Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US

02/29/2008 01:33 PM

To

Bruce Schillo/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Douglas
Solomon/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Erika Sasser/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet
Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken Adler/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin
Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Rob Brenner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron
Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott
Mathias/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tyler Fox/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia
Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Allen Basala/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy
Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charles Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Cynthia
Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David
Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Elizabeth Kopits/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim
Ketcham-Colwill/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken Davidson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry
Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lillian Bradley/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark
Corrales/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal
Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Norm Possiel/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Pat
Dolwick/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rich Mason/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Serpil
Kayin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Ozone Final RIA Chapters for Distribution to OMB (Detailed Table of
Contents, Ex Summ, Ch1  - Appendix 3)

Bruce,

    Here is the text and attachments for the review of the O3 NAAQS
Final RIA.  It should go to the following at OMB...

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Thanks,

Janet

_________________________________________________________________

Heidi,

Enclosed is a full version of the ozone NAAQS RIA.   This version is
complete, including the alternative baseline discussion.   It reflects
our characterization of the benefits and costs, recognizing that this
reflects the first time which you will have seen all the numbers
together.   As we indicated on the phone yesterday, EPA/OPEI is
reviewing this version concurrently with you, this leaves open the
possibility we will be coming to you with changes and corrections.
Additionally, contractors are making minor changes and concurrently
editing chapter section numbers and the detailed table of contents to
reflect recent changes.

We all are looking forward to the finalization of the rule and RIA on
3/12/08, one final push will get us there.

 Please do not hesitate to get in touch if you have questions or need
clarifications.

Thank you,

Ron Evans

High-level TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Executive Summary

Ch. 1	Introduction and Background

Ch. 2 	Characterizing Ozone and Modeling Tools Used in This Analysis

Appendix Ch. 2

Ch. 3	Modeled Control Strategy:  Design and Analytical Results

Appendix Ch. 3

Ch. 4	Approach for Estimating Reductions for Full Attainment Scenario

Ch. 5	Control Strategy Cost Estimates

Appendix Ch. 5

Ch. 6	Economic and Social Cost Estimates

Appendix Ch. 6

Ch. 7	Incremental Benefits of Attaining Alternative Ozone Standards
Relative to the Current 8-hour Standard

Appendix A Ch. 7

Appendix B Ch. 7 (will follow later)

Appendix C Ch. 7

Ch. 8	Discussion of Ozone Secondary Standard

Ch. 9	Conclusions and Implications of the Benefit-Cost Analysis

Appendix A Ch. 9 – Alternate Baseline

Appendix B Ch. 9 – San Joaquin and South Coast California Costs and
Benefits in 2030 (will follow early next week)

Ch. 10 	Statutory and Executive Order Impact Analysis

_______________________________________

Janet F. Cakir, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Benefits Cost Group

109 TW Alexander Dr., (C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7382-7384]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02743]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0074]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Grounded Tug and Barge, Deerfield Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for
certain navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean within a 1000 yard
radius of a grounded tug and barge, the SEA EAGLE, on Deerfield Beach
containing a cargo of national security interest. This action is
necessary to protect the cargo and surrounding waterway from terrorist
acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of
a similar nature. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) Miami.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from February 9,
2022, through 11:00 a.m. on February 11, 2022. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:00 p.m. on February 4,
2022, until February 9, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0074 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Omar Beceiro, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to protect
a cargo of national security interest, on board the grounded barge.
This vessel ran aground in the early morning hours of February 4, 2022,
and immediate action is needed to protect the vessel, it's cargo,
response personnel, and the waterway. It would be impracticable to
publish an NPRM because we must establish this security zone by
February 4, 2022.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
protect the cargo of national security interest, the vessel, response
personnel, and the waterway.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The COTP Miami has determined a cargo of national security
interest is on board the grounded tug and barge, and the cargo presents
a potential target for terrorist acts, sabotage, or other subversive
acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. This security
zone is needed to protect the cargo of national security interest,
response personnel, the vessel, and the surrounding waterway, until the
tug and barge is refloated or cargo removed.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a security zone from 12:00 p.m. on February
4, 2022 to 11:00 a.m. on February 11, 2022. The security zone will
cover all navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean within 1000 yards of
the grounded tug and barge. The duration of the zone is intended to
protect a cargo of national security interest, response personnel, the
vessel, and surrounding waterway until the brage is refloated or cargo
removed. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security
zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and scope of the security zone. The zone is limited
in size, location, and duration as it will cover all navigable waters
of the Atlantic Ocean within 1000 yards of the grounded SEA EAGLE, and
will last only one week. The zone is limited in scope as vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this security zone and vessels
may seek permission from the COTP to enter the zone. Moreover, the
Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the security zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of

power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We
have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is
consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves an
emergency security zone lasting less than 7 days that will prohibit
entry within 1000 yards of the grounded tug and barge. This type of
action is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L60(c) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 1.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T07-0074 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0074  Security Zone; Grounded Tug and Barge, Deerfield
Beach, FL.

    (a) Locations. The following is a temporary security zone: All
waters of the Atlanic Ocean witin a 1000 yard radius of position
26[deg]19'13.94'' N, 080'4'25.68'' W. The coordinates are in NAD 83.
    (b) Definition. The term designated representative means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Miami in the enforcement of the security
zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) No person or vessel will be permitted to
enter, transit, anchor, or remain within the security zone unless
authorized by the COTP Miami or a designated representative. If
authorization is granted, persons and/or vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Miami or
designated representative.
    (2) Persons who must notify or request authorization from the COTP
may do so by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or may contact a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 12:00
p.m. on February 4, 2022, through 11:00 a.m. on February 11, 2022.

    Dated: February 4, 2022.
J.F. Burdian,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2022-02743 Filed 2-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23891-23898]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10435]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0266; FRL-8869-5]

Pyrasulfotole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes or revises tolerances for residues
of pyrasulfotole in or on grain sorghum, grass, and livestock
commodities. Bayer CropScience LLC requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 29, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 28, 2011, 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-2010-0266. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Stanton, 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<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 get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 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-2010-0266 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
June 28, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    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. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0266, 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. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of June 23, 2010 (75 FR 35801) (FRL-8831-
3), 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
9F7680) by Bayer CropScience LLC, 2 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide
pyrasulfotole, (5-hydroxy-1,3-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)[2-
(methylsulfonyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methanone, in or on sorghum,
grain at 0.8 parts per million (ppm); sorghum, forage at 1.2 ppm;
sorghum, stover at 0.35 ppm; grass, hay at 2.5 ppm; and grass, forage
at 10 ppm. The petition also requested that established tolerances in
40 CFR 180.631 for residues of pyrasulfotole on livestock commodities
be increased to the following levels: Cattle, goat, hog, sheep, horse,
meat at 0.04 ppm; cattle, goat, hog, sheep, horse, fat at 0.04 ppm;
cattle, goat, hog, sheep, horse, meat byproducts, except liver at 2
ppm; and cattle, goat, hog, sheep, horse, liver at 8 ppm. The petition
requested that the new and revised tolerances be established for
residues of pyrasulfotole, including its metabolites and degradates,
but that compliance with the specified tolerance levels be determined
by measuring only residues of pyrasulfotole, (5-hydroxy-1,3-dimethyl-
1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-[2-(methylsulfonyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-phenyl]-
methanone, and its desmethyl metabolite, (5-Hydroxy-3-methyl-1H-
pyrazol-4-yl)-[2-(methylsulfonyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl] methanone,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pyrasulfotole, in or on
the commodities. That notice referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Bayer CropScience LLC, the registrant, which is available
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 sorghum commodity terms and the proposed tolerances levels
for sorghum, grass; and livestock commodities. The reasons for these
changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish 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 pyrasulfotole including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyrasulfotole
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.
    Pyrasulfotole has low to moderate acute toxicity via the oral,
dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. It is not a dermal
sensitizer or skin irritant but has been shown to be a moderate eye
irritant.
    Chronic oral exposure of rats to pyrasulfotole resulted in
extensive eye toxicity at almost all doses tested. Eye effects included
corneal opacity, neovascularization of the cornea, inflammation of the
cornea, regenerative corneal hyperplasia, corneal atrophy, and/or
retinal atrophy. Ocular toxicity is believed to be an indirect result
of tyrosinemia caused by inhibition of hepatic HPPD (4-
hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase). In mice, ocular toxicity was not
observed at any dose, thereby reflecting accepted differences in
effects among rodent species for HPPD inhibitors. Long-term exposure of
mice to pyrasulfotole did cause toxicity of the urinary system,
including the kidney, urinary bladder, and ureters at the highest dose
tested (HDT), as well as gallstone formation at all doses tested. Dogs
treated with pyrasulfotole for 1 year exhibited toxicity of the urinary
system (kidneys and bladder) at mid and high doses, as well as
cataracts at a very low incidence at the HDT.
    In the combined chronic/carcinogenicity study in rats, two male
rats had rare treatment-related corneal tumors at the HDT (104/140
milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day), M/F)), a dose associated with
widespread corneal inflammation, hyperplasia, metaplasia,
neurovascularization and atrophy. In the mouse carcinogenicity study,
treatment-related urinary bladder transitional cell tumors were seen in
males and females only at the HDT (560/713 mg/kg/day, M/F). The
evidence from animal data is suggestive of carcinogenicity, which
raises a concern for carcinogenic effects but is judged not sufficient
for quantification of cancer risk in humans. In the case of
pyrasulfotole, cancer risk from dietary exposure is less of a concern
based on the following weight of evidence considerations:
     The incidence of ocular tumors was low (2/55), seen only
at the high dose, and was associated with widespread corneal
inflammation, hyperplasia, metaplasia, neurovascularization, and
atrophy;
     It is biologically plausible for corneal tumors to result
from a nongenotoxic mode of action that is secondary to corneal
inflammation and regenerative hyperplasia caused by tyrosine;
     The urinary bladder tumors in mice were seen only at the
high dose (one-half of the Limit Dose), which was determined to be an
excessive dose due to occurrence of death, bladder stones, and bladder
hyperplasia;
     Data from available toxicity studies showed dose and
temporal concordance among putative key events for the biological
plausibility for a nongenotoxic proliferative mechanism for the bladder
tumors. This was evidenced by the concurrent presence of secondary
inflammation and hyperplastic lesions in the urinary bladder induced by
the urinary stones;
     In both species tumors were observed only at the highest
dose tested (i.e., lack of dose-response);
     Pyrasulfotole and its benzoic metabolite, AE B197555, do
not pose a mutagenic concern; and
     The NOAEL of 1.0 mg/kg/day used for deriving the chronic
RfD is approximately 100- to 500-fold lower than the doses that induced
ocular tumors in rats (104 mg/kg/day) and urinary bladder tumors in
mice (560 mg/kg/day).
    Thus, for all these reasons, the Agency has determined that a non-
linear approach is adequate for assessing cancer risk and that the
chronic PAD (0.01 mg/kg/day) will adequately account for all chronic
effects, including carcinogenicity, likely to result from exposure to
the pyrasulfotole.
    Signs of potential neurotoxicity were observed in the acute
neurotoxicity study in rats (decreased locomotor activity on the day of
treatment), as well as in the rat subchronic neurotoxicity study (urine
staining in the high dose females during the Functional Observational
Battery) and rat developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study (decreased
brain weights, learning deficits, and the changes in brain
morphometry).
    In the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats, an increased
incidence of skeletal variations was observed in fetal offspring at the
mid dose, as was decreased fetal body weight in male offspring. Both
effects were observed in the presence of maternal toxicity (decreased
body weight gain, enlarged placenta, clinical signs) at the same dose.
In the DNT study in rats, ocular toxicity as well as several adverse
developmental effects (delayed preputial separation, morphometric
changes, and delays in learning/memory) were observed at the mid dose.
Ocular toxicity was also observed at this dose in maternal animals; an
identical NOAEL was established in both dams and offspring. In the
prenatal developmental toxicity study in rabbits, an increased
incidence of skeletal variations was observed in fetal offspring at the
mid dose. However, maternal toxicity (decreased body weight gain and
food consumption) was observed only at the next highest dose tested.
Therefore, increased quantitative susceptibility of offspring was
observed in the rabbit developmental toxicity study, but not in the
developmental toxicity or DNT studies in rats.
    In the 2-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats, ocular
toxicity (keratitis, corneal opacity and/or corneal
neovascularization), was observed at the mid and high doses in the
adults and offspring of 2-generations. Thyroid (colloid alteration,
pigment deposition) and kidney (tubular dilation) toxicity were
observed in adult animals of each generation. Colloid alteration and
pigment deposition were also observed in rats following short-term
dermal and chronic oral exposure of rats, although they were attributed
to aging in the latter case. At the highest dose tested, decreased
viability and decreased body weight were observed in offspring of both
generations. At the mid and/or high doses, delays in balanopreputial
separation (males) and vaginal patency (females) were observed in
first-generation offspring.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by pyrasulfotole as well as the NOAEL and the
lowest-observed-

adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
http://www.regulations.gov in the document ``Pyrasulfotole: Human-
Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Uses on Grain Sorghum and
Grass Grown for Seed,'' p. 30 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0266.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). 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 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 pyrasulfotole used for
human risk assessment is shown in the following Table:

  Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Pyrasulfotole for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Point of departure and
          Exposure/scenario               uncertainty/safety     RfD, PAD, LOC for risk  Study and toxicological
                                               factors                 assessment                effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations)......  NOAEL = 3.8 milligrams/  Acute RfD = 0.038 mg/kg/ Developmental
                                        kilograms/day (mg/kg/    day.                     neurotoxicity (rat;
                                        day).                   aPAD = 0.038 mg/kg/day.   dietary).
                                       UFA = 10x..............                           LOAEL = 37 mg/kg/day
                                       UFH = 10x..............                            based on delayed
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            preputial separation
                                                                                (males), decreased
                                                                                cerebrum length (PND
                                                                                21 females), and
                                                                                decreased cerebellum
                                                                                height (PND 21 males).
Chronic dietary (All populations)....  NOAEL= 1.0 mg/kg/day...  Chronic RfD = 0.01 mg/   Combined chronic
                                       UFA = 10x..............   kg/day.                  toxicity/
                                       UFH = 10x..............  cPAD = 0.01 mg/kg/day..   carcinogenicity (rat;
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            dietary).
                                                                                LOAEL = 10/14 mg/kg/day
                                                                                (M/F) based on corneal
                                                                                opacity,
                                                                                neovascularization of
                                                                                the cornea,
                                                                                inflammation of the
                                                                                cornea, regenerative
                                                                                corneal hyperplasia,
                                                                                corneal atrophy, and/
                                                                                or retinal atrophy
                                                                                (both sexes), and
                                                                                hepatocellular
                                                                                hypertrophy along with
                                                                                increased serum
                                                                                cholesterol (males).
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)....  Classification: ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential'' based
                                        on increased incidences of corneal tumors in male rats (oral
                                        carcinogenicity study) and urinary bladder tumors in male and female
                                        mice (oral carcinogenicity study).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
  of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. UFS = use of a short-term
  study for long-term risk assessment. UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other data deficiency. FQPA
  SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD =
  reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pyrasulfotole, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing pyrasulfotole
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.631. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
pyrasulfotole 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. Such effects were identified
for pyrasulfotole. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of
Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA
assumed that residues are present in all commodities at the tolerance
level and that 100% of commodities are treated with pyrasulfotole.
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) \TM\ 7.81 default
concentration factors were used to estimate residues of pyrasulfotole
in processed commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-
level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and used
DEEMTM 7.81 default concentration factors to estimate
residues of pyrasulfotole in processed commodities.
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
Cancer risk is quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If

sufficient information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available,
a threshold or non-linear approach is used and a cancer RfD is
calculated based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic
mode of action data are not available, or if the mode of action data
determines a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope
factor approach is utilized. Based on the data summarized in Unit
III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate
for assessing cancer risk to pyrasulfotole. Cancer risk was assessed
using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.,
chronic exposure.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for pyrasulfotole in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of pyrasulfotole. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of pyrasulfotole for
acute exposures are estimated to be 6.9 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 2.4 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for
non-cancer assessments the EDWCs are estimated to be 4.8 ppb for
surface water and 2.4 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 6.9 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 4.8 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). Pyrasulfotole 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.''
    Pyrasulfotole, mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and topramezone belong to
a class of herbicides that inhibit the liver enzyme HPPD, which is
involved in the catabolism (metabolic breakdown) of tyrosine (an amino
acid derived from proteins in the diet). Inhibition of HPPD can result
in elevated tyrosine levels in the blood, a condition called
tyrosinemia. HPPD-inhibiting herbicides have been found to cause a
number of toxicities in laboratory animal studies including ocular,
developmental, liver, and kidney effects. Of these toxicities, it is
the ocular effect (corneal opacity) that is highly correlated with the
elevated blood tyrosine levels. In fact, rats dosed with tyrosine alone
show ocular opacities similar to those seen with HPPD inhibitors.
Although the other toxicities may be associated with chemically-induced
tyrosinemia, other mechanisms may also be involved.
    There are marked differences among species in the ocular toxicity
associated with inhibition of HPPD. Ocular effects following treatment
with HPPD-inhibitor herbicides are seen in the rat but not in the
mouse. Monkeys also seem to be recalcitrant to the ocular toxicity
induced by HPPD inhibition. The explanation of this species-specific
response in ocular opacity is related to the species differences in the
clearance of tyrosine. A metabolic pathway exists to remove tyrosine
from the blood that involves a liver enzyme called tyrosine
aminotransferase (TAT). In contrast to rats where ocular toxicity is
observed following exposure to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides, mice and
humans are unlikely to achieve the levels of plasma tyrosine necessary
to produce ocular opacities, because the activity of TAT in these
species is much greater compared to rats. Thus, humans and mice have a
highly effective metabolic process for handling excess tyrosine.
    HPPD inhibitors (e.g., nitisinone) are used as effective
therapeutic agents to treat patients suffering from rare genetic
diseases of tyrosine catabolism. Treatment starts in childhood but is
often sustained throughout the patient's lifetime. The human experience
indicates that a therapeutic dose (1 mg/kg/day dose) of nitisinone has
an excellent safety record in infants, children, and adults and that
serious adverse health outcomes have not been observed in a population
followed for approximately a decade. Rarely, ocular effects are seen in
patients with high plasma tyrosine levels; however, these effects are
transient and can be readily reversed upon adherence to a restricted
protein diet. This indicates that an HPPD inhibitor in and of itself
cannot easily overwhelm the tyrosine-clearance mechanism in humans.
    Therefore, due to an efficient metabolic process to handle excess
tyrosine, exposure to environmental residues of HPPD-inhibiting
herbicides is unlikely to result in high blood levels of tyrosine and
ocular toxicity in humans; and EPA has concluded that a cumulative risk
assessment with other HPPD inhibitors is unnecessary. 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 Web site 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 Food Quality
Protection Act (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. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicity database for pyrasulfotole includes developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits, a DNT study in rats and a 2-generation
reproductive toxicity study in rats. As discussed in unit III.A, there
was quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility of fetal
offspring in the developmental toxicity study in rabbits. In this
study, an increased incidence of skeletal variations was observed in
fetal offspring at the mid dose; whereas maternal toxicity (decreased
body weight gain and food consumption) was observed only at the next
highest dose tested.
    The concern for increased susceptibility seen in the rabbit
developmental toxicity study is low because a) there is well
established developmental NOAEL in this study, b) the increased
susceptibility was not seen in the rat developmental toxicity study,
the DNT study in rats, or the 2-generation reproduction study in rats,

and c) the NOAEL of the study chosen for the chronic RfD (1 mg/kg/day)
is 10-fold lower than the NOAEL observed in the rabbit developmental
toxicity study.
    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:
    i. The toxicity database for pyrasulfotole is largely complete,
lacking only an immunotoxicity study. There is no evidence of potential
immunotoxicity (such as effects on the spleen or thymus, or increased
globulins) in the available toxicity studies for pyrasulfotole; and EPA
is using critical studies for the chronic and acute RfDs that have the
lowest NOAELs in the database for those exposure durations. Therefore,
EPA does not believe that conducting a functional immunotoxicity study
will result in a lower POD than that currently used for overall risk
assessment, and a database uncertainty factor (UFDB) is not
needed to account for lack of this study.
    ii. Although there were signs of neurotoxicity observed in the
acute, subchronic and developmental neurotoxicity studies, EPA's
concern for these effects is low. The critical study (developmental
neurotoxicity study in rats) chosen for the acute RfD has a well-
defined NOAEL that is 54-fold lower than the dose at which effects
(decreased locomotor activity on day 0) were seen in the acute
neurotoxicity study. The critical study (chronic toxicity/
carcinogenicity study in the rat) chosen for the chronic RfD also has a
well-defined NOAEL that is 42- and 37-fold lower than the doses at
which effects were observed in the subchronic and developmental
neurotoxicity studies, respectively. Therefore, EPA does not believe
that an additional uncertainty factor is needed to account for
neurotoxicity.
    iii. Although there is evidence of increased quantitative
susceptibility of in utero rabbits in the prenatal developmental
toxicity study, the degree of concern for developmental effects is low,
and EPA did not identify any residual uncertainties after establishing
toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in the risk
assessment of pyrasulfotole.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to pyrasulfotole in drinking water. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
pyrasulfotole.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer 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 appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to
pyrasulfotole will occupy 9% of the aPAD for children 1 to 2 years old,
the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
pyrasulfotole from food and water will utilize 16% of the cPAD for
children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for pyrasulfotole.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term
adverse effect was identified; however, pyrasulfotole is not registered
for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential
exposure. Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term residential
exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short-term
residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further
assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the
chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for
pyrasulfotole.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
pyrasulfotole is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
pyrasulfotole.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As explained in Unit
III.A, risk assessments based on the endpoint selected for chronic risk
assessment are considered to be protective of any potential
carcinogenic risk from exposure to pyrasulfotole. Based on the results
of the chronic risk assessment discussed above in Unit III.E.2, EPA
concludes that pyrasulfotole is not expected to pose a cancer risk.
    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 pyrasulfotole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. Bayer Method AI-001-P04-02 (a high-performance
liquid chromatography (HPLC)/mass spectrometry (MS)/MS method) is
available to enforce pyrasulfotole tolerances in plants. Bayer Method
AI-006-A08-01 (an HPLC-MS/MS method) is suitable as an enforcement
method for livestock commodities. The methods 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

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4).

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it
is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party.
EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL;
however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons
for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for pyrasulfotole on grain
sorghum, grass, or livestock commodities.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA has revised the sorghum commodity terms and the tolerance
levels for both sorghum and grass commodities. The sorghum commodity
terms have been revised (from ``sorghum, grain;'' sorghum, forage;''
and sorghum, stover'' to ``sorghum, grain, grain;'' ``sorghum, grain,
forage;'' and ``sorghum, grain, stover'') to agree with the accepted
terminology in the Agency's Food and Feed Vocabulary. The tolerance
levels for sorghum and grass commodities have been revised as follows
based on analysis of the field trial data using the Agency's NAFTA-
harmonized tolerance/MRL calculator in accordance with the Guidance for
Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data: Sorghum, grain,
grain from 0.8 ppm to 0.70 ppm; sorghum, grain, forage from 1.2 ppm to
1.5 ppm; sorghum, grain, stover from 0.35 ppm to 0.80 ppm; grass,
forage from 10 ppm to 25 ppm; and grass, hay from 2.5 ppm to 3.5 ppm.
    Based on the results of the cattle feeding study and the calculated
maximum reasonable dietary burden (MRDB) for cattle, EPA determined
that the existing tolerance of 0.02 ppm in or on the meat of cattle,
goat, horse, and sheep is adequate and need not be raised to 0.04 ppm,
as proposed; but that tolerances should be established for residues of
pyrasulfotole and its desmethyl metabolite in or on milk at 0.03 ppm
(no increase in the established tolerance of 0.01 ppm was proposed);
fat of cattle, goat, horse and sheep at 0.03 ppm (proposed at 0.04
ppm); liver of cattle, goat, horse, and sheep at 3.0 ppm (proposed at 8
ppm); and meat byproducts, except liver, of cattle, goat, horse, and
sheep at 0.70 ppm (proposed at 2 ppm).
    Based upon a MRDB for hogs, there is no reasonable expectation of
finding quantifiable residues of pyrasulfotole or its desmethyl
metabolite in hog muscle and fat; thus, the current tolerances of 0.02
ppm are adequate (proposed at 0.04 ppm). There is a reasonable
expectation of residues of pyrasulfotole and/or its desmethyl
metabolite in hog liver and kidney, and EPA has determined that
tolerances for these commodities should be set at the following levels:
hog, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.05 ppm (proposed at 2 ppm); and
hog, liver at 0.30 ppm (proposed at 8 ppm).
    The petitioner did not propose changes to the existing poultry
tolerances for pyrasulfotole; however, based on the results of the
poultry metabolism study and the calculated MRDB for poultry, EPA has
determined that the existing tolerance for residues of pyrasulfotole
and its desmethyl metabolite in or on poultry, meat byproducts should
be increased from 0.02 ppm to 0.20 ppm.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
pyrasulfotole, including its metabolites and degradates as set forth in
the regulatory text.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes 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) (Pub. L. 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: April 21, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    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 180.631 is amended by revising the introductory text and
table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.631  Pyrasulfotole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide pyrasulfotole, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of
pyrasulfotole ((5-hydroxy-1,3-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)[2-
(methylsulfonyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methanone) and its desmethyl
metabolite (5-hydroxy-3-methyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)[2-(methylsulfonyl)-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methanone), calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of pyrasulfotole, in or on the commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspirated grain fractions..................................         0.40
Barley, grain..............................................         0.02
Barley, hay................................................         0.30
Barley, straw..............................................         0.20
Cattle, fat................................................         0.03
Cattle, liver..............................................         3.0
Cattle, meat...............................................         0.02
Cattle, meat byproducts, except liver......................         0.70
Eggs.......................................................         0.02
Goat, fat..................................................         0.03
Goat, liver................................................         3.0
Goat, meat.................................................         0.02
Goat, meat byproducts, except liver........................         0.70
Grass, forage..............................................        25
Grass, hay.................................................         3.5
Hog, fat...................................................         0.02
Hog, liver.................................................         0.30
Hog, meat..................................................         0.02
Hog, meat byproducts, except liver.........................         0.05
Horse, fat.................................................         0.03
Horse, liver...............................................         3.0
Horse, meat................................................         0.02
Horse, meat byproducts, except liver.......................         0.70
Milk.......................................................         0.03
Oat, forage................................................         0.10
Oat, grain.................................................         0.08
Oat, hay...................................................         0.50
Oat, straw.................................................         0.20
Poultry, fat...............................................         0.02
Poultry, meat..............................................         0.02
Poultry, meat byproducts...................................         0.20
Rye, forage................................................         0.20
Rye, grain.................................................         0.02
Rye, straw.................................................         0.20
Sheep, fat.................................................         0.03
Sheep, liver...............................................         3.0
Sheep, meat................................................         0.02
Sheep, meat byproducts, except liver.......................         0.70
Sorghum, grain, forage.....................................         1.5
Sorghum, grain, grain......................................         0.70
Sorghum, grain, stover.....................................         0.80
Wheat, forage..............................................         0.20
Wheat, grain...............................................         0.02
Wheat, hay.................................................         0.80
Wheat, straw...............................................         0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-10435 Filed 4-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 51294-51295]
[DOCID:fr02se08-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-460-000]

Rockies Express Pipeline LLC; Notice of Expedited Comment Date
and Petition of the Indicated Shippers for Immediate Injunctive Relief
and an Expedited Technical Conference

August 15, 2008.
    Take notice that on August 13, 2008, the Indicated Shippers
(ConocoPhillips Company, Shell Energy North America (US), L.P., and
Yates Petroleum Corporation) filed a petition for immediate injunctive
relief and an expedited technical conference. The Indicated Shippers
request the Commission to enjoin Rockies Express

Pipeline LLC from engaging in hydrostatic testing on a portion of its
pipeline beginning September 3, 2008, and anticipated to end September
26, 2008.
    The petition is on file with the Commission and open for public
inspection. This petition is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at 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. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person desiring to intervene in this proceeding or to be heard
in response to the petition must file in accordance with the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure by the date designated
below. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of
comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of
paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing''
link.
    Comment Date: August 20, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20211 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 69936]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27705]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73627; File No. SR-CME-2014-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change Related to Enhancements to
Risk Model for Credit Default Swaps

November 18, 2014.
    On August 8, 2014, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change (SR-CME-2014-28) relating
to CME's Risk Model for Credit Default Swaps (``CDS'') as it applied
only to broad-based index CDS products cleared by CME, and would not be
applicable to security-based swaps. Notice of the proposed rule change
was published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2014.\3\ Notice of
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change was published in the
Federal Register on September 8, 2014.\4\ The Commission did not
receive comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-72834 (August 13,
2014), 79 FR 48805 (August 18, 2014) (SR-CME-2014-28).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-72959 (September 2,
2014), 79 FR 53234 (September 8, 2014) (SR-CME-2014-28). On August
18, 2014, CME filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. CME
withdrew Amendment No. 1 on August 29, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 1, 2014, the Commission extended the time period in
which to either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change to November 16, 2014.\5\ On
November 14, 2014, CME withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-CME-2014-
28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-73283 (October 1,
2014), 79 FR 60563 (October 7, 2014) (SR-CME-2014-28).
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27705 Filed 11-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43799-43800]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10934-032]

Sugar River Hydro II, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Comments, Protests and Motions To Intervene

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Proceeding: Extension of License Term.
    b. Project No.: P-10934-032.
    c. Date Filed: July 17, 2019.
    d. Licensee: Sugar River Hydro II, LLC.

    e. Name and Location of Project: Sugar River II Hydroelectric
Project, located on the Sugar River, in the Town of Newport, Sullivan
County, New Hampshire.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    g. Licensee Contact Information: Sugar River Hydro II, LLC, c/o
Ronald K DeCola, Managing Partner, 169 Sunapee Street, LLC, Managing
Partner, 300 River Road, Suite 110, Manchester, NH 03104; Phone: (603)
289-2738; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    h. FERC Contact: Ashish Desai,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests,
is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions
to intervene, protests, comments, and recommendations, using the
Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-10934-032.
    j. Description of Proceeding: Sugar River Hydro II, LLC, licensee
for the Sugar River II Hydroelectric Project No. 10934 requests that
the Commission extend the 30-year license term for the project by nine
years and ten months, from April 30, 2121 to February 28, 2031. The
licensee requests the license extension to facilitate a basin-wide
relicensing approach with two other projects located on the Sugar
River, the Sweetwater and Lower Valley Projects located approximately
15 river miles and 18 river miles downstream of the Sugar River II
Project, respectively. In addition, the licensee states that the
license extension would allow the licensee to recoup costs associated
with rehabilitating and improving the project after a January 2018 ice
storm caused damage to the project.
    The licensee's request includes letters and email correspondence
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Hampshire Fish and Game
Department, and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Service, all
stating that they do not support extending the license term.
    k. This notice is available for review and reproduction at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the
Docket number (P-10934-032) excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the notice. You may also register online
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO
INTERVENE as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions
to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests should relate to the request to
extend the license term. Agencies may obtain copies of the application
directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to
intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant
specified in the particular application. If an intervener files
comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an
issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource
agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource
agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application
must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the
service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: August 16, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-18126 Filed 8-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 16849-16850]
[DOCID:fr04ap06-79]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53562; File No. SR-NASD-2006-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Expand the
Scope of NASD Rule 2440 and Interpretive Material 2440 Relating to Fair
Prices and Commissions To Apply to All Securities Transactions

March 29, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 19, 2006, the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by NASD. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASD proposes to expand the scope of NASD Rule 2440 (Fair Prices
and Commissions) and Interpretive Material (``IM'') 2440 relating to
fair prices and commissions to apply to all securities transactions,
whether executed over-the-counter (``OTC'') or on an exchange. The text
of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in
italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.

2440. Fair Prices and Commissions

    In [''over-the-counter''] securities transactions, whether in
``listed'' or ``unlisted'' securities, if a member buys for his own
account from his customer, or sells for his own account to his
customer, he shall buy or sell at a price which is fair, taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances, including market conditions
with respect to such security at the time of the transaction, the
expense involved, and the fact that he is entitled to a profit; and if
he acts as agent for his customer in any such transaction, he shall not
charge his customer more than a fair commission or service charge,
taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including market
conditions with respect to such security at the time of the
transaction, the expense of executing the order and the value of any
service he may have rendered by reason of his experience in and
knowledge of such security and the market therefor.

IM-2440. Mark-Up Policy

    The question of fair mark-ups or spreads is one which has been
raised from the earliest days of the Association. No definitive answer
can be given and no interpretation can be all-inclusive for the obvious
reason that what might be considered fair in one transaction could be
unfair in another transaction because of different circumstances. In
1943, the Association's Board adopted what has become known as the ``5%
Policy'' to be applied to transactions executed for customers. It was
based upon studies demonstrating that the large majority of customer
transactions were effected at a mark-up of 5% or less. The Policy has
been reviewed by the Board of Governors on numerous occasions and each
time the Board has reaffirmed the philosophy expressed in 1943.
Pursuant thereto, and in accordance with Article VII, Section 1(a)(ii)
of the By-Laws, the Board has adopted the following interpretation
under Rule 2440.
    It shall be deemed a violation of Rule 2110 and Rule 2440 for a
member to enter into any transaction with a customer in any security at
any price not reasonably related to the current market price of the
security or to charge a commission which is not reasonable.
    (a) through (b) No change.
    (c) Transactions to Which the Policy is Applicable.
    The policy applies to all securities[ handled in the over-the-
counter market], whether oil royalties or any other security, in the
following types of transactions:
    (1) through (5) No change.
    (d) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASD Rule 2440 generally requires NASD members, in any OTC
transaction with or for a customer, to charge only fair commissions or
charges, and to buy or sell securities only at fair prices.\3\
Specifically, NASD Rule 2440 provides, in part, that a member is
required to buy or sell a security at a fair price to customers,
``taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including
market conditions with respect to such security at the time of the
transaction, the expense involved, and the fact that he is entitled to
a profit * * *'' and if the member acts as agent, the member will not
``charge his customer more than a fair commission or service charge,
taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including market
conditions with respect to such security at the time of the
transaction, the expense of executing the order and the value of any
service he may have rendered by reason of his experience in and
knowledge of such security and the market therefore.'' The related
Mark-Up Policy, IM-2440, provides additional guidance on mark-ups and
fair pricing of securities transactions with customers and states that
it is inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade under
NASD Rule 2110 for a member to enter into any transaction with a
customer in any security at any price not reasonably related to the
current market price of the security or to charge a commission that is
not reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NASD Rule 2440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Rule 2440 and IM-2440 apply only to OTC transactions. There is
no NASD rule that specifically addresses commissions or mark-ups (and
mark-downs) for non-OTC transactions (i.e., exchange transactions).
Although the language of NASD Rule 2440 and IM-2440 specifically limits
their application

to OTC transactions, NASD has taken the position that a broker-dealer
charging excessive compensation in a transaction with a customer
executed on an exchange violates NASD Rule 2110, which requires that a
member must, in the conduct of its business, ``observe high standards
of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NASD Rule 2110. See also Atlanta-One, Inc. v. SEC, 100
F.3d 105, 107 n.1 (9th Cir. 1996), which states ``[a]lthough [Rule
2440 and IM-2440] deals with the appropriate level of compensation
in retail transactions in the over-the-counter market, the [rule]
provides guidance by analogy as to appropriate commissions for
exchange transactions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further clarify members' obligations to charge fair commissions
and mark-ups (or mark-downs), NASD is proposing to amend NASD Rule 2440
and IM-2440 to apply these provisions expressly to all securities
transactions, whether they occur in the OTC market or on an
exchange.\5\ NASD believes that commission and mark-up (mark-down)
requirements should be uniform and not vary based solely on where the
transaction occurs. Therefore, a member that charges unfair and
excessive commissions or mark-ups (mark-downs) in any customer
transaction, whether it is an OTC or exchange transaction, would
violate NASD Rule 2440 and IM-2440.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Currently, NASD Rule 2440 and IM-2440 do not apply to
transactions in municipal securities and exempt securities, and this
would not be changed by the proposal. See NASD Rule 0116. See also
Sections 3(a)(12) and 3(a)(29) of the Act. It is important to note,
however, that Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'') Rule
G-30, Prices and Commissions, applies to transactions in municipal
securities, and requires a municipal securities dealer engaging in a
transaction with a customer, as a principal, to buy or sell
securities at an aggregate price that is ``fair and reasonable,''
or, as an agent, to charge a commission or service charge that is
not more than a ``fair and reasonable amount.'' See MSRB Rule G-30.
    \6\ The proposed amendments would expand the scope of NASD Rule
2440 and IM-2440 to include all securities transactions with or for
a customer only. The proposal would not alter the fact that NASD
Rule 2440 and IM-2440 do not apply to member-to-member transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Should the Commission approve the proposed rule change, NASD will
implement the proposed rule change upon SEC approval. NASD will
announce the approval in a Notice to Members to be published no later
than 30 days following Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\7\ which requires, among
other things, that NASD rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles
of trade, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
NASD believes that the proposed rule change will deter members from
charging their customers unfair, unreasonable, or excessive mark-ups or
commissions for effecting securities transactions, and will thereby
promote investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which NASD consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-NASD-2006-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-005. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NASD. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-NASD-2006-005 and should be submitted on or before April 25, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4822 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 86327]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28808]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR17-4-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b) + (e) COH SOC to be
effective 10/27/2016; Filing Type: 980.
    Filed Date: 11/15/16.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>70.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/16.

    Docket Number: PR17-5-000.
    Applicants: NET Mexico Pipeline Partners, LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b) + (e) + (g): Revised
Statement of Operating Conditions to be effective 11/16/2016; Filing
Type: 1300.
    Filed Date: 11/16/2016.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>72.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/16.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/17.

    Docket Number: PR17-6-000.
    Applicants: Enable Illinois Intrastate Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(e) + (g): Cancellation of
SOC to be effective 11/16/2016; Filing Type: 1290.
    Filed Date: 11/16/2016.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>31.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/16.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-184-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing Annual Report on Operational
Transactions.
    Filed Date: 11/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161117-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-185-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--Neg. Rate Agmt--
Crestwood Gas Marketing LLC SP39122 to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161117-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-186-000.
    Applicants: Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Ruby FLU Filing to be
effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20161118-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/16.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1299-001.
    Applicants: Kinetica Energy Express, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing to be effective
11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20161118-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/16.

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

    Dated November 21, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-28808 Filed 11-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58351-58352]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23012]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213

Extension:
    Form N-CSR; OMB Control No. 3235-0570, SEC File No. 270-512

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the
previously approved collection of information discussed below.
    Form N-CSR (17 CFR 249.331 and 274.128) is a combined reporting
form used by registered management investment companies (``funds'') to
file certified shareholder reports under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``Investment Company Act'') and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange
Act''). Specifically, Form N-CSR is to be used for reports under
section 30(b)(2) of the Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-29(b)(2))
and section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) and
78o(d)), filed pursuant to rule 30b2-1(a) under the Investment Company
Act (17 CFR 270.30b2-1(a)). Reports on Form N CSR are to be filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') no later than
10 days after the transmission to stockholders of any report that is
required to be transmitted to stockholders under rule 30e-1 under the
Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.30e-1).
    Form N-CSR is filed semi-annually, and the Commission estimates
that there are 3,288 respondents. The Commission also estimates that
the average number of portfolios referenced in each filing is 3.75. The
Commission further estimates that the hour burden for preparing and
filing a report on Form N-CSR is 7.21

hours per portfolio. Given that filings on Form N-CSR are filed semi-
annually, filings on Form N-CSR require 14.42 hours per portfolio each
year. The total annual hour burden for Form N-CSR, therefore, is
estimated to be 177,799 hours. The estimated total annual cost burden
to respondents for outside professionals associated with the collection
of data relating to Form N-CSR is $3,189,771.
    The information collection requirements imposed by Form N-CSR are
mandatory. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept
confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer,
Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: September 17, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23012 Filed 9-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P