ day from a 21 day dermal study in rats showing thyroid effects was used. For inhalation exposures, the NOAEL of 1.0 mg/ kg/ day from a non guideline subchronic oral toxicity study in rats showing thyroid effects was used. The short term duration is believed to be most representative of private growers and the intermediate term duration represents commercial applicators who may repeatedly apply PCNB for 1 to 6 months.

$ For most scenarios, risk estimates for short and intermediate term dermal exposures are greater than or equal to the target MOE of 100, with use of PPE or engineering controls. The following scenarios had MOEs < 100 at all levels of PPE and engineering controls, and represent risks of concern:

$ mixing/ loading dry flowable for chemigation application ( sod farms)

$ sprays for high pressure handwand application ( ornamentals)

$ mixing/ loading/ applying liquid for handgun ( lawn) sprayer application $ mixing/ loading/ applying granular for belly grinder application ( ornamentals)

$ mixing/ loading/ applying wettable powders for low pressure handwand application ( ornamentals  woody shrubs and vines, herbaceous plants, and shade trees) shade trees) Page 10 of 16 $ All the risk estimates for short and intermediate term inhalation exposures are greater than or equal to the target MOE of 100, although some scenarios require the addition of PPE or engineering controls to achieve that level. These scenarios include:

$ mixing/ loading dry flowable for chemigation application ( sod farms)

$ mixing/ loading liquids for chemigation and aerial applications $ mixing/ loading wettable powder for chemigation application ( cole crops and sod farms)

$ mixing/ loading wettable powders for groundboom application,

$ sprays for high pressure handwand applications $ mixing/ loading/ applying wettable powders for low pressure handwand application ( ornamentals  woody shrubs and vines, herbaceous plants, and shade trees)

Seed Treatment and Handlers $ Seed may be treated at commercial facilities or on the farm where it is to be planted. On farm seed treatment is considered to represent a relatively small proportion of the total use of treated seed in the U. S.

$ The results of the short and intermediate term seed handler assessments indicate that, for all formulations, the majority of the potential exposure scenarios result in total MOEs > 100 with long pants, long sleeved shirts, gloves, and no respirator while using open systems.

$ Seed handlers working in a smaller facility, performing multiple activities ( such as in an on farm situation) might require a respirator to reduce risks below the levelof concern ( above the MOE of 100).

Occupational Postapplication Exposures and Risk $ There is a low potential for occupational post application exposure when a pre plant or at planting fungicide such as PCNB is used. The Agency conducted a risk assessment for potential post application exposures where PCNB is applied to foliage, i. e., to turf at golf courses and sod farms.

$ The short and intermediate term risks to golf course workers or sod farm workers performing hand harvesting of sod on the day of application are equal to or greater than the target MOE of 100 and are not of concern. Page 11 of 16 Incident Data A number of accidental human poisonings from exposure to PCNB in both occupational and residential settings have been reported. Though the data from these sources often lacked specific information on the extent of exposure and the circumstances of exposure, the incidence information indicate potential poisoning risks from misuse of products that contain PCNB, or from not wearing PPE.

Ecological Risk To estimate potential ecological risk, EPA integrates the results of exposure and ecotoxicity studies using the risk quotient method. Risk quotients ( RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure estimates by ecotoxicity values, both acute and chronic, for various wildlife species. RQs are then compared to levels of concern ( LOCs). Generally, the higher the RQ, the greater the potential risk. Risk characterization provides further information on the likelihood of adverse effects occurring by considering the fate of the chemical in the environment, communities and species potentially at risk, their spatial and temporal distributions, and the nature of the effects observed in laboratory studies.

Environmental Fate and Transport ( For a complete discussion, see the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment.)

PCNB has a large number of potential degradates and metabolites; six of these are considered to be predominant:

$ pentachloroaniline ( PCA)

$ pentachlorothioanisole ( PCTA)

$ pentachlorothioanisole sulfoxide $ pentachloroanisole sulfone $ pentachlorophenol ( PCP)

$ pentachlorobenzene ( PCB)

The parent and these degradates are likely to be persistent. The exact conditions that favor the formation of PCP are uncertain. It is routinely detected in water and sediment monitoring studies. PCP, as a pesticidal active ingredient, is also used as a wood preservative, and the origin of the PCP as detected in these studies is unclear.

PCNB is, in general, expected to be a persistent, moderately volatile compound that will be immobile in most soils. It can be expected to dissipate through volatilization; dissipation from the soil through volatilization should be reduced by incorporation of the pesticide into the soil at application. Volatilization may also be an important environmental fate process for PCA, PCTA, Page 12 of 16 PCB and PCP.

The primary degradation pathway for PCNB is aqueous photodegradation when the compound is present in an unsorbed state in clear and shallow surface water under favorable light conditions. Photodegradation of PCNB in surface water is moderately rapid, with half lives on the order of a few days or less.

PCNB has a very high potential to bioaccumulate in fish, but is metabolized and will undergo moderately rapid depuration when the fish are no longer exposed to the compound.

PCNB is stable to hydrolysis and is effectively stable to photodegradation on soil ( half life of 80 days). PCNB biodegrades slowly in aerobic soils, showing half lives of 77 and 189 days.

Risks to Terrestrial Wildlife Chronic and acute exposure from multiple applications of PCNB were estimated using a 35 day foliar half life, a default value used for terrestrial assessments in the absence of total foliar residue data. The use of the default likely results in overestimates of exposure.

Although screening level models indicate that terrestrial exposure to PCNB is likely through consumption of treated seed and foliar residues, the likelihood of acute risk to birds and mammals is considered to be low because PCNB is practically nontoxic to both birds and mammals on an acute exposure basis.

Chronic risk levels of concern are exceeded for birds and mammals. Chronic effects such as reductions in the number of eggs laid, number of viable embryos, and numbers of 14 day survivors may result from chronic exposure of birds to PCNB. Although chronic exposure to PCNB did not result in reproductive effects in mammals, toxic effects on the liver and thyroid were noted in laboratory studies on rodents. The relevance of these endpoints on wildlife are not clear. The chronic reproductive effects observed in birds and thyroid effects in mammals may be indicative of PCNB's capacity to impact endocrine mediated processes. The open literature indicates that PCNB, PCA, and PCA have estrogen binding abilities.

Risks to terrestrial wildlife are summarized along with risks to aquatic species in the table which follows the section on aquatic wildlife, below. Page 13 of 16 Risks to Aquatic Wildlife PCNB is highly toxic to freshwater fish and invertebrates and is very highly toxic to estuarine/ marine fish and invertebrates on an acute exposure basis.

Chronic risk levels of concern were exceeded for freshwater fish and invertebrates; chronic effects include reduced number of eggs produced and reductions in the number of young surviving. Data are lacking on chronic effects in estuarine/ marine fish and invertebrates.

PCNB and its degradates persist in the aquatic environment and tend to bioconcentrate ( bioconcentration factors as high as 22,000Xin algae). The presence of PCNB and degradate in benthic ( bottom) sediments is expected to serve as a likely route of exposure to bottom dwelling fauna. This may also serve as a means of entry into aquatic food chains where the compound and/ or its degradates may biomagnify.

$ Ecological risks to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife are summarized in the table below.

Wildlife type Acute Risk Quotient range Chronic Risk Quotient range Soil application avian ( nongranular) < 0.01 0.24 0.05 22 mammalian 0.00 2.5 0.2 65 freshwater fish 0.22 2.60 0.8 8.3 freshwater invertebrates 0.03 0.34 0.6 6.0 Estuarine/ marine fish < 0.01 0.03 data not available Estuarine/ marine invertebrates 1.8 22 data not available Seed treatment avian < 0.01 0.03 4.2 mammalian < 0.01< 0.06 0.8 13 $ Risk Quotients which exceed Levels of Concern for acute and chronic risk are shown in boldface.

Nontarget Plant Risk $ Data are not available on the effects of PCNB on either aquatic or terrestrial plants and will be required. Page 14 of 16 Endangered Species $ Endangered species lists have been developed for PCNB of five modeled crops by removing species not likely to be impacted. Based on a preliminary screen, a list of of potentially impacted species has been developed which includes 28 birds, 13 mammals, 91 fish, and 91 invertebrates ( clams, snails, crustaceans).

Summary of Data Needs Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects Data Needs The following data would be useful in refining our understanding of the environmental fate and ecological effects of PCNB and its degradates:

$ Additional data on whether the formation of PCP from PCNB is likely in the field $ Data on the long range atmospheric transport of PCNB and degradates $ Volatility data, to assist in determining the foliar dissipation half life of PCNB $ Endocrine disruption $ Toxicity of PCNB to benthic invertebrates $ Chronic toxicity of PCNB to estuarine/ marine fish and invertebrates $ Toxicity of PCNB to terrestrial, semi aquatic, and aquatic plants Human Health Data Needs The following data would be useful in refining our understanding of the human health risks associated with PCNB.

Toxicology $ Data on thyroid toxicity in adults and its relationship to functional development in offspring $ Data to explore the origin and significance of dose dependent decreases in certain liver enzyme values in studies in rats and dogs..

$ A guideline metabolism study of PCNB ( including a mass balance of radioactivity in excreta, tissues, and carcass), including a Tier II study of blood kinetics, to determine metabolic half life $ An in vivo cytogenetic assay examining clastogenicity.

$ A 90 day inhalation toxicity study of PCNB to facilitate occupational risks Page 15 of 16 Product Chemistry $ Generic data on UV/ visible absorption ( OPPTS 830.7050)

$ Some data are still need on preliminary analysis ( OPPTS 830.1700) Page 16 of 16 Residue Chemistry $ Metabolism data $ Analytical reference standards $ Field trial data ( root and tuber vegetables group, legume vegetables group, cotton, peanuts, ginseng), and processed commodities ( cottonseed, peanut, soybean, meat)


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 167 (Monday, August 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 59211]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20628]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-2457-000]

Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 13 LLC; Supplemental Notice
That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket
Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 13 LLC`s application for market-
based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that
such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 12, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 23, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-20628 Filed 8-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P