[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 92809-92810]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30550]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 Notice of Applications

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Port Arthur LNG, LLC and PALNG Common    CP17-20-000
 Facilities Company, LLC.                PF15-18-000
Port Arthur Pipeline, LLC..............  CP17-21-000
                                         PF15-19-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that on November 29, 2016, Port Arthur LNG, LLC (Port
Arthur LNG) and PALNG Common Facilities Company, LLC, 2925 Briarpark,
Suite 900, Houston, Texas 77042, filed an application, in Docket No.
CP17-20-000, pursuant to section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and
Parts 153 and 380 of the Commission's Regulations, requesting
authorization to site, construct, modify, and operate a natural gas
liquefaction facility and liquefied natural gas export marine and truck
loading terminal facilities (Liquefaction Project), located in
Jefferson County, Texas.
    Also, take notice that on November 29, 2016, Port Arthur Pipeline,
LLC (Port Arthur Pipeline), 2925 Briarpark, Suite 900, Houston, Texas
77042, filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA, and
Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's regulations, an application in
Docket No. CP17-21-000 for (1) a certificate of public convenience and
necessity (i) authorizing Port Arthur Pipeline to construct, own, and
operate a new natural gas pipeline system, (ii) approving a pro forma
Tariff, and (iii) approving the proposed initial rates for service; (2)
a Part 157, Subpart F blanket certificate authorizing Port Arthur
Pipeline to engage in certain self-implementing routine activities; and
(3) a Part 284, Subpart G blanket certificate authorizing Port Arthur
Pipeline to transport natural gas, on an open-access and self-
implementing basis with pre-granted abandonment authority.
    Specifically, Port Arthur LNG's proposed Liquefaction Project
consists of two liquefaction trains with a total capacity of 13.5 MTPA
(1,865 MMcf/d), three LNG tanks capable of storing 160,000 m\3\ each,
for a total working capacity of 480,000 m\3\, marine and truck loading
facilities, and all necessary ancillary and support facilities. Port
Arthur LNG states that the purpose of the Liquefaction Project is
liquefying supplies of domestic natural gas for export to foreign
markets.
    Port Arthur Pipeline proposes to construct 34.2 miles of new 42-
inch-diameter pipeline, approximately 4.65 miles of variable diameter
lateral pipelines, two compressor stations totaling 65,052 horsepower,
and associated facilities to deliver up to 2,000 MMcf/d of natural gas
to the Liquefaction Project. Port Arthur Pipeline's proposed facilities
will be located in Orange and Jefferson Counties, Texas and Cameron
Parish, Louisiana. Port Arthur Pipeline estimates the proposed pipeline
facilities cost to be approximately $899,739,889, all as more fully set
forth in the applications which are on file with the Commission and
open to public inspection. These filings are available for review at
the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site web 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, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    On March 31, 2015, the Commission staff granted Port Arthur LNG's
and Port Arthur Pipeline's requests to use the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket Nos. PF15-18-
000 and PF15-19-000, respectively, to staff activities involved in the
above referenced projects. Now, as of the filing of these applications
on November 29, 2016, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has
ended. From this time forward, these proceedings will be conducted in
Docket Nos. CP17-20-000 and CP17-21-000, as noted in the caption of
this Notice.
    Any questions regarding these two applications should be directed
to Dan King, Director & Regulatory Counsel, Port Arthur LNG/Pipeline,
488 8th Avenue, HQ12S1, San Diego, CA 92101, by phone at (619) 696-
4350, or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will issue a Notice
of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for this proposal. The
issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to
notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of
all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit five copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and five copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: January 3, 2017.

    Dated: December 13, 2016 .
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-30550 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26272-26274]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10150]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77709; File No. SR-NSCC-2016-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Remove From
the DTCC Limit Monitoring Tool the 50% Early Warning Limit Alert and
Make Technical Revisions to the Rules

April 26, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 18, 2016, National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. 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. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to NSCC's Rules and
Procedures (``Rules'') to remove from the DTCC Limit Monitoring tool
the alert that is sent to Members when trading activity in any of their
Risk Entities reaches 50% of the pre-set trading limits for that Risk
Entity and to make technical revisions, as described in greater detail
below.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Terms not defined herein are defined in the Rules, available
at http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
(i) Reasons for Adopting the Proposed Rule Change
    NSCC provides its Members with a risk management tool called DTCC
Limit Monitoring, for which certain types of Members are required to
register.\4\ DTCC Limit Monitoring enables Members that use the tool to
monitor post-trade activity and to be notified when pre-set trading
limits are reached. To use the tool, Members must (1) define one or
more ``Risk Entities,'' which may include (i) the trading activity of a
single trading desk within the firm; (ii) for Members that clear trades
for other firms, i.e., their correspondents, the trading activity of a
correspondent firm; (iii) for Members acting as a Special
Representative or a QSR, as such terms are defined in the Rules,\5\ the
trading activity of a firm with which it has a clearing relationship;
(iv) the trading activity of a single clearing number within the
Member's NSCC account structure; or (v) all trading activity of the
Member submitted to NSCC for clearing; and (2) set a trading limit, at
a net notional value, for each Risk Entity. DTCC Limit Monitoring then
sets early warning limits at 50%, 75%, and 90% of those trading
limits.\6\ Members receive alerts when trading activity for their Risk
Entities reaches each of these early warning limits, as well as the
pre-set trading limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 54 (DTCC Limit Monitoring) and Procedure XVII (DTCC
Limit Monitoring), supra note 3; see Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 71637 (February 28, 2014), 79 FR 12708 (March 6, 2014) (File No.
SR-NSCC-2013-12).
    \5\ Rule 7 (Comparison and Trade Recording Operation) and
Procedure IV (Special Representative Service), supra note 3.
    \6\ Rule 54 (DTCC Limit Monitoring) and Procedure XVII (DTCC
Limit Monitoring, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the implementation of DTCC Limit Monitoring in 2014, NSCC has

periodically met with a working group of its Members to discuss the
functioning of the tool and to confirm it provides Members with
effective post-trade surveillance as intended. In response to Member
feedback provided during these discussions, NSCC is proposing to remove
the 50% early warning alert for the reasons described below.
    Additionally, NSCC is proposing to make technical revisions to
Procedure XVII (DTCC Limit Monitoring Procedure) primarily to revise
the verb tense and add clarity regarding use of the tool.
(ii) Issues the Proposed Rule Change Is Intended To Address
    The proposed rule change would address concerns that (1) the 50%
early warning alert is set too low and, thus, may not provide Members
with useful information for purposes of effective post-trade
monitoring; (2) the frequency of the 50% early warning alert could have
a negative impact on Member responsiveness to more critical alerts; and
(3) the verb tense and certain other language in the Rule may be
unclear and/or technically inaccurate.
(iii) Manner in Which the Proposed Rule Change Would Operate To Resolve
the Issues
    The proposed rule change would remove the 50% early warning alert
from DTCC Limit Monitoring. DTCC Limit Monitoring would retain the 75%
and 90% early warning alerts, which continue to provide Members with
valuable notice of changes in their post-trade activity for purposes of
effective risk management.
    Additionally, the proposed rule change would make certain technical
changes that would clarify the Rule, primarily by updating the verb
tense from future tense to present tense to reflect the present
applicability of the Rule and by making certain other technical
clarifications to language used in the Rule.
(iv) Manner in Which the Proposed Rule Change Would Affect Various
Persons
    Members that use DTCC Limit Monitoring would no longer receive the
50% early warning alert, but they would continue to receive alerts when
their trading activity in each Risk Entity reaches 75% and 90% of their
pre-set trading limits. No other changes are proposed with respect to
the functioning of DTCC Limit Monitoring.
    The proposed technical changes are not anticipated to have any
effect on Members that use DTCC Limit Monitoring.
(v) Significant Problems Known to the Self-Regulatory Organization That
Persons Affected Are Likely To Have in Complying With the Proposed Rule
Change
    Members that use DTCC Limit Monitoring would not have to take any
action as a result of the proposed rule change, and NSCC is not aware
of any problems that Members would have in continuing to comply with
the Rules \7\ that address DTCC Limit Monitoring after the
implementation of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the proposed technical changes are not anticipated
to have any effect on Members that use DTCC Limit Monitoring.
(vi) Description of the Proposed Rule Change
    In order to implement this proposed rule change, NSCC would amend
Section 4 of Procedure XVII (DTCC Limit Monitoring Procedure) of the
Rules to remove reference to the 50% early warning alert and to make
certain technical clarifications to language used in the Rule,
primarily by updating the verb tense used therein. No other changes to
the Rules are contemplated by this proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the Rules
be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of securities transactions and to protect investors and the public
interest.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By removing the 50% early warning limit alert, which may not
provide Members with information that is useful for purposes of post-
trade monitoring, but, rather, may distract Members from such
information, the proposed rule change would make DTCC Limit Monitoring
a more effective tool for Members to monitor their post-trade activity
and would enhance their ability to manage risks, facilitating the
protection of investors and the public interest from such risks.
    Additionally, the proposed technical changes to the Rule, which
primarily update the verb tense from future tense to present tense,
would provide additional clarity to NSCC Members and would ensure the
accuracy of it [sic] Rules by reflecting the current, rather than the
future, applicability of the DTCC Limit Monitoring Rule.
    Therefore, NSCC believes the proposed rule change would protect
investors and the public interest, consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, cited above.

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any
impact on competition because the proposal would apply equally to all
Members that use DTCC Limit Monitoring.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    NSCC has not received any written comments relating to this
proposal. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received by NSCC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self- regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2016-001 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2016-001. 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 NSCC and on DTCC's Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-NSCC-2016-001 and should be submitted on or before May 23, 2016.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10150 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 141 (Wednesday, July 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 42845]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17281]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 30b2-1; SEC File No. 270-213, OMB Control No. 3235-0220.

    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'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit the existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 30b2-1 (17 CFR 270.30b2-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (the ``Investment Company Act'')
requires a registered investment company (``fund'') to (1) file a
report with the Commission on Form N-CSR (17 CFR 249.331 and 274.128)
not later than 10 days after the transmission of any report required to
be transmitted to shareholders under rule 30e-1 under the Investment
Company Act, and (2) file with the Commission a copy of every periodic
or interim report or similar communication containing financial
statements that is transmitted by or on behalf of such fund to any
class of such fund's security holders and that is not required to be
filed with the Commission under (1) above, not later than 10 days after
the transmission to security holders. The purpose of the collection of
information required by rule 30b2-1 is to meet the disclosure
requirements of the Investment Company Act and certification
requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-204, 116
Stat. 745 (2002)), and to provide investors with information necessary
to evaluate an interest in the fund.
    The Commission estimates that there are 2,430 funds, with a total
of 11,080 portfolios, that are governed by the rule. For purposes of
this analysis, the burden associated with the requirements of rule
30b2-1 has been included in the collection of information requirements
of rule 30e-1 and Form N-CSR, rather than the rule. The Commission has,
however, requested a one hour burden for administrative purposes.
    The collection of information under rule 30b2-1 is mandatory. The
information provided under rule 30b2-1 is not 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 OMB control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to 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>
     Dated: July 17, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17281 Filed 7-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 MEMORANDUM

DATE:12/09/2014 FROM: 		Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 TO:CLEAN Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602  SUBJECT:	American Sustainable Business Council and Environmental Entrepreneurs Webinar on the Clean Power Plan on 12/09/2014  -  Post Comment Period Activity

SUMMARY:         Debrah Thomas and Laura Farris participated in a webinar hosted by the American Sustainable Business Council and Environmental Entrepreneurs on 12/09/2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan (Plan) was proposed on June 2, 2014. The official comment period for the Plan ran through December 1, 2014. The meeting was for informational purposes only.

ATTENDEES:

EPA Debrah Thomas, EPA Region 8 Deputy Regional Administrator Laura Farris, EPA Region 8 Climate Change Coordinator

External Stakeholders See attached.


[Federal Register: April 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 15685-15687]
[DOCID:fr02ap07-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0418; FRL-8294-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Coating Manufacturing
Facilities (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 2115.02, OMB Control Number 2060-
0535

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 2, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2006-0418, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
2201T , 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Marshall, Jr., Office of
Compliance, 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0418, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the

Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA

receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure
is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: NESHAP for Coating Manufacturing Facilities (40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHHH)
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2115.02, OMB Control Number 2060-0535.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2007.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct, or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
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 OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in Title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register, or by other appropriate means,
such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.
The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Respondents are owners, or operators of new and existing
facilities that manufacture a miscellaneous coating and are located at,
or are part of, major sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions.
    Owners, or operators of miscellaneous coating manufacturing
facilities subject to the standard must choose one of the compliance
options described in the standard, or install and monitor control
systems that reduce HAP emissions to the allowable emission rate.
Specifically, owners, or operators are required to install, operate,
and maintain a continuous monitoring system (CMS) to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limitations, operating limits and
equipment operating parameters as specified in the standard. Owners, or
operators are required to conduct equipment inspections and equipment
leak monitoring to demonstrate compliance.
    Miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities also are subject to
the general provisions at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A which apply to all
NESHAP subject facilities. These requirements include those associated
with the applicability determinations; notifications that the
facilities are subject to the rule; notifications of performance tests;
notifications of compliance status, including the results of
performance tests and design evaluations; and semiannual compliance
reports. In addition to the requirements of subpart A, many respondents
are required to submit a precompliance report and leak detection and
repair reports, and existing facilities that wish to implement
emissions averaging provisions must submit an emissions averaging plan.
    All reports are to be submitted to the respondent's State, or local
agency, or to the EPA regional office, whichever has been delegated
enforcement authority by EPA. The information is used to determine
whether or not all sources subject to the rule are achieving the
emission limitations and work practice standards in the rule.
    If the owner, or operator identifies any deviation resulting from a
known cause for which no Federally-approved or promulgated exemption
from an emission limitation, or work practice standard applies, a
compliance report must be submitted that includes all records that the
source is required to maintain that pertain to the periods during which
such deviation occurred, as well as data regarding: the magnitude of
each deviation; the reason for each deviation; a description of the
corrective action taken for each deviation, including action taken to
minimize each deviation and actions taken to prevent a recurrence; and
a copy of all quality assurance activities performed on any monitoring
protocol.
    Owners, or operators of a miscellaneous coating manufacturing
facility must maintain a copy of all monitored equipment operating
parameter values that demonstrate compliance with the operating limits
in the rule, as well as records of inspections and results of equipment
leak monitoring that demonstrate compliance with the work practice
standards in the rule. Owners, or operators also are required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of a source, or any period
during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Those records must
be maintained for a minimum of five years. At a minimum, the most
recent two years of data must be retained onsite. The remaining three
years of data may be retained offsite.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 296
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, and financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose, or provide information to, or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
Facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 133.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, on occasion, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 167,832.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $17,007,914, which includes $30,000
annualized capital costs, $2,785,200 in O&M costs, and $14,192,714 in
labor costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The increase in burden from the most
recently approved ICR is due to adjustments. The adjustments result
from the transition by the respondents from initial compliance with the
standard to continuing compliance with the standard plus the addition
of three new respondents to the burden total due to industry growth.

    Dated: March 27, 2007.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E7-6043 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9541-9543]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03568]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71539; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

February 12, 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 3, 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 amend its Fees Schedule. 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 proposes to make a number of amendments to its Fees
Schedule. First, the Exchange proposes to increase the Exchangefone
relocation fee from $100 to $116. The Exchange contracts with a vendor
to provide the Exchangefone relocations, and this vendor has increased
its fees, so the Exchange proposes to increase the Exchangefone
relocation fee to reflect the increased vendor cost.
    On January 2, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') approved a proposed rule change to eliminate the
Exchange's e-DPM program.\3\ Pursuant to that approved rule change, the
Exchange announced that the e-DPM program will be eliminated effective
February 3, 2014.\4\ As such, with the elimination of the e-DPM
program, the Exchange hereby proposes to delete all references to e-
DPMs and the e-DPM program from its Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71227 (January 2,
2014), 79 FR 1398 (January 8, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2013-110).
    \4\ See CBOE Regulatory Circular RG-14-002 (January 9, 2014),
available at http://www.cboe.com/aboutCBOE/legal/crclReg.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to make an amendment to its OHS (Order
Handling System) Order Cancellation Fee (``Cancel Fee''). Currently,
the Notes section of the Cancel Fee carves out certain circumstances in
which the Cancel Fee does not apply. The Exchange would like to add
exception to cover the cancellation of any orders that were entered
during the pre-open or opening rotation states. Sometimes one or more
other option exchanges open a class sooner than CBOE and a TPH may
desire to cancel orders still pending at CBOE and route to exchanges
that are open. The Exchange does not believe

that market participants should be assessed the Cancel Fee in these
circumstances. Similarly, on occasion, a trading halt may occur on the
Exchange, and market participants may want orders that they had entered
onto CBOE to be cancelled during such halts and moved to another
exchange for execution. The Exchange does not believe that market
participants should be assessed the Cancel Fee in these circumstances,
either. As such, the Exchange proposes to add exception (vii) of the
Cancel Fee to state that the Cancel fee shall not apply to orders that
are entered or canceled prior to the opening, during the opening
rotation, or during a trading halt.
    The Exchange always strives for clarity in its rules and Fees
Schedule, so that market participants may best understand how rules and
fees apply. As such, the Exchange proposes a number of changes to
clarify its Fees Schedule. The first such proposed change regards the
Hybrid 3.0 Execution Fee. The Exchange assesses a Hybrid 3.0 Execution
Fee on electronic executions in Hybrid 3.0 classes (with a number of
exceptions).\5\ However, as the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Fee is assessed on
top of regular transaction fees for transactions in the Hybrid 3.0
classes, the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Fee would more accurately be
described as a ``surcharge'' (as other fees listed on the Fees Schedule
that are assessed on top of regular transaction fees are labeled as
``surcharges''). As such, the Exchange proposes to rename the Hybrid
3.0 Execution Fee the ``Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For more information on the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Fee, see
Footnote 21 of the Exchange Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to clarify Footnote 21 of the Fees
Schedule, which currently states that ``All electronic executions in
Hybrid 3.0 classes shall be assessed the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Fee,
except that this fee shall not apply to . . . orders executed by a
broker.'' The Exchange wishes to clarify that this means that orders
executed by a floor broker using a PAR terminal (as opposed to simply
``orders executed by a broker'') shall be excepted from assessment of
the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Fee (renamed herein the ``Hybrid 3.0 Execution
Surcharge'' as described above). This was, and is, the original intent
of this exception. This is not a substantive fee change because the
only brokers that apply here are floor brokers, and the only way floor
brokers can perform such executions is via a PAR terminal. This change
to the language only makes more clear the types of executions that are
excepted from the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge.
    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to clarify Footnote 31 of the Fees
Schedule's description of the Customer Priority Surcharge as it applies
to SPXW. Currently, Footnote 31 states that such surcharge applies to
all customer contracts executed electronically, except those contracts
traded on a PAR terminal. The Exchange wishes to use the same
clarifying language as applies to the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge
(as described above), and state that the SPXW Customer Priority
Surcharge applies to all customer contracts executed electronically,
except those executed by a floor broker on a PAR terminal. This is a
clarification and not a substantive fee change because only floor
brokers can execute orders using a PAR terminal.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\6\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \7\ 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
facilitation 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) \8\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\
which requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit
Holders and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the increased Exchangefone relocation
fee is reasonable because the increase is being enacted to reflect an
increase in the amount that a vendor charges the Exchange to provide
the Exchangefone relocations, and also because the amount of the
increase is a mere $16. The Exchange believes that this change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the increased
Exchangefone relocation fee will apply to all market participants who
request an Exchangefone relocation.
    The Exchange believes that the removal of references to e-DPMs and
the e-DPM program from the Fees Schedule will eliminate any potential
confusion regarding whether or not the e-DPM program is still active on
the Exchange, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that renaming the Hybrid 3.0 Execution
Fee as the ``Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge'' will clarify that the
Hybrid 3.0 Execution Fee applies on top of regular transaction fees
(like other surcharges listed on the Fees Schedule), thereby
eliminating potential confusion and removing impediments to and
perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system. The Exchange also believes that the clarification in
Footnote 21 of the Fees Schedule that the Hybrid 3.0 Execution
Surcharge shall not apply to orders executed by a floor broker using a
PAR terminal will eliminate potential confusion regarding to whom the
Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge applies (and does not apply), thereby
eliminating potential confusion and removing impediments to and
perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system. Along the same lines, the Exchange believes that the
clarification in Footnote 31 that the SPXW Customer Priority Surcharge
applies to all customer contracts executed electronically, except those
executed by a floor broker on a PAR terminal will eliminate potential
confusion regarding to whom the SPXW Customer Priority Surcharge
applies (and does not apply), thereby eliminating potential confusion
and removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the Cancel Fee is
reasonable because it would allow some market participants who
currently would get assessed the Cancel Fee to avoid having to pay the
fee. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it makes logical
sense to not apply the

Cancel Fee to orders that are entered or canceled prior to the opening,
during the opening rotation, or during a trading halt. The Exchange
does not believe that a TPH should be assessed a Cancel Fee for
cancelling orders in order to move such orders to another exchange
because that other exchange opens a class sooner than CBOE or because
there is a trading halt on CBOE and the TPH wishes to get those orders
filled. Moreover, this proposed change will apply to all market
participants equally; the Cancel Fee will not be assessed to any
cancelled orders, regardless of the type of market participant, that
are entered or canceled prior to the opening, during the opening
rotation, or during a trading halt.

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. CBOE does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act because all of the proposed changes will apply to all market
participants. CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed changes only apply to trading on CBOE. To the extent that any
of the proposed changes makes CBOE a more attractive market for market
participants on other exchanges, such market participants may elect to
become market participants on CBOE. Finally, the majority of the
proposed changes are non-substantive clarifications.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
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 shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2014-012 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-2014-012. 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-2014-012 and should be
submitted on or before March 12, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03568 Filed 2-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 237 (Friday, December 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89110-89112]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29587]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1814]

Preparation of Food Contact Notifications for Food Contact
Substances in Contact With Infant Formula and/or Human Milk; Draft
Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Preparation of
Food Contact Notifications for Food Contact Substances in Contact with
Infant Formula and/or Human Milk.'' The draft guidance, when finalized,
will provide industry with our current thinking on how to prepare a
food contact notification (FCN) submission for our review and
evaluation of the safety of food contact substances (FCSs) used in
contact with infant formula and/or human milk.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that we consider your comment on the draft
guidance before we begin work on the final version of the guidance,
submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by
February 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-D-1814 for ``Preparation of Food Contact Notifications for
Food Contact Substances in Contact with Infant Formula and/or Human
Milk.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for
those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Division of Food Contact Notifications, Office of Food Additive
Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-275), Food
and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send
two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing
your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Randolph, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-275), Food and Drug Administration, 5001
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Preparation of Food Contact Notifications for Food Contact
Substances in Contact with Infant Formula and/or Human Milk.'' We are
issuing the draft guidance consistent with our good guidance practices
regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will
represent the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public. You can use an alternate approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
    Section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C
Act) (21 U.S.C. 348) establishes an FCN process as the primary method
by which we regulate food additives that are FCSs. As defined in
section 409(h)(6) of the FD&C Act, the term ``food contact substance''
means any substance intended for use as a component of materials used
in manufacturing, packing, packaging, transporting, or holding food if
such use is not intended to have any technical effect in such food.
    Under section 409(h) of the FD&C Act and FDA's implementing
regulations, FCN submissions must contain a comprehensive discussion of
the basis for the manufacturer's or supplier's determination that the
use of the FCS that is the subject of the notification is safe. This
draft guidance contains recommendations regarding how the scientific
information in FCNs for infant food use should demonstrate that the FCS
is safe for the specific intended use in contact with infant food. For
purposes of the draft guidance, infant food is limited to infant
formula and/or human milk, and this draft guidance focuses on infants
0-6 months in age. The draft guidance discusses our

recommendations and provides information for: Chemistry
recommendations, including migration testing and exposure estimation;
toxicology recommendations including exposure-based testing tiers,
minimum testing recommendations, and age-dependent cancer risk analysis
of carcinogenic constituents; and administrative recommendations
including acknowledgment of an FCN, non-acceptance of an FCN, final
letter, inventory of effective FCNs, and premarket notification
consultations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance contains proposed information collection
provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). ``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)
and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that
members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide
information to a third party. Federal law at 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)
requires Federal Agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register for each proposed collection of information before submitting
the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we
will publish a 60-day notice of the proposed collection of information
in a future issue of the Federal Register.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or http://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA Web sites listed in the previous
sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    Dated: December 2, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-29587 Filed 12-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: August 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 152)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44438]
[DOCID:fr08au07-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 260 and 284

[Docket Nos. RM07-10-000 and AD06-11-000]

Transparency Provisions of Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act;
Transparency Provisions of the Energy Policy Act

August 2, 2007.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Extension of reply comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: On April 19, 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) concerning new rules to
facilitate price transparency in markets for the sale and
transportation of physical natural gas in interstate commerce. 72 FR
20791 (April 27, 2007). The Commission is extending the date for filing
reply comments on the NOPR at the request of Enbridge Energy Company,
Inc.

DATES: Reply comments are now due August 23, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. RM07-10-
000, by one of the following methods:
     Agency Web Site: http://ferc.gov. Follow the instructions

for submitting comments via the eFiling link found in the Comment
Procedures Section of the preamble.
     Mail: Commenters unable to file comments electronically
must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please refer
to the Comment Procedures Section of Docket Nos. RM07-10-000 and AD06-
11-000 in the preamble of the April 19, 2007 NOPR for additional
information on how to file paper comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen J. Harvey (Technical), 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Eric Ciccoretti (Legal), 888 First Street NE.,

Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Extension of Time

August 2, 2007.
    On July 11, 2007, Enbridge Energy Company, Inc. filed a motion for
an extension of time to file reply comments to the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) issued April 19, 2007, in the above-referenced
proceeding, 72 FR 20791 (Apr. 26, 2007), FERC. Stats. and Regs. ]
32,614 (2007). The motion states that additional time is needed in
order to fully consider the discussions that took place at the
Transparency workshop on July 24, 2007, so as to prepare more
meaningful reply comments and to provide time to respond to the issues
raised during the Workshop discussions and in various initial comments
filed by the parties.
    Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that an extension of
time for filing reply comments on the NOPR is granted to and including
August 23, 2007, thirty days after the Workshop.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-15392 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer and potential e-juice manufacturer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer  and producer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I want to respond to fully and clearly. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time, and less than a day per question is quite limiting. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers and producers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. I firmly believe that they saved my life as I managed to switch from half a pack of cigarettes a day to none overnight. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 23287]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08334]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 94724/April 14, 2022]

Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Order Granting Petition for
Review and Scheduling Filing of Statements; In the Matter of Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. Regarding an Order Granting the
Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Amend the Requirements for Covered Agency Transactions Under FINRA Rule
4210 (Margin Requirements) as Approved Pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036

    This matter comes before the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') on petition to review the approval, pursuant to
delegated authority, of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') proposed rule change to amend the requirements for
covered agency transactions under FINRA Rule 4210.
    On May 19, 2021, the Commission issued a notice of filing of the
proposed rule change with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 \2\ thereunder.\3\ On June 30, 2021, FINRA extended the time
period in which the Commission needed to approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
to August 23, 2021.\4\ On August 9, 2021, FINRA submitted Amendment No.
1 to the proposed rule change. On August 20, 2021, the Commission
issued a notice of filing of Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change, and proceedings were instituted under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of
the Exchange Act \5\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change.\6\ On October 26, 2021, FINRA extended the time
period in which the Commission needed to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change to January 20, 2022.\7\ On January 20, 2022, after
consideration of the record for the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1, the Division, pursuant to delegated authority,\8\
issued an order approving the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1 (``Approval Order'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 91937 (May 19, 2021), 86 FR
28161 (May 25, 2021) (SR-FINRA-2021-010).
    \4\ See letter from Adam Arkel, Associate General Counsel,
Office of General Counsel, FINRA, to Sheila Swartz, Division of
Trading and Markets (``Division''), Commission (June 30, 2021).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 92713 (Aug. 20, 2021), 86 FR
47665 (Aug. 26, 2021) (SR-FINRA-2021-010).
    \7\ See letter from Adam Arkel, Associate General Counsel,
Office of General Counsel, FINRA, to Sheila Swartz, Division,
Commission (Oct. 26, 2021).
    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
    \9\ See Exchange Act Release No. 94013 (Jan. 20, 2022), 87 FR
4076 (Jan. 26, 2021) (SR-FINRA-2021-010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 430 of the Commission's Rules of Practice,\10\ on
January 27, 2022 the Bond Dealers of America (``BDA'') and Brean
Capital, LLC (``Brean Capital'') filed a notice of intention to
petition for review of the Approval Order, and on February 3, 2022 BDA
and Brean Capital filed a petition for review of the Approval Order.
Pursuant to Rule 431(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice,\11\ the
Approval Order is stayed by the filing with the Commission of a notice
of intention to petition for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 201.430.
    \11\ 17 CFR 201.431(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 431 of the Commission's Rules of Practice,\12\ the
petition for review of the Approval Order is granted. Further, the
Commission hereby establishes that any party to the action or other
person may file a written statement in support of or in opposition to
the Approval Order on or before May 10, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 201.431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated above, it is hereby:
    Ordered that the petition of BDA and Brean Capital for review of
the Division's action to approve the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1, by delegated authority be granted; and
    It is further ordered that any party or other person may file a
statement in support of or in opposition to the action made pursuant to
delegated authority on or before May 10, 2022.
    It is further ordered that the January 20, 2022 order approving the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (File No. SR-
FINRA-2021-010), shall remain stayed pending further action by the
Commission.

    By the Commission.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08334 Filed 4-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


is then multiplied by the age-dependent BW to account for the changes
occurring over the first weeks of life. This resulted in an estimated
90th percentile water intake rate of 0.84 L/day for the 7-day bottle
fed infant and used by EPA in PBPK model simulations. General
information on water and formula intake for 7-day old infants is also
available in guidelines for healthy growth and nutrition of the
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, 2008). The values estimated using
the guidelines from the AAP (0.126 L/kg-day assuming 80% is the percent
water used in preparation of formula) for 7-day-old infants are close
to the mean consumers-only intake rate for the 1-30 day-old infants
from Kahn and Stralka (2008; 0.137 L/kg-day N=40).
    However, FDA has suggested an alternate approach, using the caloric
intake requirement of a 7-day old infant as the basis for calculating
consumption (FDA, 2008). This would likely yield a lower estimate of
intake than the 0.84 L/day EPA has used in the model. If intake is
lower, this would yield a lower prediction of RAIU inhibition, as can
be seen from the value predicted for the 7-day old breast fed infant
(1.4 percent). EPA plans to ask specifically for feedback on the
consumption estimates

for 7-day old bottle-fed infants when the model revisions are peer
reviewed.
    There is also uncertainty regarding the appropriate duration of
exposure (i.e., days, weeks, months) to compare to the perchlorate RfD,
which EPA defines as ``an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps
an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.'' Reference
values, like the RfD, are derived based on an assumption of continuous
exposure throughout the duration specified, while intake levels may
rapidly change day to day or during certain life stages. For
comparability with the RfD, continuous perchlorate exposure was assumed
in EPA's modeling analysis. Using perchlorate levels predicted for a
continuous exposure (constant rate of introduction to the stomach),
rather than incorporating changes in exposure and other input
parameters over time (i.e., simulating the timing and quantity of
specific ingestion events during the day), substantially reduced the
effects of parameter uncertainty in the modeling. RAIU inhibition, on
the other hand, is evaluated as the change in thyroid uptake of a pulse
of iodide (radiolabeled, from an IV injection) at a time 24 hours after
the pulse is administered. Thus, it represents the inhibition on a
given day. This was true in the Greer study on which the RfD is based,
and it is also true in the model. For all lifestages except the
developing infant, the day-to-day variation in RAIU inhibition at the
levels under consideration will have little or no effect. However, the
effects of short-term inhibition in the infant (and fetus) may be of
greater consequence than in the adult, although infants may also have
less short-term variability in their diet and intake levels than
adults. To address this concern, we present the results for the infant
at both 7 days and 60 days after birth. The model predicts a fairly
smooth variation in effect between these two ages.
d. Summary of Modeling Analysis
    In deciding whether to regulate perchlorate, EPA focused attention
on the most sensitive subpopulation, a pregnant woman and her fetus.
EPA calculated an HRL of 15 [mu]g/L for pregnant women using RSC
information derived from an analysis of NHANES and UCMR data. EPA also
conducted PBPK modeling to evaluate predicted biological outcomes
associated with drinking water concentrations at the health reference
level for different sensitive subpopulations. For pregnant women, EPA
assumed a 90th percentile water ingestion rate of 0.033 L/kg-day, a
food intake rate that represented the midpoint of the range of average
perchlorate dietary exposures reported in Murray et al. (2008), and
used the Clewell et al. (2007) PBPK model-fitted body weight. EPA
believes that the model-fitted body weight provides a more realistic
weight for the pregnant woman than EPA's 70 kg default assumption for
adults. In addition, rather than using the default assumption of 2L/day
water ingestion, EPA used a 90th percentile water ingestion rate
normalized for body weight and based on data specifically for pregnant
women (USEPA 2004b). Using these assumptions, the model predicted that
the pregnant woman's dose of perchlorate would not exceed the reference
dose if she consumed drinking water with a concentration of 15 [mu]g/L
or less, which is consistent with the derivation of the HRL from the
reference dose, based on average body weight, 90th percentile water
consumption, and 90th percentile food exposure for pregnant women. The
model further predicted that the percent inhibition in the fetus of a
pregnant woman consuming drinking water with 15 [mu]g/L perchlorate (in
combination with a normal diet) is 1.1 percent, below the 1.8 percent
that the NRC determined to be a no-effect level in healthy adults. EPA
evaluated other subpopulations to estimate iodide uptake inhibition and
determined that 7-day old bottle-fed infants were predicted to have a
2.2 percent inhibition level, after also accounting for food exposure,
and all other subpopulations, including 60-day old bottle-fed infants,
7 and 60 day old breast-fed infants, and children, were predicted to
have levels of inhibition of 1.4 percent or less, after accounting for
food. All of these levels are comparable to or below the 1.8 percent no
effect inhibition level from the Greer study.
    Based on the health protective approach for deriving the RfD (i.e.,
use of a NOEL rather than a NOAEL as the point of departure), the
conservative assumptions used in deriving the RSC and corresponding HRL
(use of 90th percentile food exposure data specifically from pregnant
women), and the PBPK modeling analysis of RAIU inhibition in
potentially sensitive subpopulations, EPA believes drinking water with
perchlorate concentrations at or below the HRL of 15 [mu]g/L is
protective of all subpopulations. Based upon the HRL and the analysis
of drinking water occurrence, EPA concludes that perchlorate does not
occur at a frequency and level of health concern to warrant a national
drinking water regulation.

C. Is There a Meaningful Opportunity for the Reduction of Health Risks
From Perchlorate for Persons Served by Public Water Systems?

    The Agency does not believe that a national primary drinking water
regulation for perchlorate presents a meaningful opportunity for health
risk reduction for persons served by public water systems. EPA has
found that perchlorate occurs infrequently above levels of health
concern. Only 31 out of 3,865 systems (0.8 percent) detected
perchlorate in drinking water above the HRL of 15 [mu]g/L. EPA's best
estimate is that 0.9 million people (with an upper bound estimate of 2
million people) may be consuming water containing perchlorate at levels
that could exceed the HRL for perchlorate and the Agency estimates that
fewer than 30,000 of them are pregnant women at any given time.
    EPA's RfD was derived by applying a 10 fold uncertainty factor to
the dose corresponding to a non-statistically significant mean 1.8
percent decline in RAIU in healthy adults following two weeks of daily
exposure to perchlorate (Greer et al., 2002). Because iodide uptake
inhibition is not an adverse effect but a precursor biochemical change,
this point of departure (7 ug/kg/day) is a NOEL which provides for a
more conservative and health-protective approach to perchlorate hazard
assessment. After taking perchlorate in the diet into consideration, at
the HRL of 15 [mu]g/L for perchlorate in drinking water, the models
predicted that the percent RAIU inhibition in fetuses would be 1.1
percent, while the inhibition in all other subgroups except the 7-day-
old bottle fed infant would be no greater than 1.4 percent. For the 7-
day-old bottle fed infant, the predicted inhibition is 2.2 percent. All
of these values are comparable to or below the percent inhibition at
the NOEL in the Greer study.
    Based on these analyses, EPA has determined that a national primary
drinking water regulation for perchlorate would not present a
meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by
public water systems.

V. EPA's Next Steps

    EPA requests comment on this preliminary determination that a
national primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate would not
present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons
served by public water systems. EPA also requests comment upon the
scientific

data and supporting analyses for this determination. In past regulatory
determinations, EPA has qualitatively but not quantitatively evaluated
the health effects of exposure at the HRL on infants and children.
Because the evaluation of the potential impacts of exposure at the HRL
of 15 [mu]g/L on infants and children is a novel approach, EPA
specifically requests comment on its use of the revised PBPK model to
evaluate these potential impacts.
    EPA will respond to the public comments it receives on the
preliminary determination and will review the comments from the peer
review of its model application. After considering comments, EPA plans
to issue a final regulatory determination for perchlorate by December
2008. EPA also plans to publish a health advisory for perchlorate at
the time of the final determination to provide information to Federal,
Regional, State, and local public health officials regarding potential
health risks from perchlorate-contaminated drinking water.

VI. References AAP, 2008:

AAP, 2008: American Academy of Pediatrics, Bright futures guidelines
for health supervision of infants, children, and adolescents (2008)
http://brightfutures.aap.org/pdfs/Guidelines_PDF/6-Promoting_
Healthy_Nutrition.pdf.
Amitai Y, Winston G, Sack J, Wasser J, Lewis M, Blount BC, Valentin-
Blasini L, Fisher N, Israeli A, and Leventhal A. (2007). Gestational
exposure to high perchlorate concentrations in drinking water and
neonatal thyroxine levels. Thyroid. 17(9): 843-850.
Arcus-Arth, A., G. Krowech, and L. Zeise. 2005. Breast milk and
lipid intake distributions for assessing cumulative exposure and
risk. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology
15(4): 357-365.
Auso E., R. Lavado-Autric, E. Cuevas, F.E. Del Rey, G, Morreale De
Escobar, and P. Berbel. 2004. A moderate and transient deficiency of
maternal thyroid function at the beginning of fetal
neocorticogenesis alters neuronal migration. Endocrinology. 145:
4037-47.
Blount, B.C., L. Valentin-Blasini, D.L. Ashley. 2006a. Assessing
human exposure to perchlorate using biomonitoring. Journal of ASTM
International. Vol. 3, No. 7. pp. 1-6.
Blount, B.C., J.L. Pirkle, J.D. Osterloh, L. Valentin-Blasini, and
K.L. Caldwell. 2006b. Urinary perchlorate and thyroid hormone levels
in adolescent and adult men and women living in the United States.
Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 114, No. 12. pp. 1865-1871.
Blount, B.C., L. Valentin-Blasini, J.D. Osterloh, J.P. Mauldin, and
J.L. Pirkle. 2006c. Perchlorate Exposure of the U.S. Population,
2001-2002. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental
Epidemiology. Advance online publication 18 October 2006. Available
on the Internet at: http://www.nature.com/jes/journal/vaop/ncurrent/
pdf/7500535a.pdf.
Blount, B.C., L. Valentin-Blasini. 2006. Analysis of perchlorate,
thiocyanate, nitrate and iodide in human amniotic fluid using ion
chromatography and electrospray tandem mass spectrometry. Analytica
Chimica Acta. Vol. 567, No. 1. pp. 87-93.
CDPH. 2008. California Department of Public Health. ``Perchlorate in
California Drinking Water: Update and Overview.'' Available on the
Internet at: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/
Perchlorate.aspx. Updated July 8, 2008.
Caldwell K.L., Jones R., and Hollowell J.G. 2005. Urinary iodine
concentration: United States National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey 2001-2002. Thyroid. Vol. 15, pp. 692-699.
Chan, S. and M.D. Kilby. 2000. Thyroid hormone and central nervous
system development. J Endocrinol 165(1): 1-8.
Clewell, R.A., E.A. Merrill, J.M. Gearhart, P.J. Robinson, T.R.
Sterner, D.R. Mattie, and H.J. Clewell, III. 2007. Perchlorate and
radiodide kinetics across life stages in the human: using PBPK
models to predict dosimetry and thyroid inhibition and sensitive
subpopulations based on developmental stage. Journal of Toxicology
and Environmental Health. Part A. 70:5 408-428.
Dasgupta, P.K., A.B. Kirk, J.V. Dyke, and S.I. Ohira. 2008. Intake
of Iodine and Perchlorate Excretion in Human Milk. Environ. Sci.
Technol. Advance online publication accessed September 18, 2008.
Delange, F. 2004. Optimal iodine during pregnancy, lactation and the
neonatal period. International Journal of Endocrinology and
Metabolism 3:1-12.
Egan, S.K., Bolger, P.M., and Carrington, C.D. 2007. Update of U.S.
FDA's Total Diet Study Food Lists and Diets. J Expo Sci Environ
Epidemiol. pp. 1-10. (As cited in Murray et al., 2007)
FDA, 2008: Food and Drug Administration. Volume of feeds for
infants. Memorandum from Benson M. Silverman, M.D., Staff Director,
Infant Formula/Medical Foods Staff, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition, to P. Michael Bolger.
Gibbs et al., 2004. J.P. Gibbs, L. Narayanan and D.R. Mattie, Crump
et al. Study among school children in Chile: subsequent urine and
serum perchlorate levels are consistent with perchlorate in water in
Taltal, J. Occup. Environ. Med 46 (2004) (6), pp. 516-517.
Gilbert, M.E. and L. Sui. 2008. Developmental exposure to
perchlorate alters synaptic transmission in hippocampus of the adult
rat. Environ Health Perspect 116: 752-60.
Glinoer, D. 2001. Potential consequences of maternal hypothyroidism
on the offspring: evidence and implications. Horm Res 55(3): 109-14.
Glinoer, D. 2007. Clinical and biological consequences of iodine
deficiency during pregnancy. Endocr Dev 10: 62-85.
Goldey, E.S., L.S. Kehn, G.L. Rehnberg, and K.M. Crofton. 1995.
Effects of developmental hypothyroidism on auditory and motor
function in the rat. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 135:67-76.
Greer, M.A., G. Goodman, R.C. Pleuss, and S.E. Greer. 2002. Health
effect assessment for environmental perchlorate contamination: the
dose response for inhibition of thyroidal radioiodide uptake in
humans. Environ Health Perspect Vol. 110. pp. 927-937.
Haddow, J.E., G.E. Palomaki, et al. 1999. Maternal thyroid
deficiency during pregnancy and subsequent neuropsychological
development of the child. New England Journal of Medicine 341(8):
549-55.
Kahn, H., and K. Stralka. 2008. Estimated daily average per capita
water ingestion by child and adult age categories based on USDA's
1994-96 and 1998 continuing survey of food intakes by individuals.
Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology
(accepted for publication).
Kirk, A.B., E.E. Smith, K. Tian, T.A. Anderson, and P.K. Dasgupta.
2003. Perchlorate in Milk. Environmental Science and Technology.
Vol. 37, No. 21. pp. 4979-4981.
Kirk, A.B., P.K. Martinelango, K. Tian, A. Dutta, E.E. Smith, and
P.K. Dasgupta. 2005. Perchlorate and iodide in dairy and breast
milk. Environmental Science and Technology. Vol. 39, No. 7. pp.
2011-2017.
Kirk, A.B., J.V. Dyke, C.F. Martin, and P.K. Dasgupta. 2007.
Temporal patterns in perchlorate, thiocyanate and iodide excretion
in human milk. Environ Health Perspect Online Vol. 115, No. 2. pp.
182-186.
Kooistra, L., S. Crawford, A.L. van Baar, E.P. Brouwers, and V.J.
Pop. 2006. Neonatal effects of maternal hypothyroxinemia during
early pregnancy. Pediatrics; 117; 161-167.
Krynitsky, A.J., R.A. Niemann, A.D. Williams, M.L. Hopper. 2006.
Streamlined sample preparation procedure for determination of
perchlorate anion in foods by ion chromatography-tandem mass
spectrometry. Analytica Chimica Acta Vol 567. pp. 94-99. (As cited
in Murray et al., 2007)
Mage, D.T., R.H. Allen, A. Kodali. 2007. Creatinine corrections for
estimating children's and adults' pesticide intake doses in
equilibrium with urinary pesticide and creatinine concentrations. J.
Expos Sci Enviro Epidem. 18, pp. 360-368.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP). 2005.
The occurrence and sources of perchlorate in Massachusetts. Draft
Report. Available on the Internet at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/
cleanup/sites/percsour.pdf. Updated April 2006.

Merrill, E.A., R.A. Clewell, P.J. Robinson, A.M. Jarabek, T.R.
Sterner, and J.W. Fisher. 2005. PBPK model for radioactive iodide
and perchlorate kinetics and perchlorate-induced inhibition of
iodide uptake in humans. Toxicological Sciences 83: 25-43.
Morreale de Escobar, G., M.J. Obregon, and F. Escobar del Rey. 2004.
Is neuropsychological development related to material hypothyroidism
or to maternal hypothyroxinemia? The Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 85. No. 11.
Morreale de Escobar, G., M.J. Obregon, and F. Escobar del Rey. 2004.
Role of thyroid hormone during early brain development. European
Journal of Endocrinology 151: U25-U37.
Murray, C.W III, S.K. Egan, H. Kim, N. Beru, P.M. Bolger. 2008. U.S.
Food and Drug Administration's Total Diet Study: Dietary Intake of
Perchlorate and Iodine. Journal of Exposure Science and
Environmental Epidemiology, advance online publication, January 2,
2008.
National Research Council (NRC). 2005. Health Implications of
Perchlorate Ingestion. National Academies Press, Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology. January 2005. 276 p.
Pearce, E.N., A.M. Leung, B.C. Blount, H.R. Bazrafshan, X. He, S.
Pino, L. Valentin-Blasini, L.E. Braverman. 2007. Breast milk iodine
and perchlorate concentrations in lactating Boston-area women. J
Clin Endocrin Metab Vol. 92, No. 5, pp. 1673-1677.
Pop, V.J., J.L. Kuijpens, A.L. van Baar, G. Verkerk, M.M. van Son,
J.J. de Vijlder, T. Vulsma, W.M. Wiersinga. H.A. Drexhage, and H.L.
Vader. 1999. Low maternal free thyroxine concentrations during early
pregnancy are associated with impaired psychomotor development in
infancy. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). Feb;50(2):149-55.
Pop, V.J., E.P. Brouwers, H.L. Vader, T. Vulsma, A.L. van Baar, and
J.J. de Vijlder JJ. 2003. Maternal hypothyroxinaemia during early
pregnancy and subsequent child development: A 3-year follow-up
study. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). Sep;59(3):282-8.
Rovet, J.F., 2002. Congenital hypothyroidism: An analysis of
persisting deficits and associated factors. Child Neuropsychology
Vol. 8, No. 3. pp. 150-162.
Sanchez, C., Blount, B., L Valentin-Blasini, L., Krieger, R.
Perchlorate, thiocyanate, and nitrate in edible cole crops (Brassica
sp.) produced in the lower Colorado River region. Bull Environ
Contam Toxicol. 2007 Oct 26.
Sanchez, C.A., R.I Krieger, N. Khandaker, R.C. Moore, K.C. Holts,
and L.L. Neidel. 2005a. Accumulation and perchlorate exposure
potential of lettuce produced in the lower Colorado River region.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry Vol. 53. pp. 5479-5486.
Sanchez C.A., K.S. Crump, R.I. Krieger, N.R. Khandaker, and J.P.
Gibbs. 2005b. Perchlorate and nitrate in leafy vegetables of North
America. Environmental Science and Technology Vol. 39, No. 24, pp.
9391-9397.
Sharlin, D.S., D. Tighe, et al. 2008. The balance between
oligodendrocyte and astrocyte production in major white matter
tracts is linearly related to serum total thyroxine. Endocrinology
149(5): 2527-36.
Steinmaus, C., M.D. Miller, R. Howd. 2007. Impact of smoking and
thiocyanate on perchlorate and thyroid hormone associations in the
2001-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Environ
Health Perspect 115(9):1333-8.
T[eacute]llez, R.T., P.M. Chac[oacute]n, C.R. Abraca, B.C. Blount,
C.B. Van Landingham, K.S. Crump, and J.P. Gibbs. 2005. Chronic
environmental exposure to perchlorate through drinking water and
thyroid function during pregnancy and the neonatal period. Thyroid
Vol. 15, No. 9. pp. 963-975.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002. U.S. Summary: 2000. U.S. Department of
Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census
Bureau. C2KPROF/00-US. July 2002.
USEPA. 1997a. Announcement of the Draft Drinking Water Contaminant
Candidate List; Notice. Federal Register. Vol. 62, No. 193. p.
52193, October 6, 1997.
USEPA. 1998a. Announcement of the Draft Drinking Water Contaminant
Candidate List; Notice. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 40. p. 10273,
March 2, 1998.
USEPA. 1999b. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation for Public Water Systems. Federal Register. Vol. 64, No.
180. p. 50556, September 17, 1999.
USEPA. 2000b. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for
Public Water Systems: Analytical Methods for Perchlorate and
Acetochlor; Announcement of Laboratory Approval and Performance
Testing (PT) Program for the Analysis of Perchlorate; Final Rule and
Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 42. p. 11372, March 2,
2000.
USEPA. 2001b. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for
Public Water Systems; Analytical Methods for List 2 Contaminants;
Clarifications to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation.
Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 8. p. 2273, January 11, 2001.
USEPA. 2002a. Announcement of Preliminary Regulatory Determinations
for Priority Contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant
Candidate List. Federal Register. Vol. 67, No. 106. p. 38222, June
3, 2002.
USEPA. 2002b. Perchlorate Environmental Contamination: Toxicological
Review and Risk Characterization. EPA/635/R-02/003. National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development,
U.S. EPA.
USEPA. 2002c. A review of the reference dose and reference
concentration processes. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC; EPA/
630/P-02/0002F. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/iris/backgr-
d.htm.
USEPA. 2003a. Announcement of Regulatory Determinations for Priority
Contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List.
Federal Register. Vol. 68, No. 138. p. 42897, July 18, 2003.
USEPA. 2004a. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 2; Notice.
Federal Register. Vol. 69, No. 64. p. 17406, April 2, 2004.
USEPA. 2004b. Estimated Per Capita Water Ingestion and Body Weight
in the United States--An Update Based on Data Collected by the
United States Department of Agriculture's 1994-1996 and 1998
Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals. EPA-822-R-00-001.
Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, U.S. EPA.
USEPA. 2005a. Notice--Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 2;
Final Notice. Federal Register. Vol. 70, No. 36. p. 9071, February
24, 2005.
USEPA. 2005b. ``Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS),
Perchlorate and Perchlorate Salts.'' February 2005. Available on the
Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/1007.htm. Accessed
February 2, 2005.
USEPA 2006. Assessment Guidance for Perchlorate. Memorandum from
Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, to EPA Regional Administrators. Available on
the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/pdf/perchlorate_
guidance.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2008
USEPA. 2007. Drinking Water: Regulatory Determinations Regarding
Contaminants on the Second Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List--Preliminary Determinations. Federal Register. 72 FR 24016. May
1, 2007.
USEPA, 2008a Evaluation of Perchlorate Exposure from Food and
Drinking Water: Results of NHANES Biomonitoring Data and UCMR 1
Occurrence Data Merge.
USEPA. 2008b. Inhibition of the Sodium-Iodide Symporter by
Perchlorate: Evaluation of Lifestage Sensitivity Using
Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling. {NOTE: Final title/
reference info for the document will be provided before
publication.{time}
USEPA. 2008c. Drinking Water: Regulatory Determinations Regarding
Contaminants on the Second Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List--Final Determinations. Federal Register. 73 FR 44251. July 30,
2008.
Ventura SJ, Abma JC, Mosher WD, Henshaw S. Estimated pregnancy rates
for the United States, 1990-2000: an update. National vital
statistics reports; vol 52 no 23. Hyattsville, Maryland: National
Center for Health Statistics. 2004.
Zoeller, R.T., and J. Rovet. 2004. Timing of thyroid hormone action
in the developing brain: clinical observations and experimental
findings. J Neuroendocrinology 16: 809-18.

    Dated: October 3, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E8-24042 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P