[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36044-36049]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15317]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1197]

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 September 19, 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-1197, 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)
                                       Location of referenced     Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)                 elevation **       ground [caret] Elevation    Communities affected
                                                                    in meters (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Kane County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Rock Creek......................  Approximately 1.68              None         +648  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       miles downstream of                                Kane County, Village
                                       Jericho Road (at the                               of Big Rock.
                                       Kendall County
                                       boundary).
                                      Approximately 1.0 mile          None         +689
                                       upstream of Price Road
                                       (at the West Branch
                                       Big Rock Creek and
                                       East Branch Big Rock
                                       Creek confluence).
Duffin Drain........................  At the Sugar Grove              None         +678  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Branch confluence.                                 Kane County, Village
                                                                                of Big Rock, Village
                                                                                of Sugar Grove.
                                      At the downstream side          None         +702
                                       of Wheeler Road.
East Branch Big Rock Creek..........  At the Big Rock Creek           None         +689  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       confluence.                                        Kane County, Village
                                                                                of Big Rock.
                                      At the Malgren Drain            None         +709
                                       confluence.
East Branch Big Rock Creek..........  At the upstream side of         None         +779  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Owens Road.                                        Kane County.
                                      At the East Branch Big          None         +810
                                       Rock Creek Tributary 2
                                       confluence.
East Branch Big Rock Creek Tributary  At the East Branch Big          None         +810  Unincorporated Areas of
 2.                                    Rock Creek confluence.                             Kane County.
                                      Approximately 0.47              None         +846
                                       miles upstream of
                                       Keslinger Road.
Malgren Drain.......................  At the East Branch Big          None         +709  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Rock Creek confluence.                             Kane County, Village
                                                                                of Big Rock.
                                      At the downstream side          None         +741
                                       of Swan Road.
Sugar Grove Branch..................  At the Welch Creek              None         +677  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       confluence.                                        Kane County.
                                      Approximately 1,150             None         +680
                                       feet downstream of
                                       Fay's Lane.
Welch Creek.........................  At the Big Rock Creek           None         +665  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       confluence.                                        Kane County, Village
                                                                                of Big Rock, Village
                                                                                of Sugar Grove.
                                      At the downstream side          None         +813
                                       of Keslinger Road.
West Branch Big Rock Creek..........  At the Big Rock Creek           None         +689  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       confluence.                                        Kane County.
                                      At the downstream side          None         +720
                                       of U.S. Route 30.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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

                                       Unincorporated Areas of Kane County
Maps are available for inspection at the Kane County Government Center, Building A, 719 Batavia Avenue, Geneva,
 IL 60134.

Village of Big Rock
Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 408 Rhodes Street, Big Rock, IL 60511.

Village of Sugar Grove
Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 10 Municipal Drive, Sugar Grove, IL 60554.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Osceola County, Michigan (All Jurisdictions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hersey River........................  Approximately 125 feet          +960         +961  Township of Hersey,
                                       upstream of the                                    Village of Hersey.
                                       Muskegon River
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 750 feet          +960         +961
                                       upstream of the
                                       Muskegon River
                                       confluence.
Muskegon River......................  Approximately 1,500             None         +959  Township of Hersey.
                                       feet downstream of 4th
                                       Street.
                                      Approximately 1,565             None         +962
                                       feet upstream of 4th
                                       Street.
Muskegon River......................  At the upstream side of         None         +992  Township of Evart.
                                       Main Street.
                                      Approximately 0.4 miles         None         +993
                                       upstream of Main
                                       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

Township of Evart
Maps are available for inspection at the Township Hall, 327 South Main Street, Evart, MI 49631.

Township of Hersey
Maps are available for inspection at the Township Hall, 108 South Main Street, Hersey, MI 49639.

Village of Hersey
Maps are available for inspection at the Hersey Township Hall, 108 South Main Street, Hersey, MI 49639.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Laurens County, South Carolina, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beards Creek........................  Approximately 170 feet          None         +447  City of Clinton,
                                       downstream of Little                               Unincorporated Areas
                                       Acres Road.                                        of Laurens County.
                                      Approximately 490 feet          None         +564
                                       upstream of Brook Road.
Burnt Mill Creek....................  At the Little River             None         +501  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       confluence.                                        Laurens County.
                                      Approximately 1,750             None         +558
                                       feet upstream of State
                                       Route 127.
Burnt Mill Creek Tributary 16.......  At the Burnt Mill Creek         None         +583  City of Laurens,
                                       confluence.                                        Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Laurens County.
                                      Approximately 1.0 mile          None         +658
                                       upstream of the Burnt
                                       Mill Creek confluence.
Burnt Mill Creek Tributary 21.......  At the Burnt Mill Creek         None         +586  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       confluence.                                        Laurens County.
                                      Approximately 1,735             None         +620
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Strickland Avenue.
Burnt Mill Creek Tributary 5........  Approximately 0.5 mile          None         +514  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       downstream of Roper                                Laurens County.
                                       Road.
                                      Approximately 1.9 miles         None         +596
                                       upstream of Roper Road.
Burnt Mill Creek Tributary 9........  At the Burnt Mill Creek         None         +530  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       confluence.                                        Laurens County.
                                      Approximately 1.4 miles         None         +637
                                       upstream of Easy Road.
Burnt Mill Creek Tributary 9.2.2      At the Burnt Mill Creek         None         +582  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Tributary 9 confluence.                            Laurens County.
                                      Approximately 1.0 mile          None         +632
                                       upstream of the Burnt
                                       Mill Creek Tributary 9
                                       confluence.
Bush River..........................  At the downstream side          None         +509  City of Clinton,
                                       of State Route 560.                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Laurens County.
                                      Approximately 1.9 miles         None         +629
                                       upstream of State
                                       Route 72.

Cane Creek..........................  Approximately 2.2 miles         None         +442  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       downstream of State                                Laurens County.
                                       Route 72.
                                      Approximately 3.8 miles         None         +529
                                       upstream of Harris
                                       Springs Road.
Lake Greenwood......................  Entire shoreline within         None         +442  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       community.                                         Laurens County.
Little River........................  Approximately 1,075             None         +496  City of Laurens,
                                       feet upstream of                                   Unincorporated Areas
                                       Holmes Bridge Road.                                of Laurens County.
                                      Approximately 1.0 mile          None         +606
                                       upstream of Ghost
                                       Creek Road.
Little River Tributary 1............  At the Little River             +545         +542  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       confluence.                                        Laurens County.
                                      Approximately 1,850             +545         +544
                                       feet upstream of the
                                       Little River
                                       confluence.
Little River Tributary 2............  At the Little River             +555         +551  City of Laurens.
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 495 feet          +555         +554
                                       upstream of River
                                       Street.
Little River Tributary 25...........  At the Little River             None         +508  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       confluence.                                        Laurens County.
                                      Approximately 1.0 mile          None         +537
                                       upstream of the Little
                                       River confluence.
Little River Tributary 28...........  At the Little River             None         +519  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       confluence.                                        Laurens County.
                                      Approximately 0.8 mile          None         +540
                                       upstream of the Little
                                       River confluence.
Little River Tributary 3............  At the Little River             +568         +563  City of Laurens.
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 0.5 mile          +568         +567
                                       upstream of the Little
                                       River confluence.
Little River Tributary 31...........  At the Little River             None         +530  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       confluence.                                        Laurens County.
                                      Approximately 0.8 mile          None         +547
                                       upstream of East Jerry
                                       Road.
Little River Tributary 37...........  At the Little River             None         +544  City of Laurens.
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 1,190             None         +609
                                       feet upstream of East
                                       Farley Avenue.
Reedy Fork Creek....................  At the Little River             +565         +558  City of Laurens.
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 715 feet          +571         +570
                                       downstream of Anderson
                                       Drive.
Saluda River........................  Approximately 3.9 miles         None         +448  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       downstream of U.S.                                 Laurens County.
                                       Route 25.
                                      Approximately 230 feet          None         +531
                                       upstream of U.S.
                                       Business Route 25.
Scout Branch........................  Approximately 310 feet          None         +641  City of Laurens.
                                       upstream of Pamela
                                       Lane.
                                      Approximately 0.6 mile          None         +670
                                       upstream of Pamela
                                       Lane.
Shell Creek.........................  Approximately 1,330             None         +541  City of Clinton,
                                       feet upstream of the                               Unincorporated Areas
                                       Bush River confluence.                             of Laurens County.
                                      Approximately 1,060             None         +607
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Springdale Drive.
South Durbin Creek..................  Approximately 1,500             None         +743  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       feet downstream of                                 Laurens County.
                                       Boyd Street.
                                      Approximately 675 feet          None         +749
                                       downstream of Boyd
                                       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 Clinton
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 211 North Broad Street, Clinton, SC 29325.

City of Laurens
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 126 East Public Square, Laurens, SC 29360.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Laurens County
Maps are available for inspection at the Laurens County Courthouse, 3 Catherine Street, Laurens, SC 29360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Pennington County, South Dakota, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead Creek.....................  At the Rapid Creek             +3317        +3318  City of Rapid City.
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 408 feet          None        +3490
                                       upstream of Summerset
                                       Drive.
Box Elder Creek through Box Elder...  Approximately 0.8 mile          None        +2994  City of Box Elder,
                                       downstream of 151st                                Unincorporated Areas
                                       Avenue.                                            of Pennington County.
                                      At the downstream side          None        +3085
                                       of 146th Avenue
                                       (Bennett Road).
Box Elder Creek through Box Elder     At the Box Elder Creek          None        +3039  City of Box Elder,
 Overflow.                             confluence.                                        Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Pennington County.
                                      At the Box Elder Creek          None        +3082
                                       divergence.
East Tributary to Box Elder Creek...  At the North Tributary          None        +2998  City of Box Elder,
                                       to Box Elder Creek                                 Unincorporated Areas
                                       confluence.                                        of Pennington County.
                                      Approximately 515 feet          None        +3168
                                       upstream of G Avenue.
Ellsworth AFB Alert Apron Drainage..  At the Box Elder Creek          None        +3056  City of Box Elder,
                                       through Box Elder                                  Unincorporated Areas
                                       Overflow confluence.                               of Pennington County.
                                      Approximately 1.0 mile          None        +3186
                                       upstream of Kenney
                                       Road.
Ellsworth AFB West Drainage Basin...  At the Box Elder Creek          None        +3071  City of Box Elder,
                                       through Box Elder                                  Unincorporated Areas
                                       Overflow confluence.                               of Pennington County.
                                      At the downstream side          None        +3156
                                       of 225th Street.
Haines Avenue Drainage Basin........  At the Rapid Creek              None        +3213  City of Rapid City.
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 340 feet          None        +3285
                                       upstream of Curtis
                                       Street.
Meade-Hawthorne Drainage Basin......  At the Rapid Creek              None        +3141  City of Rapid City.
                                       confluence.
                                      At the downstream side          None        +3236
                                       of Saint Anne Street.
North Tributary to Box Elder Creek..  At the Box Elder Creek         +2999        +2994  City of Box Elder,
                                       confluence.                                        Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Pennington County.
                                      Approximately 540 feet          None        +3117
                                       upstream of 225th
                                       Street.
Northwest Tributary to Box Elder      At the North Tributary         +3047        +3045  City of Box Elder,
 Creek.                                to Box Elder Creek                                 Unincorporated Areas
                                       confluence.                                        of Pennington County.
                                      Approximately 280 feet          None        +3255
                                       upstream of 225th
                                       Street.
Rapid Creek through Silver City.....  At the Pactola                  None        +4593  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Reservoir confluence.                              Pennington County.
                                      Approximately 2.7 miles         None        +4667
                                       upstream of the
                                       Pactola Reservoir
                                       confluence.
Red Rock Canyon.....................  At the Rapid Creek             +3378        +3375  City of Rapid City,
                                       confluence.                                        Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Pennington County.
                                      Approximately 1.0 mile          None        +3545
                                       upstream of Red Rock
                                       Canyon Road.
Robinsdale Drain....................  At the Southeast               +3170        +3172  City of Rapid City.
                                       Drainage Basin
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 220 feet          None        +3340
                                       upstream of 5th Street.
South Canyon Creek..................  At the Lime Creek               None        +3334  City of Rapid City,
                                       confluence.                                        Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Pennington County.
                                      Approximately 1,030             None        +3571
                                       feet upstream of Nemo
                                       Road.
Southeast Drainage Basin............  At the Rapid Creek              None        +3133  City of Rapid City,
                                       confluence.                                        Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Pennington County.
                                      Approximately 1,180             None        +3223
                                       feet upstream of Old
                                       Folsom Road.
Tributary 1 to East Tributary to Box  At the East Tributary           None        +3077  City of Box Elder.
 Elder Creek.                          to Box Elder Creek
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 0.5 mile          None        +3153
                                       upstream of the East
                                       Tributary to Box Elder
                                       Creek confluence.

Truck Bypass........................  At the Southeast                None        +3213  City of Rapid City,
                                       Drainage Basin                                     Unincorporated Areas
                                       confluence.                                        of Pennington County.
                                      Approximately 1,870             None        +3310
                                       feet upstream of State
                                       Highway 16.
West Tributary to Box Elder Creek...  At the East Tributary          +3026        +3025  City of Box Elder,
                                       to Box Elder Creek                                 Unincorporated Areas
                                       confluence.                                        of Pennington County.
                                      Approximately 700 feet          None        +3130
                                       upstream of Kenney
                                       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 Box Elder
Maps are available for inspection at 520 North Ellsworth Road, Suite 9C, Box Elder, SD 57719.

City of Rapid City
Maps are available for inspection at 300 6th Street, Rapid City, SD 57701.

                                    Unincorporated Areas of Pennington County
Maps are available for inspection at 832 Saint Joseph Street, Rapid City, SD 57701.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: June 10, 2011.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-15317 Filed 6-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44375-44376]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15983]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2421-000]

SR DeSoto I, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
SR DeSoto I, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214

of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 9, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 20, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15983 Filed 7-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 38192]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16303]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No., IN13-15-000]

BP America Inc., BP Corporation North America Inc., BP America
Production Company, and BP Energy Company; Notice of Designation of
Commission Staff as Non-Decisional

    With respect to orders issued by the Commission on August 5, 2013
and May 15, 2014 in the above-captioned docket, with the exceptions
noted below, the staff of the Office of Enforcement are designated as
non-decisional in deliberations by the Commission in this docket.
Accordingly, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2202 (2014), they will not serve as
advisors to the Commission or take part in the Commission's review of
any offer of settlement. Likewise, as non-decisional staff, pursuant to
18 CFR 385.2201 (2014), they are prohibited from communicating with
advisory staff concerning any deliberations in this docket.
    Exceptions to this designation as non-decisional are:

James Owens
Timothy Helwick
Shawn Bennett
Jill Davis
Sebastian Krynski
Grace Kwon

    Dated: June 25, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16303 Filed 7-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 176)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52603-52607]
[DOCID:fr10se08-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0262; FRL-8379-8]

Spiromesifen; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation revises the tolerances for combined residues
of spiromesifen and its enol metabolite in or on corn. Bayer
CropScience requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 10, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 10, 2008,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0262. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amer Al-Mudallal, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: al-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of This Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations
at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0262 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178
on or before November 10, 2008.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0262, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28461) (FRL-8361-6),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 7F7274)
by Bayer CropScience, P. O. Box 12014, 2 T. W. Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.607 be amended by increasing tolerances for combined residues of
the insecticide/miticide spiromesifen in or on corn, field, forage from
3.0 ppm to 6.0 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available to
the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised

the tolerances for combined residues of spiromesifen in or on corn,
field, forage and in/on corn, field, stover. For more details, see Unit
IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to amend a tolerance
(the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only
if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for combined residues of spiromesifen and its enol
metabolite on corn, field, forage at 5.0 ppm and corn, field, stover at
8.0 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
establishing tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by spiromesifen as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document Spiromesifen HED Risk Assessment for
Use on Field Corn and Tomatoes, pages 13-20 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2008-0262.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the Level of Concern (LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles, EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for spiromesifen used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
document Spiromesifen HED Risk Assessment for Use on Field Corn and
Tomatoes, page 21 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0262.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to spiromesifen, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing spiromesifen tolerances in (40
CFR 180.607). EPA assessed dietary exposures from spiromesifen in food
as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
spiromesifen; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software
with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\), which
incorporates food consumption data as reported by respondents in the
USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII), and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each
commodity. The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure
assessments:
    a. Established/recommended tolerances for all plant and livestock
except the leafy-green and leafy-Brassica vegetable subgroups;
    b. EPA calculated residues of concern (parent and metabolites) for
the leafy-green and leafy-Brassica vegetable subgroup;
    c. 100 Percent Crop Treated (PCT) information for all proposed and
existing uses; and
    d. DEEM\TM\ Version 7.81 default processing factors for all
commodities. The metabolism studies show that the hydroxymethyl
metabolite is formed along with the enol metabolite only in the leafy-
green and leafy-Brassica vegetable subgroups. EPA determined that these
two metabolites along with spiromesifen should be included in the
chronic dietary risk assessment for these crops. Residue data are
unavailable for the 4-hydroxymethyl metabolite; to account for this
metabolite in the risk assessment, the recommended tolerance levels for
these crops was multiplied by a correction factor of 1.3X, where 1.3 =
metabolites in risk assessment (ppm)/metabolites in tolerance
expression (ppm).
    iii. Cancer. A cancer exposure assessment was not performed because
spiromesifen is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans.''
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT

information in the dietary assessment for spiromesifen. Tolerance level
residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for spiromesifen in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of spiromesifen. Further information regarding EPA's
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
spiromesifen for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 11 ppb for surface water and 28 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model.
    For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of
value 28 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Spiromesifen is not registered for any specific use patterns that
would result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found spiromesifen to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and spiromesifen does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
spiromesifen does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to in utero prenatal or
postpostnatal exposure to spiromesifen In a rat developmental toxicity
study, no developmental toxicity was observed at doses up to 500
milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) (the highest dose tested (HDT)) in
the presence of maternal toxicity. The rat maternal LOAEL was
determined to be 70 mg/kg/day based on decreased body-weight gain and
reduced food consumption. In the rabbit developmental toxicity study,
there was no developmental toxicity observed at doses up to 250 mg/kg/
day (the HDT), but the maternal LOAEL was determined to be 35 mg/kg/day
based on body weight loss and reduced food consumption. There is no
qualitative and/or quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility to
spiromesifen following prenatal/postnatal exposure in a 2-generation
reproduction study in rats. There is no concern for developmental
neurotoxicity resulting from exposure to spiromesifen. Neurotoxic
effects such as reduced motility, spastic gait, increased reactivity,
tremors, clonic-tonic convulsions, reduced activity, labored breathing,
vocalization, avoidance reaction, piloerection, limp, cyanosis,
squatted posture, and salivation were observed in two studies (5-day
inhalation and subchronic oral rat). However, these effects were
considered as secondary, not neurotoxic, effects due to the high
dosage. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in the acute or
subchronic neurotoxicity or any other studies.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
     There is a complete toxicity database for spiromesifen.
     There is no evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or
rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure in developmental studies, nor
following prenatal or postnatal exposure by rats in the 2-generation
reproduction study.
     There are no neurotoxicity concerns based on acute and
sub-chronic neurotoxicity studies.
     The dietary food exposure assessment uses proposed
tolerance levels or higher residues for most commodities and assumed
100% crop-treated information for all commodities. By using these
screening-level assessment, chronic exposures and risks will not be
underestimated. The ``higher residues'' are those that were calculated
using a modifying factor to account for the lack of spiromesifen-4-
hydroxymethyl residue data.
     The dietary drinking water assessment (Tier 2 estimates)
uses values generated by model and associated modeling parameters which
are designed to provide conservative, health protective, and high-end
estimates of water concentrations.
     Residential exposure is not expected as spiromesifen is
registered for agricultural and greenhouse/ornamental uses only.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single-oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
spiromesifen is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
spiromesifen from food and water will utilize 43% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old and children 3-5 years old, the population group
receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for
spiromesifen.
    3. Short-term risk. Spiromesifen is not registered for any use
patterns that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the
short-term aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from exposure to
spiromesifen through food and water and will not be greater than the
chronic aggregate risk.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Spiromesifen is not registered for any
use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential
exposure. Therefore, the intermediate-term aggregate risk is the sum of
the risk from exposure to spiromesifen through food and water, which
has already been addressed, and will not be greater than the chronic
aggregate risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. There is no evidence
that spiromesifen is carcinogenic to humans; therefore, a dietary
cancer assessment is not required.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to spiromesifen residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC)/triple stage quadruple mass spectrometry (MS/MS)
method, is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method
may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There are no established Codex Maximum Residue Levels for the
proposed use of spiromesifen on corn, field.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the tolerance levels for residues of spiromesifen on corn,
field, forage and corn, field, stover. EPA determined that the
appropriate tolerance level for residues of spiromesifen in or on corn,
field, forage is 5.0 ppm. EPA also determined that it is appropriate to
increase the tolerance level in or on corn, field, stover from 5.0 ppm
to 8.0 ppm. EPA revised these tolerance levels based on analyses of the
residue field trial data using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet in
accordance with the Agency's Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances
Based on Field Trial Data.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of
spiromesifen, in or on corn, field, at 5.0 ppm for forage and 8.0 ppm
for stover.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule revises tolerances under section 408(d) of FFDCA in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 29, 2008.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
 Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.607 is amended by revising the following entries in the

table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.607  Spiromesifen; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Corn, field, forage..................................                5.0
                                * * * * *
Corn, field, stover..................................                8.0
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-20873 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


December 13, 2006

To address request for clarification, corrections/additions have been
made to the comments issued by the California Carrot Board and the
California Tomato Commission regarding the metam sodium
(EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0125 and 1,3-dichloropropene (EPA-HQ-2005-0124) risk
assessments.

The 1,3 dichloropropene products Telone II and Telone C-17 are both
highly efficacious for the control of nematodes in the soil.  Metam
sodium is also highly efficacious for the control of weeds, diseases,
and nematodes.  However, 1,3 dichloropropene is more difficult to use
than metam sodium due to higher expenses to use it and the numerous
restrictions that apply to its use in California.


[Federal Register: November 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 216)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63107]
[DOCID:fr08no07-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05-07-107]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Tar River, Washington, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
US17-264 Bridge, at mile 37.2, across Tar River at Washington, NC. This
deviation allows the drawbridge to remain closed to navigation to
facilitate sandblasting and painting operations.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on November 15, 2007 to
7 a.m. on May 15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for
inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District,
Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-
5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Commander (dpb),
Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this
temporary deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill H. Brazier, Bridge Management
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The US17-264 Bridge, a swing-type bridge,
has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of six feet,
above mean high water.
    The contractor, on behalf of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (the bridge owner), has requested a temporary deviation
from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.831 to
close the swing bridge to navigation to facilitate sandblasting,
cleaning and painting of the bridge.
    To facilitate this operation, the US17-264 Bridge will be
maintained in the closed-to-navigation position beginning at 7 a.m. on
November 15, 2007, until and including 7 a.m. on May 15, 2008. In
addition, the work requires installation of a platform the full length
of the swing span portion of bridge reducing the available vertical
clearance by approximately two feet.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
    We have analyzed this temporary deviation under Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management
Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4370f). The environmental impact that this temporary deviation will
have is minimal because of the drawbridge being closed to vessels to
perform routine repair and maintenance will not result in a change in
functional use, or an impact on a historically significant element or
setting.

    Dated: October 25, 2007.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7-21883 Filed 11-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


<EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  >

<EPA Registration Division contact: [P.V Shah;<PHONE_NUMBER>]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.>

<TEMPLATE:>

<[Technology Sciences Group Inc.]>

<[IN-10622Insert petition number]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ( ) from [Technology Sciences
Group Inc.], [1150 18th Street NW Suite 1000, Washington DC] proposing,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.>

<(Options (pick one)>

<	>

<	 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for>

<	coco alkyl dimethyl amines

] EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry [This information is not available, nor required
for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]>

<	1. Plant metabolism. [NA-Remove]>

<	2. Analytical method. [NA-Remove]>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. [NA-Remove]>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  [The oral LD50 in rats was determined to be
between 1000 and 1300 mg/kg for females.> An acute dermal toxicity assay
performed on the coco alkyl dimethyl amines was reported in rabbits. The
LD50 was determined to be 4.29 mL/kg bw, equivalent to 3385 mg/kg bw.
No studies of acute inhalation toxicity were identified for coco alkyl
dimethyl amines. An LC50 of >0.6 mg/L was derived in rats for the
structurally similar hydroxylated amine.  The LC50 of >0.6 mg/L places
this compound into acute inhalation toxicity Category III. Coco alkyl
dimethyl amines were corrosive to rabbit skin.
N,N-dimethyl-1-hexadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-1-tetradecanamine, and
N,N-dimethyl-1-tetradecanamine are compounds that constitute coco alkyl
dimethyl amines. All three of these compounds were irritating to rabbit
eyes.]

<	2. Genotoxicity. [ Ames assays were reported on three dimethyl alkyl
amines that together comprise a large percentage of coco alkyl dimethyl
amines. There was no evidence of mutagenicity under the conditions of
this study for any of the three compounds.

An in vivo mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test of a commercial
product containing ~ 70 % C12-, 25 % C12-14- and 5 %
C16-dimethylalkylamine) was conducted. Significant increases in the
percentage of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes in treated mice
were not found. ]

>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [A
reproductive/developmental toxicity screening study (OECD TG 421) of
N,N-dimethyl-1-dodecanamine (CAS #112-18-5) was conducted in rats.
Animals received gavage doses of 0, 50, 150, 300, or 450 mg/kg bw/day of
the test compound for 14 days prior to mating, 14 days during mating,
and for females, during pregnancy and lactation.  One male and two
females from the highest dose group died by day 5 and this group was
discontinued. In the 300 mg/kg bw group, one male and six females died
and only one pup was born alive. At the 150 mg/kg bw dose, two dams died
and two dams did not deliver pups. The mean post-implantation loss was
significantly higher than the controls (50.4% vs. 13.3%) and the mean
viability index was significantly lower (36.9 % vs. 99.3%).The birth
weight of male pups was significantly lower than that of controls.
Maternal behavior was also affected, as evidenced by an unsevered
umbilical cord, cannibalization, and lack of care of pups.  No
reproductive or developmental effects were observed in the absence of
maternal toxicity. The NOAEL for systemic toxicity and for
reproductive/developmental toxicity was determined to be 50 mg/kg
bw/day.]

>

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. [A repeat dose study in rats conducted
according to OECD Test Guideline 407 was carried out on
N,N-dimethyl-1-dodecanamine. Animals received gavage doses of 0, 50,
150, or 300 mg/kg bw/day N,N-dimethyl-1-dodecanamine for 28 days.  At
the highest dose, three of five females died; nothing significant was
observed in the histopathology exams of these animals. At the middle
dose, animals displayed mild adverse behavior, including snout rubbing,
but no effects on body weight, food consumption, hematology, clinical
biochemistry, urinalysis or organ weights. A NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day was
determined in this study.]

>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. [Chronic studies are not available for coco alkyl
dimethyl amines]>

<	6. Animal metabolism. [Studies specific to the metabolic pathway or
other toxicokinetic properties of coco alkyl dimethyl amines in mammals
were not identified in a search of the literature. The primary metabolic
pathway of coco alkyl dimethyl amines is proposed based on its
characteristic molecular structure and known metabolic pathways for
structurally similar compounds. In mammals, hepatic dealkylation readily
occurs with secondary and tertiary amines with the methyl groups leaving
preferentially. Oxidation of the alpha carbon via cytochrome P450, forms
a carbinolamine intermediate that will spontaneously cleave to form a
secondary amine and carbonyl compound. Subsequent dealkylation of the
secondary amine will take place at a slower rate]>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. [No metabolites of toxicological concern
have been identified.]>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. [Toxicity related to endocrine disruption was
not observed in the currently available database and the recent OECD 421
testing.]>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. [Concentrations will be less than 0.5% in food
use applications of coco alkyl dimethyl amine.  As a result, humans may
be exposed to very low residue levels through the diet from food and
water.] >

<	i. Food. [Exposure to residues in food are not anticipated to be of
toxicological concern because the coco alkyl dimethyl amine biodegrades
readily in the environment after application, and is of low general
toxicity. Estimated dietary exposure was  based on the assumption that
the inert  will be used in all agricultural pesticides at a proposed
limit of 0.5% of the  spray volume. The highest exposed subpopulation
was children age 1-2 years old, which had an estimated average exposure
of 0.0186 mg/kg/day, while the estimated average exposure of the general
population was 0.00496 mg/kg/day. Thus, potential dietary exposure will
be low and toxicity is generally low, such that a safety finding can be
concluded for exposures via the diet.] >

<	ii. Drinking water. [Exposure via drinking water is not expected to be
significant.  Exposure via the drinking water was estimated assuming a
concentration of 100 ppb.  This estimated exposure via drinking water
did not contribute significantly to the overall dietary exposure.  Thus,
potential drinking water exposure will be low, such that a safety
finding for coco alkyl dimethyl amine can be concluded for exposures via
the drinking water and the diet combined.]>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. [Workers may experience dermal exposure
during application of pesticide products if personal protective clothing
is not worn. Humans may also be exposed through the use of non-food use
pesticidal products. Concentrations of coco alkyl dimethyl amine are
less than 1.0% and dermal exposure will be limited by the irritation
potential of the ingredient. Systemic toxicity of coco alkyl dimethyl
amine is low.  Thus, a safety finding for coco alkyl dimethyl amine  can
be concluded for non-dietary exposures.] >

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	[There are no available data or other reliable information that
suggests that any toxic effects produced by coco alkyl dimethyl amine
would be cumulative with those of any other chemical compounds. Coco
alkyl dimethyl mine does not appear to produce toxic metabolites in
common with other substances. It is assumed that coco alkyl dimethyl
amine does not share a common mechanism of toxicity with other
pesticidal substances.]>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. [There is a reasonable certainty that no harm to
humans will result from the use of coco alkyl dimethyl amine as an inert
ingredient in pesticide products. The main effects of oral exposure to
coco alkyl dimethyl amine are behavioral effects and developmental
toxicity at maternally toxic dose levels . A NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day
following both 28-day repeat dose testing and developmental/reproductive
toxicity screening was used to derive the Reference Dose. Intraspecies
and interspecies uncertainty factors were combined for a total
uncertainty factor of 100.  For the total US population, the estimated
chronic dietary exposure from food and drinking water for coco alkyl
dimethyl amine, calculated as 0.5% of all agricultural formulations, is
1.0% of RfD.] >

<	2. Infants and children. [A developmental/reproductive toxicity
screening study n rats demonstrates that slight developmental effects
occurred only at maternally toxic doses. An RfD of 0.5 mg/kg/day was
derived for coco alkyl dimethyl amine. The estimated chronic dietary
exposure from food and drinking water was highest (3.7% of RfD) for
children aged 1 to 2 years old.]>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	[NA-Remove]>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 15971]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6616]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-120-000]

Liberty Gas Storage, LLC and LA Storage, LLC; Notice of Joint
Application for Abandonment and Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity

    Take notice that on March 4, 2011, Liberty Gas Storage, LLC
(Liberty) and LA Storage, LLC (LA Storage) filed with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a joint application under
section 7 for (i) Authorization from the Commission pursuant to section
7(b) of the NGA for Liberty to abandon by transfer certain facilities
to LA Storage; (ii) a certificate of public convenience and necessity
pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA for LA Storage to acquire, own and
operate such facilities; (iii) authorization for LA Storage to charge
market-based rates for the storage and hub services it will provide;
(iv) a blanket construction certificate issued to LA Storage under
Subpart F of Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations; and (v) a
blanket transportation certificate issued to LA Storage under Subpart G
of Part 284 of the Commission's regulations.
    Questions regarding the joint application may be directed to
William Rapp, Counsel for Liberty and LA Storage, 101 Ash Street, San
Diego, CA 92101; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
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 7 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: April 5, 2011.

    Dated: March 15, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6616 Filed 3-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 10632-10634]
[DOCID:fr11mr09-154]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59495; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-052]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Adoption of FINRA Rule 2140 (Interfering With the
Transfer of Customer Accounts in the Context of Employment Disputes) in
the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

March 3, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On October 29, 2008, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
[``NASD'']) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-FINRA-2008-052 pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\
Notice of the proposal was published in the Federal Register on January
27, 2009.\2\ No comment letters were received. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is

granting approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59253 (January 15,
2009), 74 FR 4792.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The proposed rule change adopts without material change NASD
Interpretive Material 2110-7 (IM-2110-7) (Interfering With the Transfer
of Customer Accounts in the Context of Employment Disputes) as a FINRA
rule in the consolidated FINRA rulebook.

(1) Purpose

    As part of the process of developing the new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\3\ FINRA is proposing to adopt
without material change NASD IM-2110-7 as a FINRA rule in the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. The proposed rule change would renumber
NASD IM-2110-7 as FINRA Rule 2140 in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The current Consolidated FINRA Rulebook includes, in
addition to FINRA Rules, (1) NASD Rules and (2) rules incorporated
from NYSE (``Incorporated NYSE Rules'') (until the completion of the
rulebook consolidation process, the FINRA rulebook includes NASD
Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules, together referred to as the
``Transitional Rulebook''), in addition to the new consolidated
FINRA Rules). While the NASD Rules generally apply to all FINRA
members, the Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to those members of
FINRA that are also members of the NYSE (``Dual Members''). For more
information about the rulebook consolidation process, see FINRA
Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Background
    NASD IM-2110-7 provides that it shall be inconsistent with just and
equitable principles of trade for a member or person associated with a
member \4\ to interfere with a customer's request to transfer his or
her account in connection with the change in employment of the
customer's registered representative provided that the account is not
subject to any lien for monies owed by the customer or other bona fide
claim. Prohibited interference includes, but is not limited to, seeking
a judicial order or decree that would bar or restrict the submission,
delivery, or acceptance of a written request from a customer to
transfer his or her account.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``person associated with a member'' includes, among
others, registered representatives. See FINRA By-Laws, Article I,
Paragraph (rr).
    \5\ IM-2110-7 further states that nothing in the Interpretation
shall affect the operation of NASD Rule 11870 (Customer Account
Transfer Contracts). Generally, Rule 11870 addresses the transfer of
securities account assets from one member to another member in
connection with a customer request. FINRA intends to review NASD
Rule 11870 and related interpretive materials as part of a later
phase in the rulebook consolidation process. Note that the
Commission has approved FINRA's proposed rule change to rescind, as
duplicative of Rule 11870 Incorporated NYSE Rule 412 and its
Interpretation. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58533
(September 12, 2008), 73 FR 54652 (September 22, 2008) [File No. SR-
FINRA-2008-036].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA adopted IM-2110-7 to address the practice of delaying
customer account transfers.\6\ In adopting IM-2110-7, FINRA noted in a
Notice to Members that, when a registered representative leaves his or
her firm for a position at a different firm, clients serviced by the
registered representative may decide to continue their relationship
with the registered representative by transferring their accounts to
the registered representative's new firm. FINRA expressed concern that
the registered representative's former firm, concerned that its former
employee may have breached his or her employment contract by sharing
client information with the new firm or by soliciting clients to
transfer their accounts to the new firm, sometimes would seek a court
order to prevent the transfer of accounts. FINRA noted that in a prior
Notice to Members it had already alerted members that unnecessary
delays in transferring customer accounts, including delays accompanied
by attempts to persuade customers not to transfer their accounts, are
inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade.\7\ FINRA
stated that obtaining court orders to prevent customers from following
a registered representative to a different firm is similar to the
unfair practice of delaying transfers that the prior Notice had warned
about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NASD Notice to Members 02-07 (January 2002) (Interfering
With Customer Account Transfers); see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 45239 (January 4, 2002), 67 FR 1790 (January 14, 2002)
[File No. SR-NASD-2001-95].
    \7\ NASD Notice to Members 79-7 (February 1979) (Fair Treatment
of Customer Accounts); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
15194 (September 28, 1978) (Notice to Broker-Dealers Concerning Fair
Treatment of Customer Accounts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting IM-2110-7, FINRA further stated that the Interpretive
Material does not affect the ability of member firms to use employment
agreements to prevent former representatives from soliciting firm
customers. Members are not prevented from pursuing other remedies they
may have arising from employment disputes with former registered
representatives. Rather, IM-2110-7 is limited to restricting a member
from interfering with a customer's right to transfer his or her account
once the customer has asked the firm to move the account.
(B) Proposal
    FINRA believes that NASD IM-2110-7 is consistent with the goal of
investor protection and serves the public interest. FINRA proposes to
transfer NASD IM-2110-7 with only minor changes into the Consolidated
FINRA Rulebook. Specifically, IM-2110-7 would be recodified with
conforming revisions as a stand-alone FINRA rule rather than as
interpretive material to NASD Rule 2110 (Standards of Commercial Honor
and Principles of Trade).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The exact revised text of IM-2100-8 is attached as Exhibit 5
to the proposed rule change and is available at http://
www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2008/P117330.
Similarly, FINRA has transferred NASD Rule 2110 to the Consolidated
FINRA Rulebook without change as FINRA Rule 2010. Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58643 (September 25, 2008), 73 FR 57174
(October 1, 2008) [File No. SR-FINRA-2008-028].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than ninety days
following Commission approval.

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\9\
which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change is an
interpretation to an existing rule of NASD that is being adopted
without material change to the FINRA rulebook. The proposed rule change
should continue to protect investors and the public interest by
addressing interference with the transfer of customer accounts in the
context of employment disputes between registered representatives and
their former firms. For these reasons, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \10\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-

FINRA-2008-052) be and hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5212 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P