[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 36 (Friday, February 24, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11513-11515]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03580]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 174

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457; FRL-9957-97]

VNT1 Protein in Potato; Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of VNT1 protein in potato when used as a
plant-incorporated protectant. J.R. Simplot Company submitted a
petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
requesting a permanent exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible
level for residues of VNT1 protein in potato under FFDCA.

DATES: This regulation is effective February 24, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 25, 2017 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: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2014-0457 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
April 25, 2017. 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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (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 the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24047) (FRL-9944-
86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 5F8425) by J.R. Simplot Co., 5369 W. Irving St., Boise, ID
83706. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 174 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of VNT1 protein in potato. That document referenced a summary
of the petition prepared by the petitioner J.R. Simplot Company, which
is available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. There were
no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    EPA previously established a temporary exemption from tolerance for
VNT1 protein in potato (40 CFR 174.534; 80 FR 9387) in conjunction with
an Experimental Use Permit (8917-EUP-2) in 2015. This temporary
exemption was subsequently amended (extended) on December 17, 2015 and
expires on April 1, 2017.

III. Final Rule

A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption,
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 . . . .'' Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D)
requires that EPA consider ``available information concerning the
cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and
other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on VNT1
protein and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as
well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full
explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment
based on that data can be found within the December 6, 2016, document
entitled ``Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations
for VNT1 protein.'' This document, as well as other relevant
information, is available in the docket

for this action as described under ADDRESSES. Based upon its
evaluation, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and
children, from aggregate exposure to residues of VNT1 protein.
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established for residues of VNT1 protein in potato when used as a
plant-incorporated protectant in accordance with the terms of
registration.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    EPA has determined that an analytical method is not required for
enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
Nonetheless, an analytical method was provided by J.R. Simplot for the
detection of VNT1 protein in potato. This method utilizes a
quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to detect the presence of
the Rpi-vntl gene in pSIM1678 transformed plants (pSIM1678 is the
transformation vector used by the registrant to incorporate the Rpi-
vntl gene into potato varieties). There are numerous homologs of Rpi-
vnt1 present in potato and tomato varieties and other wild Solanum
species that may result in non-specific amplification when using
primers designed to amplify Rpi-vnt1. To distinguish between plants
that naturally contain homologous sequences and those transformed with
pSIM1678, a second method amplifies a unique junction between the Rpi-
vnt1 terminator and the AGP promoter present in the pSIM1678 T-DNA.
This second method is intended to confirm the presence or absence of
pSIM1678 if there are false positive detection of Rpi-vnt1 homologs.

C. Revisions to Requested Tolerance Exemption

    The current temporary tolerance exemption for VNT1 protein in
potato (40 CFR 174.534) approved by EPA on December 17, 2015, will be
changed to a permanent tolerance exemption.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section
408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. 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 action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action 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 action 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 FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance
exemption in this action, 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 action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this
action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA 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, EPA 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 action. In addition, this action does not
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174

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

    Dated: January 18, 2017.
Jack Housenger,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 174--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7. U.S.C. 136-136y; 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Revise Sec.  174.534 to read as follows:

Sec.  174.534   VNT1 protein; exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.

    Residues of VNT1 protein in potato are exempt from the requirement
of a tolerance when the Rpi-vnt1 gene that express the VNT1 protein is
used as a plant-incorporated protectant in potato.

[FR Doc. 2017-03580 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

01/24/2008 10:06 AM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Ron, a couple O3 follow ups: "Bins" and Bene's

OK.   I think they have actually heard the overview portion in the fall before you joined in the fun.  Talk to you later

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 01/24/2008 09:55 AM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Ron, a couple O3 follow ups: "Bins" and Bene's

Yes, soon and frequently ;-)

Agreed about mtg overload, Ron.  We can talk about how to intro bene's

to interagency folks when we talk about the bins later today.

Gracias,

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 9:52 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: Ron, a couple O3 follow ups: "Bins" and Bene's

Heidi, I just checked further with Neal Fann, my benefits lead.   I have

second thoughts about having the benefits briefing next week for the

interagency group since we were not planning to give new information

beyond what we have previously shared.   If we delay the presentation we

can provide benefit results concurrently.   I personally expect to see

results during the week of Feb 4th, including broader EPA review I think

this means that we could give the interagency team a full benefits

briefing during the week of the 11th.  Since we all seem to be in

meeting overload right now, I think delaying the benefits briefing until

we have results is a good idea for everyone.   Let me know what you

think.

My schedule today shows we will be talking @ 10 about the Pb RIA, @ 1

about the baseline proposal (we have some questions about what you are

intending to get and how the info would be used) and @ 2 to talk about

the applicability of the energy EO and the Ozone NAAQS RIA.  Chat with

you soon............

             "King, Heidi R."

             <Heidi_R._King@o

             mb.eop.gov>                                             To

                                      Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             01/23/2008 11:26                                        cc

             AM                       Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                Subject

                                      Ron, a couple O3 follow ups:

                                      "Bins" and Bene's

Hi Ron,

Trying to keep my head straight, just a quick note to keep it on both of

our radar screens that we should touch base asap to make sure

1) I answered your question about the "bins" spreadsheet,

2) EPA assessment of what we can do with the bins

3) We were going to set up a Bene's conversation for interagency

reviewers, right?  What are your thoughts on timing?

Thanks - I hope all is well,

heidi


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75553-75554]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29602]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4344-011]

Cedar Rapids Water Board; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Surrender of Exemption.
    b. Project No.: 4344-011.
    c. Date Filed: November 5, 2013.
    d. Applicant: City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
    e. Name of Project: Five-In-One Dam.
    f. Location: On the Cedar River in Linn County, Iowa.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 4.95.
    h. Applicant Contact: Bruce A. Jacobs, Utilities Engineering
Manager, City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1111 Shaver Road NE., Cedar
Rapids, IA 52402-4593.
    i. FERC Contact: Ms. Krista Sakallaris,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All
documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be filed
electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. 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.
    Please include the project number (P-4344-011) on any comments,
motions, or protests filed.
    k. Description of Request: The City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa
(exemptee) proposes to surrender the exemption for the Five-In-One Dam
Project (P-4344). The exemptee states that the project has not operated
since the facility was flooded in June of 2008 and that it is not
economical to rehabilitate the project and resume operation. The
exemptee disconnected the electric generating equipment from the local
power grid in 2008. The exemptee completed the cleanup of water, oil,
and sludge from the interior of the hydropower facility in November
2012. Currently, the facility is secured and the exemptee plans on
leaving the structure and inoperable equipment in place.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. 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 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. 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,
.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.
    o. 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 project works which are the
subject of the license surrender. 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: December 5, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29602 Filed 12-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D. C.  20460

	OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Dec. 19, 2006

PC Code: 109901

 DP Barcode: 333607

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 	EFED Revisions to the Drinking Water Exposure Assessment
(dated Aug. 31, 2005) in Support of the Triadimefon Reregistration
Eligibility Decision Document.

FROM: 	Jonathan Angier, Ph.D.

		Environmental Risk Branch 2

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

TO:		John Pates, CRM

		Special Review and Reregistration Division

THRU:	Tom A. Bailey, Ph.D.

		Chief, Environmental Risk Branch 2

This memo documents corrections/changes made to the triadimefon drinking
water exposure assessment, developed in support of the Reregistration
Eligibility Decision document.  It addresses registrant-proposed changes
in application rates, number of applications, and uses resulting from
risk mitigation negotiations with Bayer CropScience, and responds to
comments provided by Bayer CropScience.  For additional information,
refer to the EFED Revisions to the Ecological Risk Assessment (dated
Aug. 30, 2005) and the Drinking Water Exposure Assessment (dated Aug.
31, 2005) in Support of the Triadimefon Reregistration Eligibility
Document, dated Aug. 3, 2006.

RED/TRED Document, Page 19, Section III.A.4.b. Dietary Exposure from
Drinking Water, Surface Water Exposure: “A summary of the surface
water concentration scenarios is presented below in Table 7. For
additional information, refer to the Tier 2 Drinking Water Assessment
for Triadimefon and its Major Degradate Triadimenol, dated August 31,
2005.”

Bayer Comment: The reference for additional information should refer to
the EFED Revisions to the Ecological Risk Assessment (dated Aug. 30,
2005) and the Drinking Water Exposure Assessment (dated Aug. 31, 2005)
in Support of the Triadimefon Reregistration Eligibility Document”,
dated Aug. 3, 2006. However, the values provided in this memorandum are
incorrect, and still represent a 3 application scenario, instead of the
correct 2 application scenario. Therefore, the memorandum, and Table 7
of the RED document must be revised to show the correct values as
provided in the following table. These values were calculated with
PRZM/EXAMS simulations, using the input parameters provided in the Tier
2 Drinking Water Assessment for Triadimefon and its Major Degradate
Triadimenol, dated August 31, 2005, but using 2 applications of 2.7 lbs
ai/A at a 14-day interval. The PE4 input and output files are enclosed.

OLD Table 1/Table 7. Estimated Concentrations of Triadimefon and its
Degradate Triadimenol in Surface Drinking Water Using PRZM/EXAMS
Scenarios (Turf)

Use Scenario

Portion of Golf Course- (Treated)	Acute Concentration [ppb]

Chronic Concentration [ppb]

1 in 10 year annual mean (non-cancer)	30-year overall mean (cancer)

2 applications

14 day interval

2.7 lbs ai/A

(1 oz/1000 ft2)

Entire Course	100.8

24.94

4.071

The chronic value of 19.633 is referenced on page 7 (Section III) of the
“Triadimefon &

Triadimenol: Aggregate Acute, Chronic, and Short-Term Risk Assessments
Reflecting July, 2006 Risk Mitigation in Response to the Phase 4
Triadimefon RED, dated August 1, 2006, indicating that the appropriate
values were available for the risk assessments, but were not shown
correctly in the supporting documentation. Therefore, it should be
confirmed that the appropriate values were used in the dietary risk
assessment results provided in the RED document.

NEW Table 1/Table 7. Estimated Concentrations of Triadimefon and its
Degradate Triadimenol in Surface Drinking Water Using PRZM/EXAMS
Scenarios (Turf)

Use Scenario

Portion of Golf Course- (Treated)	Acute Concentration [ppb]

Chronic Concentration [ppb]

1 in 10 year annual mean (non-cancer)	30-year overall mean (cancer)

2 applications

14 day interval

2.7 lbs ai/A

(1 oz/1000 ft2)

Entire Course	93.5

19.6

9.1

EFED Response:

EFED agrees that the wrong values were included in the Memorandum of
August 3, 2006 and Table 7 of the 2006 RED/TRED.  The correct values,
representing 2 applications of 2.7 lbs ai/A with a 14-day interval, are
as cited by Bayer CropScience.  Documents (and assessments) changed to
reflect this.  HED has used all the correct values (see ‘NEW Table
1/Table 7’, above) in their assessments.

RED/TRED Document, Page 19, Section III.A.4.b. Dietary Exposure from
Drinking Water, Groundwater Exposure: “Although SciGrow should
typically over-estimate expected ground water concentrations, in this
case the model actually underestimated the monitored value in at least
one instance. A ground water monitoring study in New Jersey, which
reflected suggested turf uses, showed a peak groundwater concentration
of 25 ppb, while the SciGrow estimate for similar usage yielded an
estimate of only 5 ppb. Therefore, the potential for ground water
triadimefon contamination may be greater than supposed.”

Bayer Comment: The representation of the 25 ppb concentration as
triadimefon and triadimenol is inappropriate. The maximum concentration
of triadimefon plus triadimenol in the New Jersey ground water
monitoring study was 6.6 ppb (0.2 ppb triadimefon, 6.4 ppb triadimenol),
and it should also be noted that these residues dissipated quickly in
the groundwater, and therefore greatly overestimate chronic
concentrations.  Also, the referenced SciGrow value should be 3.36 ppb,
not 5 ppb.

EFED Response:

EFED concurs that the correct SciGrow value for predicted groundwater
concentrations, using 2 applications of 2.7 lbs ai/A with a 14-day
interval (for turf usage), is 3.36 ppb, as referenced by Bayer
CropScience.  This correct value is listed in Table 6 of the Aug. 3,
2006 Memorandum (‘EFED Revisions to the Ecological Risk Assessment
(dated Aug. 30, 2005) and the Drinking Water Exposure Assessment (dated
Aug. 31, 2005) in Support of the Triadimefon Reregistration Eligibility
Decision Document.’).  The incorrect value of 5 ppb was only cited in
the text of the RED/TRED document.  Nevertheless, these predicted values
are less than concentrations that have been observed in some monitoring
studies.  The 25 ppb concentration cited in the 2006 RED/TRED is
considered valid; also note that the maximum value cited by Bayer
CropScience (6.6 ppb) is still higher than the SciGrow value used by
EFED.  In any event, the drinking water concentrations are predicted to
be significantly higher and thus are used to drive the EFED evaluation.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 211 (Thursday, November 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60946-60947]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24000]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34411]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

October 29, 2021.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
October 2021. A copy of each application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order granting each
application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's
Secretary at [email protected] and serving the relevant
applicant with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on November 23,
2021, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in
the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the
nature

of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a
hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary at [email protected].

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Davis, Assistant Director, at
(202) 551-6413 or Chief Counsel's Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; SEC,
Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street
NE, Washington, DC 20549-8010.

Cohen & Steers Global Income Builder, Inc. [File No. 811-22057]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The applicant
has transferred its assets to Cohen & Steers Infrastructure Fund, Inc.,
and on December 12, 2019 made a final distribution to its shareholders
based on net asset value. Expenses of $387,207 incurred in connection
with the reorganization were paid by the applicant and the acquiring
fund.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 12, 2021, and
amended on July 30, 2021, and October 14, 2021.
    Applicant's Address: [email protected].

State Farm Associates' Funds Trust [File No. 811-1519]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to
Advisers Investment Trust, and on August 23, 2021 made a final
distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of
$912,500 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on September 21, 2021.
    Applicant's Address: [email protected].

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-24000 Filed 11-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56685-56686]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22307]

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

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 Numbers: PR13-61-000.
    Applicants: Houston Pipe Line Company LP.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2)/.: Houston Pipe Line
Company LP Petition for Firm Rate Approval & SOC Changes to be
effective 9/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130830-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/20/13.

    Docket Numbers: PR13-61-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Maryland, Inc.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123/.224: Statement of Operating
Conditions to be effective 8/30/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130830-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/20/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1315-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 154.203: Negotiated Rate Filing--
September 2013--DCP Compliance to be effective 9/6/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20130906-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1316-000.

    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, L.
    Description: Petition for Temporary Waiver of Tariff Provisions and
Request for Expedited Action and Shortened Comment Period of Enable
Mississippi River Transmission, LLC under RP13-1316.
    Filed Date: 9/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20130906-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1317-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Tariff filing per 154.204: Hess Corporation to Hess
Tioga Gas Plant to be effective 9/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20130906-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/13.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-556-004.
    Applicants: Gulf Shore Energy Partners, LP.
    Description: Gulf Shore Energy Partners, LP GAS TARIFF ORIGINAL
VOLUME NO. 1--Compliance to be effective 8/28/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130829-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/13.

    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: September 9, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-22307 Filed 9-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM Date: June 30, 2003 Subject: Summary of the April 28, 2003 Meeting Between the EPA and the Chlorine Institute to Discuss Issues Associated with the Chlorine Production Industry Proposed Action From: Heather P. Brown, EC/ R Phil Norwood, EC/ R To: Iliam Rosario, EPA/ OAQPS/ ESD/ MG The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA) meeting on April 28, 2003, with representatives of the Chlorine Institute ( CI) and companies that own or operate chlor alkali plants. The meeting was held by teleconference. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the comments received on the July 3, 2002, proposed decision not to regulate the source category ( 67 FR 44713) and EPA's options for responding to the comments, and any data needed to assist EPA in making decisions.

DATE AND LOCATION April 28, 2003 2: 00 p. m.  4: 00 p. m.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC Held via teleconference.

ATTENDEES The conference call was attended by EPA representatives, EPA's contractor ( EC/ R Incorporated), and members of the Chlorine Institute. The individuals who participated in the meeting as well as their affiliations, are listed below.

Environmental Protection Agency Steve Fruh, Metals Group Iliam Rosario, Metals Group 3 EC/ R Incorporated Heather Brown Phil Norwood Chlorine Institute See Table 1.

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION The following provides a summary of the discussion. This summary is organized by topic and does not always represent the chronology of the discussion.

Background Mr. Fruh welcomed everyone to the conference call. He introduced himself as the new Group Leader for the Metals Group and explained the purpose of the conference call. Mr. Fruh explained that the conference call was intended to provide an opportunity to share with industry some issues that were raised on the proposed action, preliminary EPA thoughts and any areas where additional information from industry would be needed.

Mr. Norwood, with EC/ R, provided a brief background of the project. On July 3, 2002, under the authority of section 112( d)( 4), EPA proposed not to regulate the chlorine production source category ( 67 FR 44672). This decision was based on an analysis which showed that chlorine and hydrochloric acid emissions from the chlor alkali process did not result in human exposures above the defined health thresholds and they are the only pollutants emitted from the category ( other than mercury, which is being addressed under a separate action).

Comments/ Issues Mr. Norwood referred to comments that EPA received on the proposed action and categorized the adverse comments into two areas: ( 1) EPA's statutory authority under section 112( d)( 4); and ( 2) EPA's approach for the risk assessment.

EPA's approach for the risk assessment. Although there were a few comments regarding EPA's risk assessment approach, one specific comment of note was that for the chronic assessment, commenters said that it was not appropriate to assume that all chlorine emitted to the atmosphere would photolyze to HCl. EPA revised the risk assessment and assumed that no chlorine would be converted to HCl EPA's statutory authority under section 112( d)( 4). The primary comment was that EPA did not have the statutory authority under section 112( d)( 4) to make a decision not to regulate an 4 entire source category. Mr. Fruh indicated that this argument had merit, and he referred to a portion of the statutory language in the Clean Air Act that states "... when establishing standards under this subsection...," which indicates that standards should be set under section 112( d)( 4), rather than making a decision not to regulate. Mr. Dungan with the Chlorine Institute ( CI) expressed some confusion at the fact that potential problems with using this subsection did not come up until now. Mr. Donovan, also with CI, and Mr. Tenzer, with General Electric, agreed with EPA's concern about the legal defensibility of not regulating the category would be legally defensible should they be sued.

As CI pointed out in their comment letter, the risk assessment prepared for the proposed action could also be used under section 112( c)( 9) to delist the source category. However, using section 112( c)( 9) to delist the source category was not proposed in the original action as an option. Mr. Fruh expressed some concern regarding EPA's legal jeopardy because using section 112( c)( 9) was not proposed. Mr. Fruh further stated that according to the statute, a petition to delist was required and had not been received. Mr. Shipley, with the American Chemistry Counsil ( ACC), stated his interpretation that EPA can utilize the provisions under section 112( c)( 9) without a petition.

Mr. Fruh also stated that the ecological impacts analysis performed for the proposed decision under section 112( d)( 4) may not be sufficient for delisting under section 112( c)( 9). According to Mr. Tanzer, the statute is unclear about how detailed an ecological impact analysis has to be and that it is possible that the one already performed would be sufficient.

The CI asked if it would be beneficial for them to submit a petition for delisting. Mr. Fruh responded that he would need to discuss with EPA management to find out whether that would be necessary.

Another commenter stated that EPA could set a standard at a level below the MACT floor that would provide and maintain an ample margin of safety. Mr. Fruh stated that this option may be the most defensible from a legal standpoint. Personnel from CI raised several concerns regarding this option, including concerns about:

° the costs of implementing a standard even at below the floor levels; ° monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; ° having to provide certifications required under title V; and ° the risk of violations.

Mr. Dungan suggested that EPA publish a supplemental notice and allow the industry to review and comment on the standard. Mr. Fruh pointed out that this rule is under the consent decree to be finalized on August 31 so there would not be time to prepare a supplemental notice. Mr. Dungan stated that CI would need to consider the feasibility of a standard and indicated that associated costs would be a concern. 5 Action Items The following action items were agreed upon: ° EPA agreed to find out whether a petition to delist would be required in order to proceed with a section 112( c)( 9) delisting action. ° CI agreed to confer on the feasibility of a standard under section 112( d)( 4) and provide a response within two days. ATTACHMENT 1 Meeting Handout for April 28, 2003 Conference Call 7 EPA MEETING WITH CHLORINE INSTITUTE Status of the Chlorine Production Source Category April 28, 2003 BACKGROUND Under the authority of section 112( d)( 4), EPA proposed not to regulate the chlorine production source category ( 67 FR 44672) because chlorine and hydrochloric acid emissions from the chlor alkali process did not result in human exposures above the defined health thresholds and they are the only pollutant emitted from the category ( other than mercury, which is being addressed under a separate action).

COMMENTS/ ISSUES Adverse comments that were received can generally be separated into two areas:

! EPA does not have the statutory authority under 112( d)( 4) to make a decision to not regulate an entire source category.

! Comments on the risk assessment. One specific comment of note was that for the chronic assessment, it was not appropriate to assume that all chlorine emitted to the atmosphere would photolyze to HCl.

! Based on these comments we have identified three possible courses of action: Option 1: Finalize the decision not to regulate as proposed, using the authority under section 112( d)( 4) Option 2: Use section 112( c)( 9)( B)( ii) to delist the source category. Option 3: Set a standard for chlorine under section 112( d)( 4) at a level that provides an ample margin of safety.

POSSIBLE STANDARDS UNDER OPTION 3 ! Based on a preliminary analysis of available data ! Choice of complying with a 99 percent chlorine emission reduction OR 25 ppm chlorine concentration limit ( applies to vents, tanks, and transfer operations from chlor alkali and direct synthesis HCl production processes)

! Uncontrolled streams with concentration less than 25 ppm " document or demonstrate concentration below the concentration limit " continuous monitoring would not be required ! Controlled stream with control device inlet concentration greater than 25 ppm " document and/ or demonstrate  99 percent reduction requirement; or  control device outlet concentration less than 25 ppm " a performance test and parametric monitoring would be required ! Facility specific LDAR program would be required for equipment leaks ! No standards for wastewater ! No standards for HCl emissions QUESTIONS ! What kind of parameters are currently being monitored or tracked? 8 ! What type of LDAR program are they currently doing?

! What level of control is being achieved for existing control devices?


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8779-8780]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71512; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Short Term Option Series Program

February 7, 2014.
    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 February 4, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to make a minor clarification to the Short
Term Option Series Program (the ``Program'' or ``Weeklys'') to clarify
when series may be added in index option classes. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange 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
    The Exchange is proposing to make a minor change to its Weeklys
Program for index option classes. More specifically, the Exchange is
proposing to clarify when series of index option classes may be added
in the Weeklys Program. The current rule states that ``Short Term
Option Series may be added up to, and including on, the Short Term
Option Expiration Date for that options series.'' \3\ The Exchange is
proposing to clarify the rule to state that Short Term Option Series
may be added ``up to, and including on, the last trading day for that
option series.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 24.9(a)(2)(A)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes this clarification will take into account
that index options may be A.M.-settled or P.M.-settled. For A.M.-
settled options, the settlement occurs the morning of the expiration
day, and thus, no trading occurs on expiration day in that series.
Because of that, series may not actually be added on the expiration day
for the series because it will be after the settlement value has been
calculated for that index. The Exchange believes that the proposed
language will take into account these A.M.-settled index option series
along with P.M.-settled series as P.M.-settled options may be trading
on expiration day because they are not settled until after the close of
trading. Thus the proposed language, ``on the last trading day'' will
accommodate both A.M.-settled and P.M.-settled index options.
    The Exchange believes that this clarification will more accurately
describe when option series may be added in index option classes
participating in the Weeklys program creating less confusion for
Trading Permit Holders.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \5\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed
clarification will protect investors and the marketplace by more
accurately describing how the Weeklys Program operates with respect to
index options.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. More specifically, the Exchange
does not believe the proposed change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition or intermarket competition as it is merely
attempting to better describe a current practice on the Exchange while
providing more clarity to Trading Permit Holders.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may

temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2014-013 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-013. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-013 and should be
submitted on or before March 6, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03129 Filed 2-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

To:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0072

From: 	Lisa Thompson, U.S. EPA, OAQPS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:	Public Hearing Transcripts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 	July 18, 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On June 13, June 14, and June 15, 2023, EPA held a public hearing on the proposed rule, "New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units (EGUs); Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired EGUs." Attached are the three public hearing transcripts.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34867]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14779]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0451]

Safety Zone Regulations, Seafair Blue Angels Air Show
Performance, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the annual Seafair Blue Angels
Air Show safety zone on Lake Washington, Seattle, WA from 9 a.m. on
August 4, 2011 to 4 p.m. on August 7, 2011. This action is necessary to
ensure the safety of the public from inherent dangers associated with
these annual aerial displays. During the enforcement period, no person
or vessel may enter or transit this safety zone unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port or Designated Representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1319 will be enforced from 9 a.m.
on August 4, 2011 to 4 p.m. on August 7, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or e-mail Ensign Anthony P. LaBoy, Sector Puget Sound Waterways
Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Seafair
Blue Angels Air Show Performance safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1319 daily
from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. from August 4, 2011 through August 7, 2011
unless canceled sooner by the Captain of the Port.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1319, the following area is
designated as a safety zone: All waters of Lake Washington, Washington
State, enclosed by the following points: Near the termination of
Roanoke Way 47[deg]35'44'' N, 122[deg]14'47'' W; thence to
47[deg]35'48'' N, 122[deg]15'45'' W; thence to 47[deg]36'02.1'' N,
122[deg]15'50.2'' W; thence to 47[deg]35'56.6'' N, 122[deg]16'29.2'' W;
thence to 47[deg]35'42'' N, 122[deg]16'24'' W; thence to the east side
of the entrance to the west high-rise of the Interstate 90 bridge;
thence westerly along the south side of the bridge to the shoreline on
the western terminus of the bridge; thence southerly along the
shoreline to Andrews Bay at 47[deg]33'06'' N, 122[deg]15'32'' W; thence
northeast along the shoreline of Bailey Peninsula to its northeast
point at 47[deg]33'44'' N, 122[deg]15'04'' W; thence easterly along the
east-west line drawn tangent to Bailey Peninsula; thence northerly
along the shore of Mercer Island to the point of origin. [Datum: NAD
1983].
    In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR Part 165,
Subpart C, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the zone except
for support vessels and support personnel, vessels registered with the
event organizer, or other vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port
or Designated Representatives. Vessels and persons granted
authorization to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or
directions made by the Captain of the Port or Designated
Representative.
    The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other Federal, state and
local law enforcement agencies.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1319 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). If the COTP determines that the safety zone need not be
enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use
a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the
regulated area.

    Dated: May 25, 2011.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2011-14779 Filed 6-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 20809]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09749]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER11-2154-009.
    Applicants: Twin Eagle Resource Management, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Twin Eagle Resource
Management, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180430-5504.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-102-014.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Amendment Order 1000 compliance--
incorrect base tariff document to be effective 4/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180502-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-728-002.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-05-02 RAAIM Methodology
Modifications Compliance to be effective 5/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180502-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-954-001.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: OATT-Attachment K, AEPTX Rate
Update--Amendment to be effective 5/2/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180502-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1505-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2452R2 KEPCO NITSA NOA to be
effective 6/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180502-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1506-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Third Amended CLGIA Mesa
Wind Project SA No. 395 to be effective 7/2/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180502-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1508-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-05-02_SA 3111 Bayou
Bend Solar-ELL GIA (J581) to be effective 4/18/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180502-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1509-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Petition for Waiver of Tariff Provisions of ISO New
England Inc.
    Filed Date: 5/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180502-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1510-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: OATT-Attachment K, AEPTX
Rate Update--Amendment to be effective 5/2/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180502-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES18-35-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Application for Renewal of Section 204 Authorization
of El Paso Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 4/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180430-5506.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/18.

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

    Dated: May 2, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09749 Filed 5-7-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 16, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22414-22415]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08810]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1195; Airspace Docket No. 12-AWP-7]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Reno, NV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Reno/Tahoe
International Airport, Reno, NV. Decommissioning of the Compass Locator
at the Instrument Landing System Middle Marker (LMM) and the Middle
Marker (MM) has made this action necessary for the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
This action also adjusts the geographic coordinates of the airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, June 27, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On January 24, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend controlled airspace at
Reno, NV (78 FR 5153). Interested parties were invited to participate
in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the
proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6003 of
FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending Class E airspace designated at an extension to
Class C surface areas for Reno/Tahoe International Airport, Reno, NV.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the
LMM and MM navigation aids. The Airport Reference Point is used to
describe the airspace instead of the LMM and the MM navigational aids.
There is no change to the current configuration of the controlled
airspace area. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are
updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action
is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes
additional controlled airspace at Reno/Tahoe International Airport,
Reno, NV.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially

significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6003 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to Class
C Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AWP NV E3 Reno, NV [Amended]

Reno/Tahoe International Airport, NV
    (Lat. 39[deg]29'57'' N., long. 119[deg]46'05'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.8 miles
each side of the Reno/Tahoe International Airport 360[deg] bearing
extending from the 5-mile radius of the airport to 12 miles north of
the airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the Reno/Tahoe
International Airport 180[deg] bearing extending from the 5-mile
radius of the airport to 10.5 miles south of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 2, 2013.
Clark Desing,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-08810 Filed 4-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52358-52359]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21415]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Emergency Clearance:
Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB): B4UFLY Smartphone App

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is announcing an
opportunity for the public to comment on FAA's intention to collect
information from the public. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our request to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval for an information
collection. We are requesting an emergency review under 5 CFR part
1320(a)(2)(i) because public harm is reasonably likely to result if the
normal clearance procedures are followed. In compliance with the
requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
the following requirements for emergency review.
    The FAA has documented over 675 pilot and law enforcement reports
of unmanned aircraft `events' in 2015. In comparison, the FAA received
238 of these reports in the entirety of 2014. This increase in reports,
particularly in close proximity to airports, suggests that many
unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operators are unaware of safety
guidelines and policies and are unaware of the potential hazards these
operations may pose to manned aircraft operations. The FAA's B4UFLY
smartphone app will provide situational awareness of flight
restrictions--including locations of airports, restricted airspace,
special use airspaces, and temporary flight restrictions--based on a
user's current or planned flight location. The risk posed to the
National Airspace System (NAS) by increasingly unsafe UAS operations
makes the immediate release of this app vital.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by September 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and

sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to
(202) 395-6974, or mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the subsequent request for OMB's full clearance of
this information collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-XXXX (to be assigned).
    Title: B4UFLY Smartphone App.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
information collection.
    Type of Review: Request for emergency clearance of a new
information collection.
    Background: Public Law 112-95, Section 336 requires model aircraft
operators to notify the airport operator and air traffic control tower
(if one is located at the airport) prior to operating within 5 miles of
an airport. The FAA's B4UFLY smartphone app will provide situational
awareness of flight restrictions--including locations of airports,
restricted airspace, special use airspaces, and temporary flight
restrictions--based on a user's current or planned flight location. In
order to maintain NAS safety in proximity to airports, air traffic
control personnel would need certain basic information about a UAS
operator's intended flight in order to assess whether the UAS may
disrupt or endanger manned air traffic. The data collected by the
B4UFLY app during the initial 60-day beta test will help the FAA
determine procedures for managing more widespread public use of the
B4UFLY app.
    Respondents: 1,000 beta test users.
    Frequency: Approximately 5 submissions per week, per user.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 2 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,485 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 21, 2015.
Ronda Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2015-21415 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P