[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 182 (Friday, September 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58255-58258]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18400]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 93

[Docket No.: FAA-2006-25755]

Operating Limitations at New York Laguardia Airport

AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA).

ACTION: Extension to order.

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

SUMMARY: This action extends the Order Limiting Operations at New York
LaGuardia Airport (LGA) published on December 27, 2006, as most
recently extended September 18, 2018. The Order remains effective until
October 29, 2022.

DATES: This action is effective on September 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Requests may be submitted by mail to the Slot Administration
Office, System Operations Services, AJR-0, Room 300W, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this Order
contact: Bonnie Dragotto, Regulations Division, FAA Office of the Chief
Counsel, AGC-250, Room 916N, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You may obtain an electronic copy using the internet by:
    (1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You also may obtain a copy by sending a request to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA has historically limited the number of arrivals and
departures at LGA during peak demand periods through the implementation
of the High Density Rule (HDR), to address constraints based on LGA's
limited runway capacity.\1\ By statute enacted in April 2000, the HDR's
applicability to LGA operations terminated as of January 1, 2007.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 FR 17896 (Dec. 3, 1968). The FAA codified the rules for
operating at high density traffic airports in 14 CFR part 93,
subpart K. The HDR required carriers to hold a reservation, which
came to be known as a ``slot,'' for each takeoff or landing under
instrument flight rules at the high density traffic airports.
    \2\ Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(AIR-21), Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5, 2000), 49 U.S.C. 41715(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA issued an Order on December 27, 2006, adopting temporary
limits pending the completion of rulemaking to address long term limits
and related policies.\3\ This Order was amended on November 8, 2007,
and August 19, 2008.\4\ The FAA extended the December 27, 2006, Order
placing temporary limits on operations at LGA, as amended, on October
7, 2009, April 4, 2011, May 14, 2013, March 27, 2014, May 25, 2016, and
September 18, 2018.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 71 FR 77854.
    \4\ 72 FR 63224; 73 FR 48428.
    \5\ 74 FR 51653; 76 FR 18616, amended by 77 FR 30585 (May 23,
2012); 78 FR 28278; 79 FR 17222; 81 FR 33126; and, 83 FR 47065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Order for LGA, as amended, the FAA (1) maintains the
current hourly limits on scheduled and unscheduled operations at LGA
during the peak period; (2) imposes an 80 percent minimum usage
requirement for Operating Authorizations (OAs) with defined exceptions;
(3) provides a mechanism for withdrawal of OAs for FAA operational
reasons; (4) provides for a lottery to reallocate withdrawn,
surrendered, or unallocated OAs; and (5) allows for trades and leases
of OAs for consideration for the duration of the Order.
    The reasons for issuing the Order have not changed appreciably
since it was implemented. Based upon experience from the 2018-2020
period, runway capacity at LGA remains limited, while demand for access
to LGA remains high. In 2009, the FAA reduced the scheduling limits
under this Order from 75 operations per hour to 71 per hour in order to
provide an opportunity to improve operations.\6\ The FAA did not
require a reduction of historic slots to reach the new hourly limits.
Instead, historic allocations were honored. However, slots voluntarily
returned or withdrawn per the terms of the Order are not reallocated if
the hourly totals exceed the revised 71 hourly scheduling limit. As a
result of this historic ``grand-fathering,'' between 72 and 75 slots
remain authorized in most slot-controlled hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 74 FR 2646 (Jan. 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has reviewed the on-time and other performance metrics in
the peak May to August 2018 and 2019 months and found declining
performance in several metrics relative to the same period in 2008 and
year over year.\7\ The FAA has determined that the operational
limitations imposed by this Order remain necessary. Notwithstanding the
disruption caused by the COVID-19 public health emergency, the duration
of which is uncertain, without the operational limitations imposed by
this Order, the FAA expects severe congestion-related delays due to the
anticipated demand for new operations and the retiming of existing
flights into more desirable hours. During the effective period of this
Order, the FAA will continue to monitor demand, performance, and runway
capacity at LGA, including the effects of the COVID-19 public health
emergency, to determine if changes are warranted.\8\ The FAA, in
coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST),
will continue to consider potential rulemaking in the future to codify
the slot management policies at LGA, and also at John F. Kennedy
International Airport (JFK).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A copy of the supporting MITRE analysis has been submitted
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-25755.
    \8\ The limited waiver of the minimum slot usage requirement for
JFK and LGA airports published on March 16, 2020, 85 FR 15018, and
extended on April 17, 2020, 85 FR 21500, remains in effect through
October 24, 2020.
    \9\ Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International
Airport. 73 FR 3510 (Jan. 18, 2008), as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pending Issues

    In the FAA's 2018 actions extending the JFK and LGA Orders, the FAA
noted that it has received specific proposals for policy changes that
would necessitate amending the Orders.\10\ Consideration of these
issues is ongoing. Accordingly, the FAA is extending the expiration
date of this Order until October 29, 2022. This expiration date
coincides with the extended expiration date for the Order limiting
scheduled operations at JFK, as also published elsewhere in this issue
of the Federal Register. This LGA action incorporates ministerial
changes to the terms of the Order concerning internal FAA process,
removing an obsolete provision concerning the final decision-maker in
paragraph A3, and adding a comprehensive provision concerning the final
decision-maker under the Order at new paragraphs A9 and B10. This
action also adds a provision for revocation and amendment at new
paragraphs A10 and B11 consistent with the terms of the JFK Order, and
makes other minor edits to improve readability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See discussion of ``Current Issues'' in 2018 JFK Order, 83
FR at 46865, and LGA Order, 83 FR at 47065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA finds that notice and comment procedures under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public
interest, as carriers have begun planning schedules for the winter
2020/2021 season and no substantive changes are included in this
action. For these reasons, the FAA also finds that it is impracticable
and contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this
action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

The Amended Order

    The Order, as amended, is recited below in its entirety:

A. Scheduled Operations

    With respect to scheduled operations at LaGuardia:
    1. The Order governs scheduled arrivals and departures at LaGuardia
from 6 a.m. through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday and
from 12 noon through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Sunday. Seventy-one (71)
Operating Authorizations are available per hour and will be assigned by
the FAA on a 30-minute basis. The FAA will permit additional, existing
operations above this threshold; however, the FAA will retire Operating
Authorizations that are surrendered to the FAA, withdrawn for non-use,
or unassigned during each affected hour until the number of Operating
Authorizations in that hour reaches seventy-one (71).
    2. The Order took effect on January 1, 2007, and will expire on
October 29, 2022.
    3. The FAA will assign operating authority to conduct an arrival or
a departure at LaGuardia during the affected hours to the air carrier
that holds equivalent slot or slot exemption authority under the High
Density Rule of FAA slot exemption rules as of January 1, 2007; to the
primary marketing air carrier in the case of AIR-21 small hub/non-hub
airport slot

exemptions; or to the air carrier operating the flights as of January
1, 2007, in the case of a slot held by a non carrier. The FAA will not
assign operating authority under the Order to any person or entity
other than a certificated U.S. or foreign air carrier with appropriate
economic authority and with operating authority from FAA under 14 CFR
part 121, 129 or 135.
    4. For administrative tracking purposes only, the FAA will assign
an identification number to each Operating Authorization.
    5. An air carrier may lease or trade an Operating Authorization to
another carrier for any consideration, not to exceed the duration of
the Order. Notice of a trade or lease under this paragraph must be
submitted in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office, facsimile
(202) 267-7277 or email [email protected], and must come from a
designated representative of each carrier. The FAA must confirm and
approve these transactions in writing prior to the effective date of
the transaction. However, the FAA will approve transfers between
carriers under the same marketing control up to 5 business days after
the actual operation. This post-transfer approval is limited to
accommodate operational disruptions that occur on the same day of the
scheduled operation.
    6. Each air carrier holding an Operating Authorization must forward
in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office a list of all
Operating Authorizations held by the carrier along with a listing of
the Operating Authorizations actually operated for each day of the two-
month reporting period, within 14 days after the last day of the two-
month reporting period beginning January 1 and every two months
thereafter. Any Operating Authorization not used at least 80 percent of
the time over a two-month period will be withdrawn by the FAA except:
    A. The FAA will treat as used any Operating Authorization held by
an air carrier on Thanksgiving Day, the Friday following Thanksgiving
Day, and the period from December 24 through the first Saturday in
January.
    B. The FAA will treat as used any Operating Authorization obtained
by an air carrier through a lottery under paragraph 7 for the first 120
days after allocation in the lottery.
    C. The Administrator of the FAA may waive the 80 percent usage
requirement in the event of a highly unusual and unpredictable
condition which is beyond the control of the air carrier and which
affects carrier operations for a period of five consecutive days or
more.
    7. In the event that Operating Authorizations are withdrawn for
nonuse, are surrendered to the FAA, or are unassigned, the FAA will
determine whether any of the available Operating Authorizations should
be reallocated. If so, the FAA will conduct a lottery using the
provisions specified under 14 CFR 93.225. The FAA may retime an
Operating Authorization prior to reallocation in order to address
operational needs.
    8. If the FAA determines that a reduction in the number of
allocated Operating Authorizations is required to meet operational
needs, such as reduced airport capacity, the FAA will conduct a
weighted lottery to withdraw Operating Authorizations to meet a reduced
hourly or half-hourly limit for scheduled operations. The FAA will
provide at least 45 days' notice unless otherwise required by
operational needs. Any Operating Authorization that is withdrawn or
temporarily suspended will, if reallocated, be reallocated to the air
carrier from which it was taken, provided that the air carrier
continues to operate scheduled service at LaGuardia.
    9. The Vice President, System Operations Services, in coordination
with the Chief Counsel of the FAA, is the final decision maker for
determinations under this Order.
    10. The FAA may modify or withdraw any provision in this Order on
its own or on application by any carrier for good cause shown.

B. Unscheduled Operations: \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Unscheduled operations are operations other than those
regularly conducted by an air carrier between LaGuardia and another
service point. Unscheduled operations include general aviation,
public aircraft, military, irregular charter, ferry, and positioning
flights. Regularly conducted commercial flights require an Operating
Authorization and may not use unscheduled operation reservations.
Helicopter operations are excluded from the reservation requirement.
Unscheduled flights operating under visual flight rules (VFR) may be
accommodated by the local air traffic control facilities and are not
included in the hourly limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to unscheduled flight operations at LaGuardia, the FAA
adopts the following:
    1. The Order applies to all operators of unscheduled flights,
except helicopter operations, at LaGuardia from 6 a.m. through 9:59
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday and from 12 noon through 9:59
p.m., Eastern Time, Sunday.
    2. The Order took effect on January 1, 2007, and will expire on
October 29, 2022.
    3. No person can operate an aircraft other than a helicopter to or
from LaGuardia unless the operator has received, for that unscheduled
operation, a reservation that is assigned by the David J. Hurley Air
Traffic Control System Command Center's Airport Reservation Office
(ARO), or for unscheduled visual flight rule operations, received
clearance from ATC. Additional information on procedures for obtaining
a reservation is available via the internet at http://www.fly.faa.gov/ecvrs.
    4. Three (3) reservations are available per hour for unscheduled
operations at LaGuardia. The ARO will assign reservations on a 30-
minute basis.
    5. The ARO receives and processes all reservation requests.
Reservations are assigned on a ``first-come, first-served'' basis,
determined as of the time that the ARO receives the request. A
cancellation of any reservation that will not be used as assigned is
required.
    6. Filing a request for a reservation does not constitute the
filing of an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan, as separately
required by regulation. After the reservation is obtained, an IFR
flight plan can be filed. The IFR flight plan must include the
reservation number in the ``remarks'' section.
    7. Air Traffic Control will accommodate declared emergencies
without regard to reservations. Nonemergency flights in direct support
of national security, law enforcement, military aircraft operations, or
public aircraft operations will be accommodated above the reservation
limits with the prior approval of the Vice President, System Operations
Services, Air Traffic Organization. Procedures for obtaining the
appropriate reservation for such flights are available via the internet
at http://www.fly.faa.gov/ecvrs.
    8. Notwithstanding the limits in paragraph 4, if the Air Traffic
Organization determines that air traffic control, weather, and capacity
conditions are favorable and significant delay is not likely, the FAA
can accommodate additional reservations over a specific period. Unused
operating authorizations can also be temporarily made available for
unscheduled operations. Reservations for additional operations are
obtained through the ARO.
    9. Reservations cannot be bought, sold, or leased.
    10. The Vice President, System Operations Services, in coordination
with the Chief Counsel of the FAA, is the final decision maker for
determinations under this Order.
    11. The FAA may modify or withdraw any provision in this Order on
its own

or on application by any carrier for good cause shown.

C. Enforcement

    The FAA may enforce the Order through an enforcement action seeking
a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 46301(a). The FAA or Department of
Justice also could file a civil action in U.S. District Court, under 49
U.S.C. 46106 or 46107, respectively, seeking to enjoin any carrier from
violating the terms of the Order.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2020.
Virginia Boyle,
Deputy Vice President, System Operations Services.
[FR Doc. 2020-18400 Filed 9-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 38167]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13899]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR16-56-000.
    Applicants: Lobo Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(e) + (g): Lobo Pipeline
Company LLC Revised Statement of Operating Conditions to be effective
6/1/2016; Filing Type: 1280.
    Filed Date: 6/1/2016.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>54, http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/doc_info.asp?accession_num=20160415-5222.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/16.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/16.

    Docket Number: PR16-57-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1)/.: COH SOC effective
5-31-2016 to be effective 5/31/2016; Filing Type: 980.
    Filed Date: 6/3/16.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>09.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-971-000.
    Applicants: GDF SUEZ Energy Marketing NA, Inc.,GDF Suez Energy
North America, Inc.,ANP Fuel Services, Inc.,Atlas Power Finance, LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition for Temporary Waiver of Commission
Policies, Capacity Release Regulations, and Related Tariff Provisions
of the GSENA Natural Gas Entities, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20160525-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1014-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Clean-Up Filing--June 2016 to
be effective 7/3/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/2/16.
    Accession Number: 20160602-5223.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1015-000.
    Applicants: UGI Mt. Bethel Pipeline.
    Description: Compliance filing New Tariff Compliance Filing to be
effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/2/16.
    Accession Number: 20160602-5350.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1016-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Annual Fuel Retention and Cash
Out Adjustment to be effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/2/16.
    Accession Number: 20160602-5431.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1017-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Agreement PSEG
Power 911359 to be effective 6/6/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160603-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1018-000.
    Applicants: EQT Energy, LLC,Statoil Natural Gas LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition for Temporary Waiver of Commission
Policies, Capacity Release Regulations and Related Tariff Provisions
and Request for Expedited Action of EQT Energy, LLC and Statoil Natural
Gas LLC under RP16-1018.
    Filed Date: 6/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160603-5287.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1019-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Seasonal Service June--
September 2016 to be effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/6/16.
    Accession Number: 20160606-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/16.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-850-001.
    Applicants: Trans-Union Interstate Pipeline, L.P.
    Description: Compliance filing Compliance Filing to be effective 4/
1/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/2/16.
    Accession Number: 20160602-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/16.
    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 7, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13899 Filed 6-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 23833-23834]
[DOCID:fr04my10-139]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61959; File No. SR-ISE-2010-33]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Establish Strike Price Intervals and Trading Hours for
Options on Index-Linked Securities

April 22, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 16, 2010, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish strike price intervals and
trading hours for options on index-linked securities. The text of the
proposed rule change is as follows (deletions are in [brackets];
additions are in italics):
    * * *

Rule 504. Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading

    (a)-(h) No change.

Supplementary Material to Rule 504

    .01-.05 No change.
    .06 Notwithstanding Supplementary Material .01 above, the interval
between strike prices of series of options on Index-Linked Securities,
as defined in Rule 502(k)(1), will be $1 or greater when the strike
price is $200 or less and $5 or greater when the strike price is
greater than $200.
    * * *

Rule 700. Days and Hours of Business

    No change.
    (a)-(c) No change.
    (d) Options on Index-Linked Securities, as defined in Rule
502(k)(1), may be traded on the Exchange until 4:15 p.m. each business
day.
    [(d)](e) The Exchange shall not be open for business on the
following holidays: New Year's Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day,
Presidents' Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor
Day, Thanksgiving Day or Christmas Day. When any holiday observed by
the Exchange falls on a Saturday, the Exchange will not be open for
business on the preceding Friday. When any holiday observed by the
Exchange falls on a Sunday, the Exchange will not be open for business
on the following Monday, unless unusual business conditions exist at
the time.
    * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Prior to the commencement of trading options on Index-Linked
Securities, the Exchange is proposing to establish strike price
intervals and trading hours for these new products.
    The Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') has
approved ISE's and other option exchanges' proposals to enable the
listing and trading of options on Index-Linked Securities.\3\ Options
trading has not commenced to date and is contingent upon the
Commission's approval of The Options Clearing Corporation's (``OCC'')
proposed supplement to the Options Disclosure Document (``ODD'') that
will provide disclosure regarding options on Index-Linked
Securities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58985 (November 10
[sic], 2008), 73 FR 72538 (November 28, 2008) (approving SR-ISE-
2008-86); 58204 (July 22, 2008), 73 FR 43807 (July 28, 2008)
(approving SR-CBOE-2008-64); 58203 (July 22, 2008), 73 FR 43812
(July 28, 2008) (approving SR-NYSEArca-2008-57).
    \4\ OCC previously received Commission approval to clear options
based on Index-Linked Securities. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 60872 (October 23, 2009), 74 FR 55878 (October 29, 2009)
(SR-OCC-2009-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

$1 Strikes for Options on Index-Linked Securities
    Prior to the commencement of trading options on Index-Linked
Securities, the Exchange is proposing to establish that strike price
intervals of $1 will be permitted where the strike price is less than
$200. Where the strike price is greater than $200, $5 strikes will be
permitted. These proposed changes are reflected by the proposed
addition of new .06 of the Supplementary Material to Rule 504.
    Without discounting the differences between exchange-traded funds
(``ETFs'') and Index-Linked Securities, the Exchange seeks to extend
the trading conventions applicable to options on ETFs to options on
Index-Linked Securities. ISE contends that the proposed strike price
intervals for options on Index-Linked Securities are consistent with
the strike price intervals currently permitted for options on ETFs. The
Exchange believes that $1 strike price intervals for options on Index-
Linked Securities will provide investors with greater flexibility by
allowed [sic] them to establish positions that are better tailored to
meet their investment objectives. ISE has analyzed its capacity and
represents that it and the Options Price Reporting Authority have the
necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated
with the listing and trading of an expanded number of series as
proposed by this filing.
Trading Hours for Options on Index-Linked Securities
    Similar to the trading hours for ETF options, the Exchange proposes
to amend Rule 700 by renumbering the current subparagraph (d) to (e)
and adding a new subparagraph (d) to provide that options on Index-
Linked Securities, as defined under .06 of the Supplementary Material
to Rule 504, may be traded on the Exchange until 4:15 p.m. each
business day.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
that an exchange have rules that are designed to promote

just and equitable principles of trade, and to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national
market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. In particular, the proposal will lessen investor confusion by
having strike price intervals and trading hours established prior to
the commencement of trading in options on Index-Linked Securities.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, or such
shorted time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange provided
a copy of this rule filing to the Commission at least five business
days prior to the date of this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is non-controversial
in that it is similar to a Chicago Board Options Exchange rule change
recently approved by the Commission.\7\ Further, the Exchange believes
the proposed rule change may eliminate confusion for investors by
establishing strike price intervals and trading hours for options on
Index-Linked Securities prior to the commencement of trading. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change does not raise any
new, unique or substantive issues, and is beneficial for competitive
purposes and to promote a free and open market for the benefit of
investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 61696 (March 12,
2010), 75 FR 13174 (March 18, 2010) (approving SR-CBOE 2010-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2010-33 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2010-33. 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 the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2010-33 and should be
submitted on or before May 25, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10300 Filed 5-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21647-21649]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08358]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0025]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 11 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in
one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye.
If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2016. All
comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued
the day after the comment period closes.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0025 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 11 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Jose R. Arroyo

    Mr. Arroyo, 46, has had corneal opacity in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception,
and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his
optometrist stated, ``He had no color defects and in my medical opinion
he is able to safely operate a commercial vehicle based in [sic] his
vision.'' Mr. Arroyo reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12
years, accumulating 540,000 miles. He holds a Class C operator's
license from California. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Ronald H. Carey

    Mr. Carey, 54, has had decreased vision in his right eye since
2011. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left
eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated,
``In my medical opinion Ronald has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Carey
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 2 years, accumulating
150,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 27 years,
accumulating 1.65 million miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Valentin S. Chernyy

    Mr. Chernyy, 51, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
a traumatic incident in 1986. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination
in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``This certifies in my medical opinion
that Valentin Chernyy has sufficient vision in his right eye to perform
the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Chernyy reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14 years,
accumulating 980,000 miles. He holds a Class O operator's license from
Nebraska. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Danny R. Floyd

    Mr. Floyd, 56, has had optic atrophy in his right eye since 2012
due to a traumatic incident. The visual acuity in his right eye is no
light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination
in 2016, his optometrist

stated, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Floyd's condition is stable and he
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Floyd reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 2.34 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Claudia E. Gerez-Bentacourt

    Ms. Gerez-Bentancourt, 39, has had amblyopia in her right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in her right eye is 20/200, and in her
left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2015, her ophthalmologist
stated, ``She was diagnosed with Amblyopia of right eye . . . She is
able to perform all driving tasks that [sic] required by commercial
vehicle.'' Ms. Gerez-Bentacourt reported that she has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 6 years, accumulating 420,000 miles. She holds
a Class A CDL from Texas. Her driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Andy R. Junod

    Mr. Junod, 62, has had a macular scar in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in his left
eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``I certify that the visual deficiency of this gentleman is
stable and that in my medical opinion, based on the eye exam and his
driving record which he verbally gives [sic] to me, that he has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Junod reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 5 years, accumulating 120,000 miles and tractor-trailer
combinations for 34 years, accumulating 3.74 million miles. He holds a
Class AM CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Roger W. Kerns III

    Mr. Kerns, 22, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2016 his optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion, Roger W. Kerns III has sufficient vision to perform
the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Kerns
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 2 years, accumulating
1,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 2 years, accumulating
200,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Gary C. Maxwell

    Mr. Maxwell, 73, has had a pigment epithelia detachment in his left
eye in 2000. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his
left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``He has a history of an epiretinal membrane and pigment
epithelial detachment of his left eye. He has been driving a commercial
vehicle without difficulty for many years, and I feel that he can
safely continue to do so without any concerns.'' Mr. Maxwell reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 2 years, accumulating 80,000
miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 40 years, accumulating 12
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Scott A. Palmer

    Mr. Palmer, 46, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
300. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion, Scott Palmer has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Palmer
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating
800,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from New York. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Richard G. Roberts

    Mr. Roberts, 82, has had macular degeneration in his right eye
since 2008. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his
left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``The patient has been able to operate commercial vehicles
safely for many years, including the last seven years after being
treated for macular degeneration. There has been no worsening in that
time, so I believe that patient can continue to operative [sic] the
same types of vehicles at this time and for the foreseeable future.''
Mr. Roberts reported that he has driven straight trucks for 18 years,
accumulating 140,400 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from California. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Michael R. Tipton

    Mr. Tipton, 61, has had macular atrophy in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/30, and in his left
eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated,
``In summery Mr. Tipton in my opinion is more than able to meet the
requirements visually for operation of a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Tipton reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 15
years, accumulating 20,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

III. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the
Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
put the docket number FMCSA-2016-0025 in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box in the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by
mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after
the close of the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert the docket number FMCSA-2016-0025 in the ``Keyword'' box and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: April 5, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-08358 Filed 4-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: July 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 43927]
[DOCID:fr29jy08-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1281-000]

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Filing

July 22, 2008.
    Take notice that on July 21, 2008, the New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. tendered for filing its Exigent Circumstances Filing
Requesting Authority to Amend its Tariffs to Preclude the Scheduling of
Certain External Transactions, Requesting Prospective Limited Tariff
Waivers, Seeking Expedited Commission Act, Requesting Shortened Notice
and Comment Periods and Contingent Request for Consideration Under
Section 206 of the Federal Power Act.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions 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 or intervention 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 August 1, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-17280 Filed 7-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8986-8989]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3509]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1176]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this proposed
rule is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed
regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream
and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs
are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is
required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in
order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once
finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents in those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before May 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1176, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500
C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for
each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations
are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging
receipt of any comments will not be sent.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

    2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                feet  (NAVD)
                                                                  Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced       ground  [caret]        Communities affected
                                            elevation **          Elevation in meters
                                                                         (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Dearborn County, Indiana, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Miami River...................  Approximately 0.23 mile         +489         +490  City of Greendale,
                                       upstream of the Ohio                               Unincorporated Areas
                                       River confluence.                                  of Dearborn County.
                                      Approximately 5.07              +489         +490
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Ohio River confluence.
Ohio River..........................  Approximately 0.65 mile         +487         +486  City of Aurora, City of
                                       upstream of the                                    Lawrenceburg,
                                       Laughery Creek                                     Unincorporated Areas
                                       confluence.                                        of Dearborn County.
                                      Approximately 1.25              +489         +488
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Tanners Creek
                                       confluence.
Tanners Creek.......................  Approximately 0.46 mile         +488         +489  City of Greendale, City
                                       downstream of U.S.                                 of Lawrenceburg,
                                       Route 50.                                          Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Dearborn County.
                                      Approximately 2.07              None         +489
                                       miles upstream of
                                       Conrail.
Wilson Creek........................  At the Ohio River               +488         +487  City of Aurora,
                                       confluence.                                        Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Dearborn County.
                                      Approximately 0.35              +488         +487
                                       miles upstream of
                                       Wilson Creek Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Aurora
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 3rd and Main Streets, Aurora, IN 47001.

City of Greendale
Maps are available for inspection at the Utilities Office, 510 Ridge Avenue, Greendale, IN 47025.

City of Lawrenceburg
Maps are available for inspection at the Administration Building, 230 Walnut Street, Lawrenceburg, IN 47025.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Dearborn County
Maps are available for inspection at the Dearborn County Administration Building, 215B West High Street,
 Lawrenceburg, IN 47025.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Greene County, Indiana, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beehunter Ditch.....................  Approximately 245 feet          None         +480  City of Linton,
                                       downstream of Baseline                             Unincorporated Areas
                                       Road.                                              of Greene County.
                                      Approximately 450 feet          None         +508
                                       upstream of Fairview
                                       Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.

[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Linton
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 86 South Main Street, Linton, IN 47441.

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Greene County
Maps are available for inspection at the Greene County Courthouse, 1 East Main Street, Bloomfield, IN 47424.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 King County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black River.........................  Approximately 330 feet           +18          +12  City of Renton, City of
                                       downstream of Oaksdale                             Tukwila.
                                       Avenue Southwest.
                                      At the Green River               +23          +24
                                       confluence.
Cedar River.........................  At the upstream side of          +19          +24  City of Renton,
                                       North Boeing Bridge.                               Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of King County.
                                      Approximately 350 feet          None         +528
                                       upstream of Landsburg
                                       Road Southeast.
Green River.........................  Approximately 250 feet           +15          +16  City of Auburn, City of
                                       upstream of 42nd                                   Kent, City of Renton,
                                       Avenue South.                                      City of SeaTac, City
                                                                                of Tukwila,
                                                                                Muckleshoot Tribe,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of King County.
                                      Approximately 1.8 miles         None         +229
                                       upstream of Southeast
                                       Flaming Geyser Road.
Kelsey Creek........................  At the upstream side of          +27          +29  City of Bellevue.
                                       I-405.
                                      At the upstream side of         +253         +252
                                       Northeast 8th Street.
Mill Creek (Auburn).................  Approximately 125 feet           +46          +45  City of Auburn, City of
                                       downstream of West                                 Kent, Unincorporated
                                       Valley Highway.                                    Areas of King County.
                                      Approximately 1,500              +46          +47
                                       feet upstream of State
                                       Route 167.
Mill Creek (Kent)...................  At the Springbrook               +21          +26  City of Kent.
                                       Creek confluence.
                                      Approximately 133 feet           +41          +42
                                       downstream of East
                                       Smith Street.
Richards Creek......................  At the Kelsey Creek              +27          +33  City of Bellevue.
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 752 feet           +32          +33
                                       upstream of Richards
                                       Road.
Southwest 23rd Street Drainage        At the Springbrook              None          +20  City of Renton.
 Channel.                              Creek confluence.
                                      Approximately 170 feet          None          +21
                                       upstream of East
                                       Valley Road.
Springbrook Creek...................  At the upstream side of          +19          +10  City of Kent, City of
                                       Black River Pump                                   Renton.
                                       Station.
                                      Approximately 0.32 mile          +37          +40
                                       upstream of South
                                       228th Street.
West Tributary to Kelsey Creek......  At the Kelsey Creek              +30          +33  City of Bellevue.
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 320 feet           +51          +52
                                       downstream of
                                       Northeast 1st Street.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Auburn

Maps are available for inspection at 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001.

City of Bellevue
Maps are available for inspection at 450 110th Avenue Northeast, Bellevue, WA 98009.

City of Kent
Maps are available for inspection at 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032.

City of Renton
Maps are available for inspection at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.

City of SeaTac
Maps are available for inspection at 4800 South 188th Street, SeaTac, WA 98188.

City of Tukwila
Maps are available for inspection at 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188.

Muckleshoot Tribe
Maps are available for inspection at 39015 172nd Avenue Southeast, Auburn, WA 98092.

                                       Unincorporated Areas of King County
Maps are available for inspection at 900 Oaksdale Avenue Southwest, Renton, WA 98057.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: February 7, 2011.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-3509 Filed 2-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES 05 MAR 2004 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Cypermethrin. HED Response to Error Only Registrant Comments on the Cypermethrin Preliminary RED and Supporting Documents, PC Code 109702; DP Barcode D298690.

From: William H. Donovan, Ph. D., Chemist Pamela M. Hurley, Ph. D., Toxicologist Reregistration Branch 3 Health Effects Division [ 7509C]

Through: Catherine Eiden, Branch Chief Reregistration Branch 3 Health Effects Division [ 7509C]

To: Mark Seaton, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch 2 Special Review and Reregistration Division [ 7508C]

FMC Corporation, Syngenta, and United Phosphorus, Inc. have provided error only comments for the cypermethrin preliminary RED and supporting documents ( HIARC report, dietary exposure analysis, and ORE chapter). Many of the comments concern the omission of zetacypermethrin from the ORE chapter and risk assessment document. HED concurs that zetacypermethrin should be included for the residential exposure assessment. However, revision of the ORE chapter, the short and intermediate term aggregate risk tables, and overall risk assessment document to include zeta cypermethrin will require significant effort and thus will be forthcoming in a separate document. For the purposes of the present memo, HED will provide updated acute and chronic DWLOC tables, and a point by point response to each comment concerning the dietary exposure analysis and the HIARC report. . HED responses to comments on the dietary exposure analysis for cypermethrin and zetacypermethrin

1. Spelling corrections and isomer concentrations will be added.

2. Section II   Residue information, first paragraph, last sentence. This sentence will be modified to read as follows: " For crops registered for use with both cypermethrin and zeta cypermethrin, no attempt was made to combine residues from separate treatments because of label restrictions that limit the maximum seasonal total of cypermethrin plus zeta cypermethrin to equal the maximum seasonal total for cypermethrin use alone."

3. Attachment 1. Point of clarification noted. However, since the analysis made use of the highest % CT value from either cypermethrin or zeta cypermethrin data, no impact on the analysis results.

4. Section II   Table 1. The processing factors for tomato paste and puree will be corrected as requested.

5. Section II   Table 3. Acute and chronic anticipated dietary burdens of cypermethrin and zetacypermethrin from feed commodities. A. Alfalfa hay. Data from the zeta cypermethrin alfalfa field trials are now included in the determination of the maximum and average alfalfa hay residue levels used in the dietary burden computation. To account for the different use rates in the cypermethrin and zeta cypermethrin field trials, all cypermethrin residue levels were divided by a factor of two while the zetacypermethrin data were used directly. Inclusion of the 6 zeta cypermethrin field trials results in an increase in the maximum residue level from 16.4 to 18.3 ppm and an increase in the average residue level from 7.25 to 7.68 ppm. B. Sweet corn forage. Data from the cypermethrin sweet corn field trials are now included in the determination of the maximum and average sweet corn forage residue levels used in the dietary burden computation. To account for the different use rates in the cypermethrin and zetacypermethrin field trials, all cypermethrin residue levels were divided by a factor of two while the zeta cypermethrin data were used directly. Inclusion of the 10 cypermethrin field trials results in no change for the maximum residue level and an increase in the average residue level from 2.93 to 3.34 ppm. C. As a result of the changes from 5A and 5B above, the acute anticipated dietary burden for beef and dairy cattle has increased from 15.1 to 15.6 ppm, while the chronic anticipated dietary burden for beef and dairy cattle has increased from 4.72 to 5.18 ppm.

6. Section II   Table 4. Range of cypermethrin residues ( ppm) found in cow milk and tissue samples. A. This table provides the maximum residue levels ( for use in acute analysis) and average residue levels ( for use in chronic analysis). B. Residue levels for whole milk were taken from MRID 432780 02.

7. Section II   Table 5. Acute anticipated residues in cattle. .

3 The updated anticipated dietary burden level discussed in 5A above has been incorporated into Table 5 along with the recalculated acute anticipated residue levels for cattle commodities.

8. Section II   Table 6. Chronic anticipated residues in cattle. A. The updated anticipated dietary burden level discussed in 5C above has been incorporated into Table 6 along with the recalculated chronic anticipated residue levels for cattle commodities. B. No reason was provided to support the request to change the muscle and kidney Residue in Tissue levels to 0.009 ppm. However, to alleviate concerns the registrants may have about using residue data measured at the 5 ppm dosing level, HED will instead use the residue data from the 15 ppm dosing level for muscle and kidney. This change will also be made for swine in Table 13.

9. Section II   Table 9. Cypermethrin Levels in Poultry Tissue and Eggs. A. HED concurs that the average fat value for the 2 ppm dose is < 0.010 ppm, and this change will be made. B. The capitalized footnotes will be changed to lower case letters. Also, the footnote superscript will be changed from " 3" to " c".

10. Section II   Table 11. Chronic anticipated residues in poultry. To alleviate concerns about the poultry fat residue level at the 2 ppm dosing level, HED will make use of the poultry fat residue level determined at the 20 ppm dosing level. Using this value, HED notes that no change results in the chronic anticipated residue level for poultry fat ( 0.00012 ppm).

11. Section II   Table 12. Acute anticipated residues in Swine. HED concurs with the registrants about the proper residue levels for muscle and fat. These levels will be updated in Table 12 and incorporated in a revised DEEM FCID run.

12. Section II   Table 13. Chronic anticipated residues in Swine. HED concurs that the average value for muscle and kidney may be used in the determination of the chronic anticipated residue values for swine. To alleviate concerns about residue levels at the 5 ppm dosing level, HED will make use of the residue levels from the 15 ppm dosing level. Consequently, these values will be updated in Table 13 and incorporated in a revised DEEMFCID run.

13. Section II   Table 14. Data and Residue Estimates Used in Dietary Analysis. A. HED will update the anticipated residue values as appropriate in Table 14. B & C. Although the registrant has correctly identified the crop subgroups for head lettuce, radicchio, and Chinese cabbage bok choy, Table 14 is not intended to be arranged strictly by crop subgroup. Instead, Table 14 followed the grouping recommendations given in HED SOP 99.3 dated 3/ 26/ 1999, which specifically addresses how HED should translate monitoring data. See Attachment 1 for a copy of this SOP. Thus, no changes to the data translations involving head lettuce, radicchio or Chinese cabbage bok choy are appropriate.

14. Sections V, VI, & VII. Update the exposure numbers to reflect the requested changes to the anticipated residue levels. .

4 Section VI contains no exposure values. HED will update the exposure numbers as appropriate in Sections V & VII to match the changes already noted above.

15. Use of DEEM software The DEEM FCID software program was used to evaluate the dietary exposures because this was the software used by EPA for dietary analysis at the time of the analysis ( 15 SEP 2003). HED is now in the process of switching to the Lifeline software package. However, experience has shown that similar exposure estimates are obtained from DEEM and Lifeline when using the same input data. In light of these findings, HED has determined that the dietary exposure estimates would not change appreciably by using Lifeline and that a compelling reason justifying this extra work has not been provided.

16. Over estimation of % Crop Treated, as shown in Table 14. HED concurs that the 100% CT estimate for tomato is an overestimate. It was used because no estimate from BEAD was available at the time of the analysis. BEAD has recently provided an estimate for cypermethrin/ zeta cypermethrin use in/ on tomatoes of 1% and 2% for average and maximum percent crop treated, respectively ( email message of 2/ 11/ 04 from A. Halvorson to W. Donovan). These revised % CT estimates for tomato will be used in updated DEEM FCID analyses.

After incorporating all the suggested changes as discussed above, the updated DEEM FCID results are listed below for the acute and chronic analyses:

Table 1. Results of Revised Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis of Cypermethrin/ zeta Cypermethrin Population Subgroup aPAD ( mg/ kg/ day) 95th Percentile 99th Percentile 99.9th Percentile Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % aPAD Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % aPAD Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % aPAD General U. S. Population 0.01 0.000322 3.2 0.000856 8.6 0.002600 26 All Infants (< 1 year old) 0.01 0.000431 4.3 0.000990 9.9 0.005644 56 Children 1 2 years old 0.01 0.001179 12 0.003141 31 0.006084 61 Children 3 5 years old 0.01 0.000896 9.0 0.001924 19 0.003687 37 Children 6 12 years old 0.01 0.000554 5.5 0.001249 12 0.002293 23 Youth 13 19 years old 0.01 0.000313 3.1 0.000705 7.1 0.001675 17 Adults 20 49 years old 0.01 0.000258 2.6 0.000536 5.4 0.001383 14 Females 13 49 years old 0.01 0.000243 2.4 0.000535 5.4 0.001415 14 Adults 50+ years old 0.01 0.000226 2.3 0.000471 4.7 0.001397 14 .

5 Table 2. Results of Revised Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis for Cypermethrin/ zeta Cypermethrin Population Subgroup cPAD ( mg/ kg/ day) Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD General U. S. Population 0.006 0.000043 0.7 All Infants (< 1 year old) 0.006 0.000049 0.8 Children 1 2 years old 0.006 0.000095 1.6 Children 3 5 years old 0.006 0.000083 1.4 Children 6 12 years old 0.006 0.000057 0.9 Youth 13 19 years old 0.006 0.000038 0.6 Adults 20 49 years old 0.006 0.000037 0.6 Females 13 49 years old 0.006 0.000035 0.6 Adults 50+ years old 0.006 0.000034 0.6 The above changes will be incorporated into the risk assessment document. These changes should address all the dietary and residue chemistry concerns raised during the error only comment period, except for Comment # 50 questioning the derivation of the theoretical dietary burden values used for tolerance setting purposes. These values were presented in the cypermethrin residue chemistry chapter of the RED [ D289422, W. Donovan, 25 SEP 2003], Tables 1 & 3. Because these values were used for tolerance setting purposes, they were computed assuming tolerance level residues for the listed feed commodities.

With the updated dietary exposure values now in hand together with updated estimated environmental concentrations ( EECs) for cypermethrin and zeta cypermethrin ( D298661, J. L. Melendez, 17 FEB 2004), HED is now able to update the acute and chronic DWLOC calculations from the risk assessment document. These updated tables are provided below. Once the ORE revisions are completed, the short and intermediate term aggregate risk and DWLOC tables will also be updated. .

6 Table 5.1.1 Acute DWLOC Calculations.

Population Subgroup aPAD mg/ kg/ day Food Exp mg/ kg/ day Max Water Exp mg/ kg/ daya Ground Water EEC (: g/ L) Surface Water EEC (: g/ L) DWLOC ( µ g/ L) b General U. S. Population 0.01 0.002600 0.007400 0.006 4 260 All Infants (< 1 year old) 0.005644 0.004356 44 Children 1 2 years old 0.006084 0.003916 39 Children 3 5 years old 0.003687 0.006313 63 Children 6 12 years old 0.002293 0.007707 77 Youth 13 19 years old 0.001675 0.008325 250 Adults 20 49 years old 0.001383 0.008617 300 Females 13 49 years old 0.001415 0.008585 260 Adults 50+ years old 0.001397 0.008603 300 a Maximum water exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) = [( acute ( mg/ kg/ day)  food exposure ( mg/ kg/ day)] b DWLOC( µ g/ L) = [ maximum water exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) x body weight ( kg)] ÷ [ water consumption ( L) x 10 3 mg/ µ g]. Consumption = 1 L/ day for populations < 13 years old and 2 L/ day for populations $ 13 years old. Default body weights = 70 kg for males > 20 years old and general U. S. population, 60 kg for females $ 13 years old and youths 13 19 years old, and 10 kg for all others. Values are rounded to 2 significant figures.

Table 5.3.1 Chronic DWLOC Calculations.

Population Subgroup cPAD mg/ kg/ day Food Exp mg/ kg/ day Max Water Exp mg/ kg/ daya Ground Water EEC (: g/ L) Surface Water EEC (: g/ L) DWLOC ( µ g/ L) b General U. S. Population 0.006 0.000043 0.005957 0.006 0.43 210 All Infants (< 1 year old) 0.000049 0.005951 60 Children 1 2 years old 0.000095 0.005905 59 Children 3 5 years old 0.000083 0.005917 59 Children 6 12 years old 0.000057 0.005943 59 Youth 13 19 years old 0.000038 0.005962 180 Adults 20 49 years old 0.000037 0.005963 210 Females 13 49 years old 0.000035 0.005965 180 Adults 50+ years old 0.000034 0.005966 210 a Maximum water exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) = [( chronic PAD ( mg/ kg/ day)  food exposure ( mg/ kg/ day)] b DWLOC( µ g/ L) = [ maximum water exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) x body weight ( kg)] ÷ [ water consumption ( L) x 10 3 mg/ µ g]. Consumption = 1 L/ day for populations < 13 years old and 2 L/ day for populations $ 13 years old. Default body weights = 70 kg for males > 20 years old and general U. S. population, 60 kg for females $ 13 years old and youths 13 19 years old, and 10 kg for all others. Values are rounded to 2 significant figures. .

7 HED responses to Draft RED for cypermethrin and Zeta Cypermethrin: Comments ( Error only) Concerning Mammalian Toxicology and Hazard End point Selection 1. Discrepancy between the HIARC report and HED risk assessment document concerning the required margin of exposure for long term residential inhalation exposure.

The correct value for this quantity is 3000 as listed in the risk assessment document. The HIARC report will be updated to harmonize with the risk assessment on this matter.

2. Section II. 2 of HIARC document contains a grammatical/ typographical error in the 5th sentence of page 16.

HED concurs that this sentence is not clear. Consequently, the entire paragraph will be replaced with the following text:

" In 1997, the HIARC selected the chronic dietary endpoint for zeta cypermethrin from a chronic oral study in the dog conducted with cypermethrin. In that study, the test article was administered in corn oil via capsules. The NOAEL was 1 mg/ kg/ day based on an increased incidence of loose stools, starting on the first week of the study at 5 mg/ kg/ day. Since 1997, a chronic feeding study in the dog was conducted with cypermethrin. The current HIARC determined that the new chronic feeding study is more appropriate for the chronic dietary endpoint because dietary exposure is more relevant for the anticipated exposure to humans and the gastrointestinal effects in the capsule dog study may be due to focal exposure ( bolus dose with corn oil). Although no chronic oral studies have been conducted with zeta cypermethrin, the chronic dietary endpoint selected from a study conducted with cypermethrin is expected to be protective of chronic dietary exposure to zeta cypermethrin. This conclusion is based on a comparison of the results from the multi generation reproduction studies conducted with both zeta cypermethrin and cypermethrin. The parental NOAEL and LOAEL for the 2 generation reproduction study conducted with zeta cypermethrin are 7 and 27 mg/ kg/ day, respectively. These values are comparable to the parental NOAEL ( 7.5 mg/ kg/ day) and LOAEL ( 50/ 37.5 mg/ kg/ day) observed with the acceptable rat reproduction study conducted with cypermethrin. The NOAEL/ LOAEL ( 7.5/ 75 mg/ kg/ day) in the chronic rat study conducted with cypermethrin provide additional support to the critical study selected for the chronic dietary endpoint. In addition, the A target organ @

( clinical signs of neurotoxicity) is of particular relevance to pyrethroid toxicity."

3. Comments pertaining to the developmental neurotoxicity ( DNT) data requirement for cypermethrin.

HED will change the first paragraph of the DNT section in the HIARC report ( page 12) to read as follows: .

8 " The HIARC concluded that there is a concern for developmental neurotoxicity resulting from exposure to zeta cypermethrin and cypermethrin. On November 16 and December 19, 2000, HIARC recommended that a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats be conducted. Zeta cypermethrin was chosen as the preferred test compound since it produced neurotoxic effects at lower doses in both the acute and subchronic mammalian neurotoxicity studies than cypermethrin. Using this test compound will most likely result in a NOAEL/ LOAEL that is protective of any effects noted in a study with cypermethrin, thus negating the need for two studies, one on each chemical. The recommendation to conduct a developmental neurotoxicity study with zetacypermethrin is based on the following considerations:"

In addition to the above text, the following text will replace the existing data gap/ requirements section of the HIARC report ( page 27):

" Cypermethrin Developmental neurotoxicity study ( 83 6, 870.6300). This requirement may be fulfilled by a developmental neurotoxicity study conducted using zetacypermethrin

cc: W. Donovan, C. Eiden, P. Hurley RDI: C. Eiden ( 3/ 5/ 04) . ATTACHMENT 1. SOP 99.3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: March 26, 1999 SUBJECT: Translation of Monitoring Data. HED Standard Operating Procedure 99.3 ( 3/ 26/ 99)

FROM: Margaret Stasikowski, Director Health Effects Division TO: Health Effects Division Staff Attached is SOP 99.3   " Translation of Monitoring Data." This is the latest HED Standard Operating Procedure; it was issued on March 26, 1999.

This policy provides guidance on translating pesticide monitoring data from one commodity to other similar commodities. The policy is based on the crop groupings in the 40 CFR 180.41, and 180.34.

If you have any questions, please contact Sue Hummel ( 305 7689) or William Hazel ( 305 7677).

Attachment: HED SOP 99.3 ( 2 pp.) . HED SOP 99.3 Translation of Monitoring Data ( March 26, 1999) 1 The Health Effects Division has had a long standing policy in which composite USDA Pesticide Data Program ( PDP) or FDA data can be used in chronic risk assessments. This policy also extended to use of composite USDA PDP ( or FDA) data for blended commodities such as grains, most juices, oils, etc. in acute risk assessments. The Division has now recently proposed a policy for the use of certain composite USDA PDP monitoring data for non blended commodities in acute Monte Carlo assessments when a statistical " decompositing" is performed. This latter policy would allow more widespread use of USDA PDP data in our acute exposure and risk assessments.

In addition, the Division also now permits USDA PDP residue data on certain crops to be translated to other similar crops when certain conditions are met. This translation can be performed whenever it is appropriate to use PDP monitoring data in a chronic or acute risk assessment ( as indicated above). This SOP details these translation criteria and should be consulted whenever PDP data are available and appropriate for use in chronic and acute risk assessments. The translation criteria are primarily based on the crop grouping schemes detailed in 40 CFR 180.41, which should be consulted for a complete listing of crops that can be translated.*

Table 1 on the following page presents the crops for which the Division permits translation. This table is largely based on crop groups and crop subgroups. Generally ( but see below), residue data from crops in the first column can be translated to those crops listed in the second column. Only in case by case situations should reverse translations from crops in the second column to those in the first be performed. In many cases crops in the second column are consumed with less frequency and/ or in lower quantities than those in the first column and translations in this direction ( e. g., from rhubarb to spinach) would potentially subject exposure estimates to substantially greater uncertainty. This SOP focuses on crops PDP has analyzed. In the event additional crops are analyzed, HED, via ChemSAC, will address the extent of translation possible. Usually, the crop group/ sub group scheme at 40 CFR 180.41 will serve as a guide.

In the translation process, the reviewer also should be aware of the food form being analyzed. The PDP also has collected samples of processed ( cooked and frozen) vegetables in addition to raw agricultural commodities.

In addition, the reviewer should take special note of the requirement that the use scenarios be similar among translatable commodities. The mode of application ( e. g., foliar, preplant) should be the same. The label application rates and preharvest intervals should be similar. The percent of crop treated also should be similar ( or lower for the crop in the " translated to" column). All residues of concern should be measured or accounted for including conjugates. Tolerances and field trial residues are to be similar, as well. The reviewer should check with the Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( BEAD) to ensure that use scenarios are similar and that agricultural practices do not differ substantially.

For example, if the use rate on potatoes is 2 lbs ai/ A with a label specified preharvest . HED SOP 99.3 Translation of Monitoring Data ( March 26, 1999) 2 interval of 14 days while the use rate for sweet potato is 4 lbs ai/ A with a 7 day PHI, it would be inappropriate to use PDP data for potatoes as a surrogate for sweet potato.

* For detailed descriptions of each crop within the crop groups, see G. Markle, J. Baron, and B. A. Schneider, Food and Feed Crops of the United States, Second Edition, Meister Publishing, Willoughby, OH, 1998. . HED SOP 99.3 Translation of Monitoring Data ( March 26, 1999) 3 Table 1. Permissible Crop Translations for Pesticide Monitoring Data1 Commo dity Analyze d ... Commodity translated to... Comments Potato Subgroup 1 C Carrot Subgroup 1 A or 1 C Head Lettuce Cabbage, Chinese cabbage napa ( tight headed varieties), Brussels sprouts, radicchio All have a head morphology best represented by lettuce. All are in Subgroup 5 A except radicchio ( 4 A).

Broccoli Cauliflower, Chinese broccoli, Chinese cabbage bok choy, Chinese mustard, kohlrabi Broccoli better represents these heading, thickly stemmed and/ or more branching cole crops than spinach does.

Spinach Subgroup 4 A, Subgroup 5 B and Subgroup 4 B ( except celery and fennel unless a strong case can be made) Celery and fennel typically are excluded since residues may be higher in these crops due to the whorled, overlapping petioles which may retain spray residues.

Green Bean Subgroups 6 A and 6 B Soybean Subgroup 6 C Tomato or bell pepper Group 8 All are fruiting vegetables2.

Cucumb er Subgroup 9 B All are cucurbit vegetables; residues in melon and pumpkin expected to be lower because of removal of rind Cantalou pe or Winter squash Subgroup 9 A and pumpkin Orange Group 10 Fruit will be peeled before analysis by PDP.

Apple or Pear Group 11 All are pome fruits. . HED SOP 99.3 Translation of Monitoring Data ( March 26, 1999) 4 Peach Group 12, except cherries ( sweet and tart) All are stone fruits.

Grape Kiwifruit Based on similar cultural practices.

Wheat Group 15, except corn, rice, or wild rice All are small grain crops or closely related thereto Milk Meat Metabolism study must indicate that residues in meat, fat, and meat byproducts will likely be equal to or lower than residues in milk. If dermal use is allowed on beef cattle, then it must be permitted and used on dairy cattle as well.

1 The reviewer should take special note of the requirement that the use scenarios be similar among translatable commodities. The mode of application ( e. g., foliar, preplant) should be the same. The label application rates and preharvest intervals should be similar. The percent of crop treated also should be similar ( or lower for the crop in the " translated to" column). All residues of concern should be measured or accounted for including conjugates. Tolerances and field trial residues are to be similar, as well. The reviewer should also check with the Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( BEAD) to insure that use scenarios are similar, and that agricultural practices do not differ substantially. 2 The reviewer should be careful in checking for comparable residue levels because of weight differences in tomatoes and peppers.