[Federal Register: May 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 31169-31172]
[DOCID:fr30my08-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57850; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-105]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 2, Regarding the Listing and Trading of Binary Options on
Broad-Based Security Indexes

May 22, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On December 29, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade binary options
on broad-based security indexes. The CBOE filed Amendment Nos. 1 and 2
to the proposal on September 6, 2007, and April 4, 2008,\3\
respectively. The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2,
was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 17, 2008.\4\
The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This order
approves the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 2 replaces the original filing and Amendment
No. 1 in their entirety.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57642 (April 9,
2008), 73 FR 20985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

A. Generally

    The CBOE proposes to list and trade certain cash-settled, European-
style binary options on broad-based security indexes. At expiration, an
option listed pursuant to this proposal would pay an exercise
settlement amount equal to the exercise settlement value multiplied by
the contract multiplier.\5\ Unlike a traditional option, a binary
option will pay a fixed sum at expiration regardless of the magnitude
of the difference between the settlement value and the option's
exercise price. A call binary index option would pay out if the
settlement value of the underlying index were at or above the option's
exercise price at expiration, and a put binary index option would pay
out if the underlying index were below the option's exercise price at
expiration.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The exercise settlement value will be an amount determined
by the CBOE on a class-by-class basis and will be equal to or
between $10 or $1,000, unless otherwise adjusted pursuant to CBOE
Rule 5.7. See CBOE Rule 22.1(e).
    \6\ See CBOE Rules 22.1(b) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to add a new series of rules to Chapter
XXII of its rulebook (which is currently ``reserved'') relating to
binary options. Trading of binary options would also be subject to
Chapters I through XIX, XXIV, XXIVA, and XXIVB, as supplemented by the
new rules of Chapter XXII.

B. Listing Standards

    Under the proposal, the Exchange may from time to time approve for
listing and trading on the Exchange binary option contracts on a broad-
based index \7\ which has been selected in accordance with CBOE Rule
24.2 and the Interpretations and Policies thereunder.\8\ After a
particular binary option class has been approved for listing and
trading on the Exchange, the Exchange may from time to time open for
trading series of options on that class.\9\ The Exchange may add new
series of options on the same class, as provided for in CBOE Rule 24.9
and the Interpretations and Policies thereunder. Additional series of
the same binary option class may be opened for trading on the Exchange
when the Exchange deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market or
to meet customer demand.\10\ The maintenance listing standards for
options on broad-based indexes set forth in CBOE Rule 24.2 and the
Interpretations and Policies thereunder will be applicable to binary
options on broad-based indexes.\11\ Binary options form a separate
class from other options overlying the same broad-based index.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CBOE Rule 24.1(i)(1) defines a ``broad-based index'' as ``an
index designed to be representative of a stock market as a whole or
of a range of companies in unrelated industries.''
    \8\ See CBOE Rule 22.3(a).
    \9\ See CBOE Rule 22.3(c).
    \10\ See CBOE Rule 22.3(d).
    \11\ See CBOE Rule 22.4.
    \12\ See CBOE Rule 22.3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Binary options traded on the Exchange will be designated as to
expiration date, exercise price, exercise settlement amount, contract
multiplier, and underlying broad-based index.\13\ Binary index options
will be a.m.-settled unless the traditional options on

the same underlying index (i.e., the S&P 100 Index (``OEX'')) are p.m.-
settled.\14\ Under the proposal, binary options may expire from one day
to 36 months from the time that they are listed.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See CBOE Rule 22.3(b).
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See CBOE Rule 22.3(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Options Clearing Corporation

    The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') will issue, clear, and
settle the binary options contemplated in this proposal. The OCC has
amended its by-laws and rules to accommodate the listing and trading of
binary options.\16\ In addition, the CBOE understands that the OCC will
submit to the Commission a proposed supplement to the Options
Disclosure Document required by Rule 9b-1 under the Act \17\ to
incorporate binary options on broad-based security indexes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56875 (November 30,
2007), 72 FR 69274 (December 7, 2007) (order approving File No. SR-
OCC-2007-08).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.9b-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Position and Exercise Limits and Position Reporting Requirements

    The Exchange is adopting a two-pronged approach to determine
position limits for binary options.\18\ In determining compliance with
CBOE Rule 4.11, the Exchange proposes a fixed position limit of 15,000
contracts for binary options on a broad-based index for which
traditional options on the same broad-based index have no position
limit, provided that the exercise settlement amount is $10,000.\19\ For
binary options that have an exercise settlement amount that is not
equal to $10,000, the position limit will be 15,000 times the ratio of
10,000 to the exercise settlement amount (e.g., if the binary option
exercise settlement amount is $1,000, then the position limit is
150,000 contracts. If the binary option exercise settlement amount is
$12,000, then the position limit is 12,500 contracts).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See CBOE Rule 22.6.
    \19\ See CBOE Rule 22.6(a).
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is adopting a formulaic position limit for binary
options on a broad-based index for which traditional options on the
same broad-based index have a position limit.\21\ The formulaic
position limit will be calculated in accordance with the following
methodology: (1) Determine the Market Capitalization of the S&P 500
Index; (2) determine the Market Capitalization of the broad-based index
underlying the binary option; and (3) calculate the Market
Capitalization Ratio of the broad-based index underlying the binary
option to the Market Capitalization of the S&P 500 Index. The position
limit for binary options subject to a formulaic limit with an exercise
settlement amount of $10,000 will be: (1) 10,000 contracts if the
Market Capitalization Ratio is greater than or equal to 0.50; (2) 5,000
contracts if the Market Capitalization Ratio is less than 0.50 but
greater than or equal to 0.25; or (3) 2,500 contracts if the Market
Capitalization Ratio is less than 0.25 but greater than or equal to
0.10.\22\ The Exchange will seek Commission approval prior to
establishing position limits for binary options on broad-based indexes
that have a Market Capitalization Ratio that is less then 0.10.\23\ For
binary options that have an exercise settlement amount that is not
equal to $10,000, the position limit will be the ratio of 10,000 to the
exercise settlement amount multiplied by the applicable formulaic
limit.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See CBOE Rule 22.6(b).
    \22\ See CBOE Rule 22.6(b)(4).
    \23\ See CBOE Rule 22.6(b)(4)(iv).
    \24\ See CBOE Rule 22.6(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE Rule 22.6 also provides that positions in binary options on
the same broad-based index that have different exercise settlement
amounts will be aggregated.\25\ In determining compliance with the
position limits set forth in Rule 22.6, binary options will not be
aggregated with non-binary option contracts on the same or similar
underlying security or broad-based index.\26\ In addition, binary
options on broad-based indexes will not be aggregated with non-binary
option contracts on an underlying stock or stocks included within such
broad-based index, and binary options on one broad-based index shall
not be aggregated with binary options on any other broad-based
index.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See CBOE Rule 22.6(b)(5)(c).
    \26\ See CBOE Rule 22.6(b)(5)(d).
    \27\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of the position limits established in Rule 22.6, a
long position in a put binary option and a short position in a call
binary option will be considered to be on the same side of the market;
and a short position in a put binary option and a long position in a
call binary option will be considered to be on the same side of the
market.\28\ Binary options will not be subject to the hedge exemption
to the standard position limits found in Rule 4.11.\29\ Under Rule
22.6, the following qualified hedge exemption strategies and positions
will be exempt from the established binary option position limits: (1)
A binary option position ``hedged'' or ``covered'' by an appropriate
amount of cash to meet the settlement obligation (e.g., $1,000 for a
binary option with an exercise settlement amount of $1,000); (2) a
binary option position ``hedged'' or ``covered'' by a sufficient amount
of a related or similar security to meet the settlement obligation; or
(3) a binary option position ``hedged'' or ``covered'' by a traditional
option covering the same underlying broad-based index sufficient to
meet the settlement obligation.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See CBOE Rule 22.6(e).
    \29\ See CBOE Rule 22.6(f).
    \30\ See CBOE Rule 22.6(f)(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Binary options will not be subject to exercise limits due to the
fact that they are European-style options and are automatically
exercised at expiration if the settlement value of the underlying index
is equal to or greater than the exercise price of a call binary option
or less than the exercise price in the case of a put binary option.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See CBOE Rule 22.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE Rule 22.8, ``Reports Related to Position Limits and
Liquidation of Positions,'' states that references in Rules 4.13,
``Reports Related to Position Limits,'' and 4.14, ``Liquidation of
Positions,'' to Rule 4.11 in connection with position limits will be
deemed, in the case of binary options, to be to Rule 22.6. As such, in
accordance with CBOE Rule 4.13(a), a position in a binary option must
be reported to the Exchange via the Large Option Positions Report when
an account establishes an aggregate same side of the market position of
200 or more binary options. In computing reportable binary options
under existing Rule 4.13: (1) Positions in binary options that have
different exercise settlement amounts will be aggregated; (2) positions
in binary options will not be aggregated with non-binary option
contracts on the same or similar underlying security or broad-based
index; (3) positions in binary options on broad-based indexes will not
be aggregated with non-binary option contracts on an underlying stock
or stocks included within such broad-based index; and (4) positions in
binary options on one broad-based index will not be aggregated with
binary options on any other broad-based index.\32\ The Exchange
believes that the reporting requirements and the surveillance
procedures for hedged positions will enable the Exchange to closely
monitor sizable positions and corresponding hedges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See CBOE Rule 22.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Margin

    The Exchange is amending Rule 12.3, ``Margin Requirements,'' to
include

requirements applicable to binary options. Under Rule 12.3, as amended,
for a Margin Account, no binary option carried for a customer shall be
considered of any value for purposes of computing the margin required
in the account of such customer.\33\ The initial and maintenance margin
required on any binary option carried long in a customer's account is
100% of the purchase price of such binary option (i.e., the
premium).\34\ In connection with a short position in a binary option,
the customer margin required is the exercise settlement amount.\35\ As
for spreads, no margin is required on a binary call option (put option)
carried short in a customer's account that is offset by a long binary
call option (put option) for the same underlying security or instrument
that expires at the same time and has an exercise price that is less
than (greater than) the exercise price of the short call (put).\36\ The
long call (put) must be paid for in full.\37\ As for a straddle/
combination, when a binary call option is carried short in a customer's
account and there is also carried a short binary put option that
expires at the same time and has an exercise price that is less than or
equal to the exercise price of the short call, the initial and
maintenance margin required is the exercise settlement amount
applicable to one contract.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See CBOE Rule 12.3(m)(1).
    \34\ See CBOE Rule 12.3(m)(1)(i).
    \35\ See CBOE Rule 12.3(m)(1)(ii).
    \36\ See CBOE Rule 12.3(m)(1)(iii).
    \37\ See id.
    \38\ See CBOE Rule 12.3(m)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a cash account, a binary option carried short in a customer's
account will be deemed a covered position, and eligible for the cash
account, if either one of the following is held in the account at the
time the option is written or is received into the account promptly
thereafter: (1) Cash or cash equivalents equal to 100% of the exercise
settlement amount; (2) a long binary option of the same type (put or
call) for the same underlying security or instrument that is paid for
in full and expires at the same time, and has an exercise price that is
less than the exercise price of the short in the case of a call or
greater than the exercise price of the short in the case of a put; or
(3) an escrow agreement.\39\ The escrow agreement must certify that the
bank holds for the account of the customer as security for the
agreement cash, cash equivalents, one or more qualified equity
securities, or a combination thereof having an aggregate market value
of not less than 100% of the exercise settlement amount and that the
bank will promptly pay the member organization the cash settlement
amount in the event the account is assigned an exercise notice.\40\ The
Exchange believes that these levels are appropriate because risk
exposure is limited with binary options and the customer initial and
maintenance margin would be equal to the maximum risk exposure. In
addition, under CBOE Rule 12.10, the CBOE may determine at any time to
impose higher margin requirements than those described above when it
deems such higher margin requirements to be advisable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See CBOE Rule 12.3(m)(2).
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Bid-Ask Differentials, Minimum Price Variations, and Strike Price
Intervals

    For each binary index option traded on the Exchange, a market maker
is expected to quote so as to create differences between the bid and
the offer of no more than the wider of 25% of the designated exercise
settlement value or $5.00, except during the last trading day prior to
the expiration, when the maximum permissible price differential is the
wider of 50% of the designated exercise settlement value or $5.00.\41\
The minimum price variation for binary index options, established by
class, will be no less than $0.01.\42\ The CBOE will list binary index
options using the strike price intervals currently used for traditional
index options.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See CBOE Rule 22.14(a).
    \42\ See CBOE Rule 22.13(b).
    \43\ See CBOE Rule 22.3(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. FLEX Trading

    Binary options will be eligible for trading as Flexible Exchange
Options as provided for in Chapters XXIVA and XXIVB of the CBOE's
rules.\44\ The position limit methodology in CBOE Rule 22.6, discussed
above, will apply to binary index options traded as Flexible Exchange
Options.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See CBOE Rule 22.16.
    \45\ See CBOE Rule 22.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Other Considerations

    The CBOE represents that it believes that the Exchange and the
Options Price Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity
to handle the additional message traffic associated with the listing
and trading of binary options on broad-based indexes. In addition, the
CBOE represents that it has an adequate surveillance program to monitor
trading in binary options on broad-based indexes, and that the Exchange
intends to largely apply its existing surveillance program for options
to the trading of binary index options.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See e-mail message from Jennifer Yeadon, Senior Attorney,
CBOE, to Yvonne Fraticelli, Special Counsel, Division of Trading and
Markets, dated May 20, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\47\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\48\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The Commission believes that binary options on broad-based
indexes will provide investors with a potentially useful investment
choice. The proposal will extend to these options the benefits of a
listed exchange market, which include a centralized forum for price
discovery, pre- and post-trade transparency, standardized contract
specifications, and the guarantee of the OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposal is reasonably designed to
address potential manipulation concerns associated with binary options'
non-linear return. The initial and continued listing standard
established herein provide that the Exchange may list and trade binary
options only on broad-based indexes. In addition, these binary options
will be a.m.-settled, unless the traditional options on the underlying
index are p.m.-settled. These elements should reduce the potential for
manipulating the index underlying a binary option to benefit a binary
index option position.
    The Commission believes that the proposed position limits and
margin rules are reasonable and consistent with the Act. The proposed
position limits for binary index options appear to reasonably balance
the promotion of a free and open market for these securities with
minimization of incentives for market manipulation. The proposed margin
rules appear reasonably designed to deter a member or its

customer from assuming an imprudent position in binary index options.
    In support of this proposal, the CBOE made the following
representations:
     The CBOE has in place an adequate surveillance program to
monitor trading in binary options on broad-based indexes and intends to
largely apply its existing surveillance program for options to the
trading of binary options on broad-based indexes; and
     The CBOE has the necessary systems capacity to support the
new options series that would result from the introduction of binary
options on broad-based indexes.
    This approval order is based on the CBOE's representations.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\49\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2006-105), as modified
by Amendment No. 2, is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

     For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\50\
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-12031 Filed 5-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 18226]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07690]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-104-000.
    Applicants: Tilton Energy, LLC, Rocky Road Power, LLC.
    Description: Application for Approval Pursuant to Section 203 of
the FPA of Tilton Energy LLC and Rocky Road Power, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/27/15.
    Accession Number: 20150327-5356.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-105-000.
    Applicants: Plainfield Renewable Energy, LLC.
    Description: Application of Plainfield Renewable Energy, LLC for
Authorization Under FPA Sec. 203 for Disposition of Jurisdictional
Facilities, Requests for Expedited Consideration, Shortened Comment
Period, Waivers of Filing Requirements & Confidential Treatment.
    Filed Date: 3/27/15.
    Accession Number: 20150327-5358.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1511-005; ER10-2231-004; ER10-2011-005; ER10-
1714-005.
    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company, LG&E Energy Marketing Inc.,
PPL EnergyPlus LLC, Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Third Supplement to June 30, 2014 Triennial Market
Power Update of the PPL Southeast Companies.
    Filed Date: 3/26/15.
    Accession Number: 20150326-5286.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-136-003; ER13-142-003; ER13-141-003; ER13-138-
003; ER13-137-003; ER13-135-003.
    Applicants: Georgia-Pacific Brewton LLC, Brunswick Cellulose, Inc.,
Georgia-Pacific Cedar Springs LLC, Georgia-Pacific Consumer Operations
LLC, Palatka, Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, Naheola, Georgia-
Pacific Consumer Products LP, Savannah.
    Description: Errata to December 30, 2014 Updated Market Power
Analysis in Southeast Region of the Georgia-Pacific Entities.
    Filed Date: 3/27/15.
    Accession Number: 20150327-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-828-002.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Modifications to
Attachment O Formula Rate to be effective 2/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150330-5296.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1026-000; ER15-1026-001.
    Applicants: Utah Red Hills Renewable Park, LLC.
    Description: Second Amendment to February 11, 2015 and March 13,
2015 Utah Red Hills Renewable Park, LLC tariff filings.
    Filed Date: 3/27/15.
    Accession Number: 20150327-5360.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1398-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Revised Deadlines for Inschedule and Other Clarifying Revisions to be
effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150330-5280.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1399-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(1): 2015
TACBAA Update to be effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150330-5394.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

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

    Dated: March 30, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07690 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/07/2010 12:55 PM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Zwicke, Greg - Portland, OR"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Johnson, Greg - Portland, OR"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |04/07/2010 12:20 PM
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |RE: moving on to spark ignition engines
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|

Melanie,

Here is the spreadsheet I put together based on the information I received
from USDA-NASS, who are the compilers of the Census of Agriculture and the
associated Farm & Ranch Irrigation Survey.  Take a look at it, and I expect we
may want to set up a time to talk about the methodology.  I'll be tied up here
today until about 3:00 pm your time.
Tomorrow may be better, but I know I already have 2 conference calls (9:30-
10:30 am and 2:00-3:00 pm your time).

Greg

************************************************************
Greg Zwicke, P.E.
Air Quality Engineer
Air Quality and Atmospheric Change Team
USDA-NRCS
West National Technology Support Center
1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1000
Portland, OR  97232

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>************************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:54 AM
To: Zwicke, Greg - Portland, OR
Subject: RE: moving on to spark ignition engines

No problem Greg, thanks.

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |"Zwicke, Greg - Portland, OR"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |03/30/2010 01:45 AM
|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |RE: moving on to spark ignition engines
|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

Melanie,

I did finally get a little bit of data from the National Agricultural
Statistics Service on irrigation pumps that I think may be useful for helping
us better estimate the inventory of agricultural engines.  It's not perfect,
but I think it gets us much closer.  The problem is that I am currently
swamped with other EPA rule reviews.  I'm hoping to get to take a closer look
at the data I got from NASS by the end of the week, so would it be OK to get
back with you then on what I find out?  I know you were shooting for the end
of March, but I know I'm going to be pretty tied up for the next few days.

Greg

************************************************************
Greg Zwicke, P.E.
Air Quality Engineer
Air Quality and Atmospheric Change Team
USDA-NRCS
West National Technology Support Center
1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1000
Portland, OR  97232

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>************************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:54 AM
To: Zwicke, Greg - Portland, OR
Subject: moving on to spark ignition engines

Hi Greg,
Now that the diesel engine rule has been signed, we are turning our attention
to the rule for existing spark ignition engines that must be signed by August
10.  I would like to avoid some of the issues we had during the interagency
review process on the diesel rule regarding the split between major and area
sources for irrigation engines, so if you have information on how many spark
ignition irrigation sets are located at major sources of HAP versus area
sources, now is the time to speak up.  Please let me know if you have any
information that you would like to share.

Thanks!

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

(See attached file: NASS Engine Data Analysis for RICE Rule.xls)


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 141 (Wednesday, July 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42786-42790]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17244]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0473; FRL-9913-38]

Registration Review Proposed Interim Decisions; Notice of
Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed
interim registration review decisions and opens a public comment period
on the proposed interim decisions. Registration review is EPA's
periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each
pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration,
that is, that the pesticide can perform its intended function without
unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.
Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's
registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge,
including its effects on human health and the environment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket
identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest
provided in the table in Unit II.A., by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information,
contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest
identified in the table in Unit II.A.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 308-8015; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest
identified in the table in Unit II.A.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's proposed interim registration review decisions for the
pesticides shown in the table in this unit, and opens a 60-day public
comment period on the proposed interim decisions.
    1. Acetaminophen (proposed interim decision). The registration
review docket for acetaminophen (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0145) opened in a
notice published in the Federal Register of March 28, 2012 (77 FR
18810) (FRL-9342-1). Acetaminophen is registered for use as a
vertebrate pesticide to control the invasive brown tree snake in Guam.
The snakes ingest baited mice, which are lethal to the snake. There are
no registered food/feed uses for acetaminophen. No pesticide tolerances
have been established. EPA did not conduct a human health risk
assessment because acetaminophen's pharmaceutical use is well-studied
and opportunities for exposure from its pesticidal use are extremely
limited. The Agency conducted a quantitative ecological risk assessment
for acetaminophen. Baited mice are not likely to be consumed or
consumed in quantity by resident animals other than the brown tree
snake, the acetaminophen in the mice is not likely to end up in aquatic
environments, and there is little potential for exposure to plants. The
Agency has concluded that there are no risks of concern for native,
non-target organisms associated with the pesticidal use of
acetaminophen. The Agency has made a ``no effect'' determination for
all federally listed species and a ``no adverse modification of
critical habitat'' determination. Acetaminophen has not been evaluated
under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). Therefore, the
Agency's final registration review decision is dependent on the results
of the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risks. Pending the
outcome of this action, EPA is planning to issue an interim
registration review decision for acetaminophen.
    2. Clofentezine (proposed interim decision). The registration
review docket for clofentezine (EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0240) opened in a
notice published in the Federal Register of March 28, 2007 (72 FR
14548) (FRL-8118-3). Clofentezine is an acaricide registered for use to
control mites. It is a liquid formulation for use on almonds, apples,
apricots, cherries, Christmas trees, grapes (except New York),
nectarines, ornamentals (greenhouse and outdoor), peaches, pears,
persimmons, and walnuts. There are currently no registered residential
uses of clofentezine. Based on the human health risk assessment
conducted in support of registration review for clofentezine, the
Agency determined that there are no human health risks of concern for
the currently registered uses of clofentezine. Based on the ecological
risk assessment that was completed in support of registration review
for clofentezine, EPA has determined that all outdoor uses of
clofentezine can potentially lead to direct adverse effects to listed
and non-listed birds.
    The chronic risk level of concern (LOC) was exceeded by dietary
risk quotients (RQs) for birds. As birds serve as surrogates to
reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians, risk to these taxa is also a
possibility. The chronic risk to mammals is uncertain and is expected
to be limited. The dose-based risk assessment concludes that the
chronic RQs slightly exceeds the chronic LOC for small to medium
mammals feeding exclusively on short grass, but this was based on a
study which showed no effects to growth, reproduction, or survival at
the highest dose tested. Clofentezine is moderately persistent in the
terrestrial environment and is expected to decline to below toxic
levels approximately 1 to 2 weeks after application.
    Use of clofentezine is not expected to pose a risk to foraging
(adult) bees; however, there is a potential for risk to non-listed and
listed terrestrial arthropods because of adverse effects to
reproduction and development. Use of clofentezine is not expected to
cause direct or indirect adverse effects to non-listed or listed fish,
aquatic invertebrates, or aquatic plants. Thus, a ``no effect''
determination is made for all listed aquatic organisms. Several lines

of evidence indicate that clofentezine has low toxicity to plants.
Therefore, EPA concludes that use of clofentezine will not pose risk to
terrestrial, semi-aquatic (monocots, and dicots) or aquatic plants, and
is not expected to harm listed species of plants. Thus, a ``no effect''
determination is made for all listed plants.
    This interim decision does not cover the EDSP component of the
clofentezine registration review case. Additionally, the ecological
risk assessment for clofentezine did not come to a conclusion of ``no
effect'' to some listed species. Therefore, consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on the potential risk of clofentezine
to some listed species will be necessary. The Agency is issuing a
proposed interim registration review decision pending the evaluation of
potential endocrine disruptor risk and consultation with FWS.
    3. Cyromazine (proposed interim decision). The registration review
docket for cyromazine (EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0108) opened in a notice
published in the Federal Register of March 28, 2007 (72 FR 14548) (FRL-
8118-3). Cyromazine is a triazine which acts as an insect growth
regulator. Cyromazine is registered for use on several agricultural
crops such as beans, peppers, and tomatoes; it is registered for use on
indoor ornamentals, and to control flies in manure. There are no
residential uses for cyromazine. EPA conducted a human health
occupational risk assessment and did not identify any risks of concern.
The ecological risk assessment identified potential risks to several
taxa including birds, mammals, and bees. To mitigate potential
ecological risks, the Agency is proposing to increase the application
interval for cyromazine use on potatoes; add label language for the
onion seed treatment use; add precautionary label language to reduce
risk to bees; use; and, increase the minimum droplet size for aerial
applications. The proposed changes will reduce estimated risks, but
will not reach a conclusion of ``no effect'' to listed species.
Therefore, consultation with FWS on the potential risk of cyromazine to
listed species will be necessary. Cyromazine has not been evaluated
under EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision
is dependent on the results of consultation under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1536) with the FWS and the
evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the outcome
of these actions, EPA is planning to issue an interim registration
review decision for cyromazine.
    4. Fosthiazate (proposed interim decision). The registration review
docket for fosthiazate (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0267) opened in a notice
published in the Federal Register of June 24, 2009 (74 FR 30077) (FRL-
8422-4). Fosthiazate is an organophosphate nematicide for use only on
tomatoes, via drip irrigation under plastic. There are no residential
uses for fosthiazate. EPA conducted a human health dietary and
occupational risk assessment for fosthiazate and did not identify any
risks of concern. The ecological risk assessment identified potential
risks to several taxa including birds, mammals, and soil-bound
terrestrial invertebrates. To mitigate potential ecological risks, the
agency is proposing to modify the application directions for
fosthiazate. The proposed change will reduce estimated risks, but will
not reach a conclusion of ``no effect'' to listed species. Therefore,
consultation with FWS on the potential risk of fosthiazate to listed
species will be necessary. Fosthiazate has not been evaluated under
EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is
dependent on the results of consultation under ESA section 7 with FWS
and the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the
outcome of these actions, EPA is planning to issue an interim
registration review decision for fosthiazate.
    5. Hexythiazox (proposed interim decision). The registration review
docket for hexythiazox (EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0114) opened in a notice
published in the Federal Register of February 2, 2007 (72 FR 5050)
(FRL-8113-1). Hexythiazox is an acaricide that acts primarily as a mite
growth inhibitor/ovicide and is used to control mites. It is registered
for use on a variety of agricultural crops, turf, and various
residential plants. The Agency conducted a human health risk assessment
and did not identify any risks of concern. The ecological risk
assessment identified areas of potential risk of uncertainty to
terrestrial invertebrates, bees, and chronic risk to fish due to lack
of data. The Agency is therefore requiring a bee study to determine any
productive effects to pollinators. While chronic risk to fish and non-
target invertebrates is uncertain due to data gaps, the potential risks
expected to be low due to as hexythiazox is applied only once per year
at a low rate and is not highly persistent in the environment. The
Agency has completed a partial ESA analysis and is making a no effect
determination under the ESA for direct adverse effects to listed
mammalian, avian (and reptile surrogates) and aquatic plant (vascular
and nonvascular). The analysis for indirect effects to listed species
in these taxa or effects to their designated critical habitat has not
yet been completed. Therefore, consultation with FWS and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (the Services) on the potential risk of
hexythiazox to listed species will be necessary. Hexythiazox has not
been evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final
registration review decision is dependent on the result of consultation
under ESA section 7 with FWS and the evaluation of potential endocrine
disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of these actions, EPA is planning
to issue an interim registration review decision for hexythiazox.
    6. Lactofen (proposed interim decision). The registration review
docket for lactofen (EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0287) opened in a notice published
in the Federal Register of February 2, 2007 (72 FR 5050) (FRL-8113-1).
Lactofen is a light dependent peroxidizing herbicide (LDPH) with uses
on conifer seedlings, cotton, kenaf, peanuts, and soybean, with State-
specific uses on fruiting vegetables, okra, and snap beans. There are
no residential uses for lactofen. EPA conducted a human health
occupational risk assessment and did not identify any risks of concern.
The ecological risk assessment identified potential risks to several
different taxa. However, due to the number of conservative assumptions
included in the assessment, and additional use and usage information to
help characterize potential risks, the Agency is not proposing
mitigation changes at this time. The risk assessment for lactofen did
not come to a conclusion of ``no effect'' to listed species. Therefore,
consultation with FWS on the potential risk of lactofen to listed
species will be necessary. Lactofen has not been evaluated under EDSP.
Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent
on the results of consultation under ESA section 7 with FWS and the
evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the outcome
of these actions, EPA is planning to issue an interim registration
review decision for lactofen.
    7. Macleaya extract (proposed interim decision). The registration
review docket for macleaya extract (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0172) opened in a
notice published in the Federal Register of March 30, 2011 (76 FR
17646) (FRL-8868-9). Macleaya extract is a plant extract of Macleaya
cordata, and is registered for use only in enclosed commercial
greenhouses, as an

ornamental plant fungicide for the control of foliar fungal diseases.
There are no registered food uses of macleaya extract. EPA completed a
qualitative draft human health risk assessment for all macleaya extract
uses. No risks of concern were identified. The Agency also conducted an
ecological risk assessment and endangered species effects
determination. No risks of concern were identified and the Agency has
made a ``no effect'' determination for federally listed species and a
``No Habitat Modification'' determination for all designated critical
habitats under ESA. Macleaya extract has not been evaluated under EDSP.
Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent
on the result of the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk.
Pending the outcome of this action, EPA is planning to issue an interim
registration review decision for macleaya extract.
    8. Quizalofop (proposed interim decision). The registration review
docket for quizalofop (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1089) opened in a notice
published in the Federal Register of December 19, 2007 (72 FR 71893)
(FRL-8342-9). Quizalofop is a selective post-emergence herbicide and
appears as two different isomers: Quizalofop-ethyl and quizalofop-p-
ethyl. Quizalofop-ethyl is a 50/50 racemic mixture of R- and S-
enantiomers and there are no active pesticide registrations of this
isomer. Quizalofop is the purified R-enantiomer and the pesticidally
active isomer. For the Agency's purposes, both isomers will be referred
to collectively as quizalofop. Quizalofop is registered to control
annual and perennial grasses in various crops including Chinese
cabbage, cotton, garlic, grains, legumes, mint, pineapple, soybean,
sugar beets, and sunflower. Quizalofop is also used in non-agricultural
settings, such as cottonwood and poplar plantations, fencerows,
roadsides, and other uncultivated areas. EPA conducted a risk
assessment for both human health and ecological risk. No risks of
concern were identified in the human health risk assessment. The
ecological risk assessment indicated potential risks to amphibians,
freshwater fish, non-target monocots, and terrestrial mammals. The
Agency is proposing mitigation to reduce spray drift risk to non-target
organisms. The ecological risk assessment did not come to a conclusion
of ``no effect'' to listed species, therefore, consultation with FWS on
the potential risk of quizalofop to listed species will be necessary.
Quizalofop has not been evaluated under EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's
final registration review decision is dependent on the result of
consultation under ESA section 7 with FWS and the evaluation of
potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of these
actions, EPA is planning to issue an interim registration review
decision for quizalofop.
    9. Trinexapac-ethyl (proposed interim decision). The registration
review docket for trinexapac-ethyl (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0657) opened in a
notice published in the Federal Register of September 15, 2008 (73 FR
53244) (FRL-8381-3). Trinexapac-ethyl is a plant growth regulator
registered for use by homeowners and professional applicators to manage
growth of barley, grasses grown for seed, oats, sugarcane, triticale,
turf grass, and wheat. Turf grass uses include athletic fields and
parks, commercial and residential lawns, golf courses, and sod farms.
It is also registered for application around flower beds, ornamental
trees, and shrubs.
    EPA conducted a human health risk assessment and did not identify
any risks of concern. In addition, EPA conducted an ecological risk
assessment. Based on low-risk estimates, and the conservative nature of
the risk assessment, the Agency does not anticipate ecological risks of
concern for assessed taxa from currently registered uses of trinexapac-
ethyl. The Agency is not proposing mitigation changes at this time.
However, the Agency is proposing that labels clarify the single-maximum
application rate for liquid turf end-use products. The risk assessment
for trinexapac-ethyl did not come to a conclusion of ``no effect'' to
listed species. Therefore, consultation with the Services on the
potential risk of trinexapac-ethyl to listed species will be necessary.
Trinexapac-ethyl has not been evaluated under EDSP. Therefore, the
Agency's final registration review decision is dependent on the result
of consultation under ESA section 7 with FWS and the evaluation of
potential endocrine disrupter risk. Pending the outcome of these
actions, EPA is planning to issue an interim registration review
decision for trinexapac-ethyl.

          Table--Registration Review Proposed Interim Decisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Chemical review
  Registration review case name    Pesticide docket   manager, telephone
           and number               identification       number, email
                                        number              address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaminophen (Case 7610).......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-01  Bonnie Adler,
                                   45.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Clofentezine (Case 7602)........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-02  Wilhelmena
                                   40.                 Livingston, (703)
                                                       308-8025,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cyromazine (Case 7439)..........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-01  James Parker,
                                   08.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Fosthiazate (Case 7604).........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-02  James Parker,
                                   67.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hexythiazox (Case 7404).........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-01  Molly Clayton,
                                   14.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lactofen (Case 7210)............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-02  Kelly Ballard,
                                   87.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Macleaya Extract (Case 7024)....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-01  Susan Bartow,
                                   72.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Quizalofop (Case 7215)..........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-10  Khue Nguyen, (703)
                                   89.                 347-0248,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Trinexapac-ethyl (Case 7228)....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-06  Kaitlin Keller,
                                   57.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The registration review docket for a pesticide includes earlier
documents related to the registration review of the case. For example,
the review opened with a Summary Document, containing a Preliminary
Work Plan, for public

comment. A Final Work Plan was placed in the docket following public
comment on the initial docket.
    The documents in the dockets describe EPA's rationales for
conducting additional risk assessments for the registration review of
the pesticides included in the table in Unit II.A., as well as the
Agency's subsequent risk findings and consideration of possible risk
mitigation measures. These proposed interim registration review
decisions are supported by the rationales included in those documents.
    Following public comment, the Agency is planning to issue interim
registration review decisions for products containing the pesticides
listed in the table in Unit II.A.
    The registration review program is being conducted under
congressionally mandated timeframes, and EPA recognizes the need both
to make timely decisions and to involve the public. Section 3(g) of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C.
136a(g)) required EPA to establish by regulation procedures for
reviewing pesticide registrations, originally with a goal of reviewing
each pesticide's registration every 15 years to ensure that a pesticide
continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. The Agency's
final rule to implement this program was issued in the Federal Register
of August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45720) (FRL-8080-4) and became effective
October 10, 2006, and appears at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. The
Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA) was amended and
extended in September 2007. FIFRA, as amended by PRIA in 2007, requires
EPA to complete registration review decisions by October 1, 2022, for
all pesticides registered as of October 1, 2007 (7 U.S.C. 136a(g)).
    The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for
a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed registration
review decisions. This comment period is intended to provide an
opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any
necessary amendments to the proposed decision. All comments should be
submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA
on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of the
docket for the pesticides included in the table in Unit II.A. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and will provide a ``Response to Comments Memorandum'' in
the docket. The final registration review decision will explain the
effect that any comments had on the decision and provide the Agency's
response to significant comments.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review. Links to earlier
documents related to the registration review of these pesticides are
provided at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/reg_review_status.htm.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 3(g) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136a(g)) and 40 CFR part 155,
subpart C, provide authority for this action.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Acetaminophen, Administrative practice
and procedure, Clofentezine, Cyromazine, Fosthiazate, Hexythiazox,
Lactofen, Macleaya extract, Pesticides and pests, Quizalofop, and
Trinexapac-ethyl.

    Dated: July 15, 2014.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-17244 Filed 7-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


ATTACHMENT 2. Aquatic modeling output and associated files
See Attachment 2 posted with the draft Biological Evaluation of Current and Proposed Uses of Inpyrfluxam on 10/26/22:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0038-0051


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 150 (Wednesday, August 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 46648]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19190]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Applications of Dynamic Airways, LLC for Certificate Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2015-7-17); Dockets DOT-
OST-2014-0069 and DOT-OST-2014-0071

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested
persons to show cause why it should not issue orders finding Dynamic
Airways, LLC d/b/a Dynamic International Airways fit, willing, and
able, and awarding it certificates of public convenience and necessity
authorizing it to engage in interstate and foreign scheduled air
transportation of persons, property, and mail.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than
August 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in
Dockets DOT-OST-2014-0069 and DOT-OST-2014-0071 and addressed to the
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC and
should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damon D. Walker, Air Carrier Fitness
Division, (X-56, Office W86-469), U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 30, 2015.
Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2015-19190 Filed 8-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: November 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 67188]
[DOCID:fr04no05-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1609-DR]

Florida; Amendment No. 2 To Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Florida (FEMA-1609-DR), dated October 24, 2005, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective: October 26, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of October 24, 2005:

    Glades, Hendry, Martin, and St. Lucie Counties for Individual
Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency
protective measures [Categories A and B] under the Public Assistance
program, including direct Federal assistance.)

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

R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 05-22006 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9574-9575]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04520]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0136]

Pipeline Safety: Meeting of the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the Technical
Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, also known as the Gas Pipeline
Advisory Committee (GPAC). The GPAC will meet to continue discussing
topics and provisions for the proposed rule titled ``Safety of Gas
Transmission and Gathering Pipelines.''

DATES: The committee will meet on Monday, March 26, 2018, from 1:00
p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 27, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., and on Wednesday, March 28, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET.
Members of the public who wish to participate are asked to register no
later than March 16, 2018. Individuals requiring accommodations, such
as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, may notify
PHMSA by March 16, 2018. For additional information, see the ADDRESSES
section.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at a location yet to be determined
in the Washington, DC Metropolitan area. The meeting location, agenda
and any additional information will be published on the following
pipeline advisory committee meeting and registration page at: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=132.
    The meeting will not be webcast; however, presentations will be
available on the meeting page and posted on the E-Gov website, http://www.regulations.gov, under docket number PHMSA-2016-0136 within 30 days
following the meeting.

Public Participation

    This meeting will be open to the public. Members of the public who
wish to participate are asked to register at the meeting link above no
later than March 16, 2018, prior to the meeting. Anyone wishing to make
a statement on the topics discussed during the meeting should send an
email to [email protected]. Each statement should not exceed two
minutes.
    Written comments: Persons who wish to submit written comments on
the meeting may submit them to the docket in the following ways:
    E-Gov website: http://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the
public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground level of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the docket number PHMSA-2016-0136 at the
beginning of your comments. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Anyone can search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Therefore,
consider reviewing DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or view the Privacy
Notice at http://www.regulations.gov before submitting any such
comments.
    Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-
140 on the ground level of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the
following statement: ``Comments on PHMSA-2016-0136.'' The docket clerk
will date stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S.
mail.

Privacy Act Statement

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Services for Individuals with Disabilities: The public meeting will
be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals
requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other
ancillary aids, are asked to notify Cheryl Whetsel at
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the meetings,
contact Cheryl Whetsel by phone at 202-366-

4431 or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Meeting Details and Agenda

    The GPAC will be considering the proposed rule titled, ``Safety of
Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipelines,'' which was published in the
Federal Register on April 8, 2016, (81 FR 20722) and on the associated
regulatory analysis. In the proposed rule, PHMSA proposed the following
changes to Part 192:
     Require periodic assessments of pipelines in locations
where persons are expected to be at risk that are not already covered
under the integrity management (IM) program requirements.
     Modify the repair criteria, both inside and outside of
high consequence areas.
     Require inspections of pipelines in areas affected by
extreme weather, man-made and natural disasters, and other similar
events.
     Provide additional specificity for in-line inspections,
including explicit requirements to account for uncertainty of reported
inspection data when evaluating in-line inspection data to identify
anomalies.
     Expand integrity assessment methods to explicitly address
guided wave ultrasonic inspection and excavation with direct in-situ
examination.
     Provide clearer functional requirements for conducting
risk assessments for IM, including addressing seismic risks.
     Expand the mandatory data collection and integration
requirements for IM, including data validation and seismicity.
     Add requirements to address management of change.
     Repeal the use of API Recommended Practice 80 for
gathering lines.
     Apply Type B requirements along with emergency
requirements to newly regulated greater than 8-inch Type A gathering
lines in Class 1 locations (GAO Recommendation 14-667).
     Extend the reporting requirements to all gathering lines.
     Expand requirements for corrosion protection to specify
additional post-construction quality checks, and periodic operational
and maintenance checks to address coating integrity, cathodic
protection, and gas quality monitoring.
     Require operators to report maximum allowable operating
pressure exceedances.
     Require safety features on in-line inspection tool
launchers and receivers.
     Add certain types of roadways to the definition of
``identified sites'' (NTSB P-14-1).
     Address grandfathered pipe and pipe with inadequate
records.
    The GPAC meeting agenda will include a discussion and votes on the
following topics as time permits:
     Issues not finalized during the March 2, 2018, meeting.
     MAOP Reconfirmation.
     Repair Criteria.
     Miscellaneous Issues and Definitions.
    In addition, PHMSA will use this meeting to discuss the strategy
for addressing the issues relative to gas gathering pipelines in the
proposed rule.

II. Committee Background

    The GPAC is a statutorily mandated advisory committee that advises
PHMSA on proposed gas pipeline safety standards and their associated
risk assessments. The committee is established in accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, as amended) and 49
U.S.C. 60115. The committee consists of 15 members with membership
evenly divided among federal and state governments, the regulated
industry, and the general public. The committee advises PHMSA on the
technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and
practicability of each proposed pipeline safety standard.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 1, 2018, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2018-04520 Filed 3-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


217/785-4140

September 13, 2000

Mr. Michael Trutna

Information Transfer and Program Integration Division (MD-12)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711

Re:	Draft Guidance on Design of Flexible Air Permits (White Paper 3)

	65 Fed.Reg. 49803 (August 15, 2000)

Dear Mr. Trutna:

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) appreciates
this opportunity to comment on the draft guidance on the design of
flexible air permits, known as White Paper 3.  Following are our
comments:

 USEPA regional staff who deal with Title V permits need to be fully
educated and convinced of the uses of White Paper 3.  More specifically,
portions of the document refer to the use of a Plant-wide Applicability
Limit (PAL) for allowing changes at a source to avoid the applicability
of certain requirements.  We are concerned with Region 5’s
acceptability of this type of limit, including by regional permit
reviewers and associated persons (lawyers and managerial staff).
Historic dealings with USEPA regional staff in attempts to establish
PALs have met with significant resistance.  Therefore, it is imperative
that, in a timely manner, the appropriate USEPA regional staff be fully
educated on White Paper 3 and that the mechanisms of White Paper 3 be
promoted and “sold” to USEPA regions as acceptable practices.  If
such preparation steps are not taken, then we fear that permitting
authorities will waste a significant amount of time and other resources
in efforts to promote the use of White Paper 3 only to be unreasonably
delayed or rejected in the final stages by USEPA regional staff.

Note that USEPA review of draft permits typically occurs only in the
final stages of the permit issuance process.  Recent conversations with
certain USEPA regional Title V permit reviewers indicated little
knowledge of White Paper 3 and no known plans for internal training or
discussions on White Paper 3.  This situation must be corrected for
White Paper 3 to be successful.   Also note that similar problems
existed with White Papers 1 and 2.  USEPA Headquarters should take the
lead role in educating and promoting White Paper 3.  Again, this did not
appear to occur for the first two White Papers and may have contributed
to implementation delays.

Currently in Illinois a two-step permitting process exists when a source
constructs or modifies.  In Step 1, a construction permit is obtained.
In Step 2, the source revises its Title V permit to allow operation of
the changes permitted in the construction permit.  Note that
construction permits are required in Illinois prior to the construction
of all emission units and activities, unless specifically exempted.  It
would significantly streamline the process if mechanisms were available
that allowed for both sources and permitting authorities to forego the
resource-consuming task of subsequently revising Title V permits to
allow new construction and/or modification projects to operate.

In light of the above, the most straightforward benefit of White Paper 3
in Illinois appears to lie in the prevention of the necessity to revise
Title V permits for certain new construction and modification projects
(Step 2), not to avoid the issuance of new construction permits for new
projects (Step 1).  However, Illinois recognizes that in certain cases,
the permitting of current as well as forecasted future projects in a
single permitting action and permit (referred to in the White Paper as
“enabling NSR permits”) may lead to the saving of significant time
and other resources, i.e., fewer times going through both Steps 1 and 2.
 The above appears to distinguish between the two main uses of White
Paper 3, those being:

To allow permitting authorities and the source to avoid having to revise
the Title V permit to accommodate new construction and modification
projects (this is mostly performed by writing flexible Title V permits,
e.g., PALs and/or formula based compliance procedures), and

To allow permitting authorities and the source to avoid having both to
issue/obtain a preconstruction permit and to revise the Title V permit
in accordance with the change.  This is performed by the prior issuance
of an enabling NSR permit and its incorporation into a flexibly written
Title V permit.

	Thus, one of the main concepts of White Paper 3 is advance approval
through the “enabling NSR permit”.  As this is a relatively new type
of permitting, Illinois EPA suggests that USEPA should clarify this in
the White Paper and expand upon this further.  Also, it needs to be made
crystal clear that, for what Illinois believes to be most permitting
authorities, a preconstruction permit allowing advance approval needs to
be issued in order to allow avoidance of subsequent preconstruction
permitting for pre-approved changes, and for the Title V permit to
contain such flexibility and thus avoid the need for revision.  This
topic is addressed on a limited basis in the White Paper, but more is
needed.

	In addition, another potential obstacle, for any enabling NSR permit in
Illinois that the permit may need to be renewed each year due to
construction permits being valid for only one year from the date of
issuance.  We assume other permitting authorities have similar
expiration periods on their preconstruction permits.

	Obviously, White Paper 3 focuses on the use of flexible permitting
tools for Title V operating permits.  However, many of the concepts of
flexible permitting are suited for, and perhaps would find greater use
in, preconstruction permits.  For example, in Illinois advance approval
would originally be given in a construction permit.  The Title V permit
would then, either concurrently or later, be revised to incorporate the
construction permit and advanced approval contained therein.  In this
vein, White Paper 3 should more clearly state that permit flexibility is
also appropriate for preconstruction permitting.  This would hopefully
avoid the need to seek approval from USEPA regional staff for use of the
suggested tools in Illinois’ construction permits.  Illinois intends
to explore these concepts further and encourages USEPA to also explore
expanding the use of White Paper 3 mechanisms to state and local
preconstruction permit programs.  That is, the use of flexible
permitting tools (e.g., advanced approval, operational flexibility,
PALs) should be promoted for use in preconstruction permitting, not just
for Title V permitting.  Although White Paper 3 touches on this and
implies this, it is not specifically stated.  Note also that Illinois is
currently successfully using several of the flexibility mechanisms in
its preconstruction permits, e.g., formula based emission calculations
instead of production and/or material usage limits.

3.		It would be helpful to include in the paper more specific examples
of permit conditions that provide for operational flexibility.  These
concepts are complicated and seeing how others have interpreted and
implemented them is needed.  The example given for using a formula based
approach to limit lithographic printers is excellent and more examples
like this would prove very useful.

4.		In some cases the use of White Paper 3 and its tools, in particular
advanced approval, may lead to a significant amount of work being
performed unnecessarily, e.g., if a permitting authority and source work
to implement advanced approval only to have the source never utilize the
flexibility.  It may be useful for White Paper 3 to emphasize that care
should be taken in deciding when to use these mechanisms.  Also, in the
portion of the paper that addresses when it would be inappropriate to
allow a source to use flexible permitting, Illinois EPA suggests that
this section should include sources with a history of non-compliance.
Operational flexibility for such sources would likely only lead to
additional compliance problems.  This would also serve as an incentive
for sources to achieve lasting compliance.

5.		It should be made clear that these flexibility mechanisms are not
mandatory or suitable for all Title V permits.  Also, the additional
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) that often accompany
flexibility in permits are not necessarily required when little
flexibility exists.  A good rule of thumb is less flexibility, less MRR;
more flexibility, more MRR.  As was a concern with the periodic
monitoring guidance, it should be made clear that the suggested MRR
identified in the guidance is not mandatory or always appropriate and
should not be used as a minimum requirements guide.

 Another useful and common mechanism for writing flexible Title V
permits is identifying emission units in general terms as opposed to
specific terms.  This easy technique can be used in practically all
Title V permits and often makes it unnecessary to revise the permit for
both new construction and modifications to existing emission units.  For
example, if a source has 2 heatset web offset lithographic printing
lines identified by the source as lines 1 and 2, the following shows two
common ways that such lines are identified in a permit:

2 heastset web offset lithographic printing lines, or

heatset web offset lithographic printing lines 1 and 2.

Although there is only a small difference in the above descriptions, the
implications for revising the Title V permit should a printing line be
replaced or modified is significant.  By way of explanation, if the
source decides to replace existing line 1 with a new line 3 that is
relatively identical, then the description in item (i) is such that no
revision to the Title V permit is necessary.  However, the description
used in item (ii) would require that the Title V permit be revised to
permit lines 1 and 3 and remove line 2.  Of course, the general
description would be used throughout the permit such that the permit
basically allows the operation of any two lithographic printing presses
that meet the description and comply with the requirements in the
permit.  Obviously, other factors will play a role in whether a revision
to the Title V is necessary, e.g., no revision for NSR purposes is
needed if the natural PTE of line 3 is less than NSR trigger levels or
if the Title V permit already contains limits on PTE for total emissions
from the lines such that emissions are less than NSR trigger levels.
In addition, the source would not be able to avoid the need to obtain a
construction permit, if required, prior to construction (unless, of
course, they had advanced approval).  Again, this would simply eliminate
the need to revise the Title V permit.  Note that this technique, like
the other flexible permit writing techniques, is applicable for use in
construction permits as well as Title V permits.  Illinois EPA suggests
that this flexible permit mechanism should be identified and described
in White Paper 3.

If you have questions regarding our comments, please contact Jim Ross of
my Permits Section at 217/782-2113.

Sincerely,

David J. Kolaz

Chief

Bureau of Air

Instructions Page

Mail via overnight; e-mail to U.S. EPA on September 13, 2000

bcc:	Kathleen Bassi

	Jim Ross

	Don Sutton

	Bonnie Sawyer

	Dennis Lawler

kcb    FILENAME \p  G:\BASSI\FEDREG\13.WhitePaper3.comments.9-13-00.doc

JRR:  FILENAME  \* MERGEFORMAT  Comments on White Paper 3.doc

 PAGE

Mr. Michael Trutna, USEPA

Comments of the Illinois  EPA on White Paper 3

September 13, 2000

Page   PAGE  6

 PAGE

 PAGE   6


[Federal Register: December 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 77867]
[DOCID:fr19de08-190]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Proposed Modification of the Chicago, IL, Class B Airspace Area;
Public Meetings

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces two fact-finding informal airspace
meetings, in addition to three meetings held previously (73 FR 44311),
to solicit information from airspace users and others concerning a
proposal to revise the Class B airspace area at Chicago, IL. The
purpose of these meetings is to ensure all interested parties were
provided an opportunity to present views, recommendations, and comments
on the proposal. All comments received during these meetings will be
considered prior to any revision or issuance of a notice of proposed
rulemaking.
    Times and Dates: The informal airspace meetings will be held on
Monday, February 23, 2009, at 1 p.m., and Thursday, February 26, 2009,
at 5 p.m. Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: (1) The meeting on Monday, February 23, 2009, will be held
at Lewis University, Harold E. White Aviation Center, 1 University
Parkway, Romeoville, IL 60446. (2) The meeting on Thursday, February
26, 2009, will be held at DuPage Flight Center, Chicago DuPage Airport,
2700 International Drive, West Chicago, IL 60185.
    Comments: Send comments on the proposal to: Don Smith, Manager,
Operations Support Group, Air Traffic Organization Central Service
Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort
Worth, Texas, 76137, or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Hulsey, FAA ChicagoTRACON, 1100
Bowes Road, Elgin, IL 60123; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meeting Procedures

    (a) The meetings will be informal in nature and will be conducted
by one or more representatives of the FAA Central Service Center. A
representative from the FAA will present a briefing on the planned
modification to the Class B airspace at Chicago, IL. Each participant
will be given an opportunity to deliver comments or make a
presentation, although a time limit may be imposed. Only comments
concerning the plan to modify the Class B airspace area at Chicago, IL,
will be accepted.
    (b) The meetings will be open to all persons on a space-available
basis. There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend and
participate.
    (c) Any person wishing to make a presentation to the FAA panel will
be asked to sign in and estimate the amount of time needed for such
presentation. This will permit the panel to allocate an appropriate
amount of time for each presenter. These meetings will not be adjourned
until everyone on the list has had an opportunity to address the panel.
    (d) Position papers or other handout material relating to the
substance of these meetings will be accepted. Participants wishing to
submit handout material should present an original and two copies (3
copies total) to the presiding officer. There should be additional
copies of each handout available for other attendees.
    (e) These meetings will not be formally recorded.

Agenda for the Meetings

--Sign-in.
--Presentation of Meeting Procedures.
--FAA explanation of the planned Class B modifications.
--Solicitation of Public Comments.
--Closing Comments.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 12, 2008.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
 [FR Doc. E8-30152 Filed 12-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 110)]
[Notices]
[Page 33303]
[DOCID:fr08jn06-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-84-002]

Florida Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 1, 2006.
    Take notice that, on May 24, 2006, Florida Gas Transmission Company
(FGT) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's Order
Approving Abandonment dated May 9, 2006 in Docket No. CP06-84-000, 115
FERC ] 62,150 (2006).
    FGT states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the
official service list in the above captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 16, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8866 Filed 6-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P