[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12977-12981]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05436]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77305; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 123C To Provide
for How the Exchange Would Determine an Official Closing Price if the
Exchange is Unable To Conduct a Closing Transaction

March 7, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on February 25, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') 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 self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 Rule 123C to provide for how the
Exchange would determine an Official Closing Price if the Exchange is
unable to conduct a closing transaction. The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend its rules to specify back-up
procedures for determining an Official Closing Price for Exchange-
listed securities if it is unable to conduct a closing transaction in
one or more securities due to a systems or technical issue.\4\
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123C to provide for
how the Exchange would determine an Official Closing Price if the
Exchange is impaired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange press release dated July 22, 2015, available
here: http://ir.theice.com/press-and-publications/press-releases/all-categories/2015/07-22-2015.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange developed this proposal in consultation with its
affiliated exchanges, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and NYSE MKT LLC
(``NYSE MKT''), and the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), and took
into consideration feedback from discussions with industry
participants, including meeting the following key goals important to
market participants:
     Providing a pre-determined, consistent solution that would
result in a closing print to the applicable securities information
processor (``SIP'') within a reasonable time frame from the normal
closing time;
     Minimizing the need for industry participants to modify
their processing of data from the SIPs; and
     Providing advance notification of the applicable closing
contingency plan to provide sufficient time for industry participants
to route any closing interest to an alternate venue to participate in
that venue's closing auction.
Background
    The Exchange recently amended Rule 123C to add the definition of
``Official Closing Price'' for all Exchange-listed securities and, once
implemented, will disseminate to the SIP the Official Closing Price as
an ``M'' value.\5\ In that filing, the Exchange amended Rule
123C(1)(e)(i) to define the ``Official Closing Price'' of a security
listed on the Exchange as the price established in a closing
transaction under paragraphs (7) and (8) of Rule 123C of one round lot
or more. If there is no closing transaction in a security or if a
closing transaction is less than one round lot, the Official Closing
Price will be the most recent last-sale eligible trade in such security
on the Exchange on that trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76598 (Dec. 9,
2015), 80 FR 77688 (Dec. 15, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-62). For a
description of all sale conditions that are reportable to the SIP,
including the ``M'' value, see the Consolidated Tape System
Participant Communications Interface Specification, dated November
16, 2015, at 86, available here: https://www.ctaplan.com/publicdocs/ctaplan/notifications/trader-update/cts_input_spec.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further amended Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii) to provide for how
the Exchange would determine an Official Closing Price if the Exchange
is unable to conduct a closing transaction in a security or securities
due to a systems or technical issue. In such case, the Official Closing
Price will be the last consolidated last-sale eligible trade for such
security during regular trading hours on that trading day. The rule
further provides that if there were no consolidated last-sale eligible
trades in a security on a trading day when the Exchange is unable to
conduct a closing transaction in a security or securities due to a
systems or technical issue, the Official Closing Price of such security
will be the prior day's Official Closing Price.
    The Exchange also amended Rule 440B(b) to provide that Exchange
systems will not execute or display a short sale order with respect to
a covered security at a price that is less than or equal to the current
national best bid if the price of that security decreases by 10% or
more, as determined by the listing market for that security, from the
security's Official Closing Price, as defined in Rule 123C as of the
end of regular trading hours on the prior day (``Trigger Price'').
Proposed Amendments
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii) to provide for
the proposed new contingency plan of how the Exchange would determine
an Official Closing Price if the Exchange is unable to conduct a
closing transaction in a security or securities due to a systems or
technical issue. To reflect this change, the Exchange would replace the
current rule text in Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii).
    As proposed, Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii) would provide that if the Exchange
determines at or before 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time that it is unable to
conduct a closing transaction in one or more securities due to a
systems or technical issue, the Exchange would designate an alternate
exchange for such security or securities. The Exchange would publicly
announce the exchange designated as the alternate exchange via Trader
Update.\6\ In such case, the Official Closing Price of each security
would be determined on the following hierarchy:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange expects that it would designate one of its
affiliated exchanges as the alternate exchange and would designate
Nasdaq only if its affiliated exchanges were also impacted by the
systems or technical issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii)(A) would provide that the
Official Closing Price would be the official closing price for such
security under the rules of the designated alternate exchange. For
example, if the Exchange designates NYSE Arca as the alternate
exchange, the Official Closing Price would be based on NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 1.1(ggP), which defines how NYSE Arca establishes an
official closing price.\7\ If Nasdaq were designated as the alternate
exchange, the Official Closing Price would be the official closing
price established in Nasdaq Rule 4754.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NYSE Arca Equities will be filing a rule proposal to amend
Rule 1.1(ggP)(1) to provide that the manner by which NYSE Arca
determines the Official Closing Price under that rule for securities
listed on NYSE Arca would also be applicable to any securities for
which NYSE Arca conducts a closing auction, including securities
that trade on an unlisted trading privileges basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The proposed 3:00 p.m. cut off time was selected in part
based on discussions with market participants regarding their
capability to re-direct closing-only interest in Exchange-listed
securities in time to participate in the closing auction of an
alternate venue. By designating an alternate exchange before 3:00 p.m.
Eastern Time, the Exchange therefore believes that market participants
would be more likely to have sufficient notice to direct any closing-
only interest in Exchange-listed securities to the designated alternate
exchange. By providing market participants sufficient time, when
possible, to route closing-only interest to an alternate venue for
participation in that exchange's closing auction process, that
alternate exchange's closing auction would be more likely to result in
a closing price that reflects market value for such security.
     If there were insufficient interest for a closing auction
on the designated alternate exchange, the Exchange believes that the
respective rules of NYSE Arca and Nasdaq provide for an appropriate
hierarchy of which price to use to determine the Official Closing
Price. For example, under NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(ggP)(1), if there is no
closing auction of one round lot or more on a trading day, the official
closing price under that rule is the most recent consolidated last sale
eligible trade during Core Trading Hours on that trading day. That rule
further provides that if there were no consolidated last sale eligible
trades during Core Trading Hours on that trading day, NYSE Arca's

official closing price will be the prior day's Official Closing Price.
This hierarchy is similar to how the Exchange determines the Official
Closing Price pursuant to Rule 123C(1)(e)(i) when there is no closing
transaction of a round lot or more, except that in lieu of a closing
auction, NYSE Arca uses the last consolidated last sale eligible trade
rather than the last Exchange last-sale eligible trade.
     Proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii)(B) would provide if the
designated alternate exchange does not have an official closing price
in a security, the Official Closing price would be the volume-weighted
average price (``VWAP'') of the consolidated last-sale eligible prices
of the last five minutes of trading during regular trading hours up to
the time that the VWAP is processed. The VWAP would include any closing
transactions on an exchange and would take into account any trade
breaks or corrections up to the time the VWAP is processed. Because the
VWAP would include any last-sale eligible trades, busts, or corrections
that were reported up to the time that the SIP calculates the VWAP, the
Exchange believes that the VWAP price would reflect any pricing
adjustments that may be reported after 4:00 p.m. ET.
     As discussed above, the manner by which exchanges
calculate their respective official closing prices provide for an
official closing price in the absence of a closing transaction.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that in circumstances when the
Exchange designates an alternate exchange, the VWAP calculation would
rarely be used to determine the Official Closing Price for an Exchange-
listed security.
     Proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii)(C) would provide that if the
designated alternate exchange does not have an official closing price
in a security and there were no consolidated last-sale eligible trades
in the last five minutes of trading during regular trading hours in
such security, the Official Closing Price would be the last
consolidated last-sale eligible trade during regular trading hours on
that trading day.
     Proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii)(D) would provide that if the
designated alternate exchange does not have an official closing price
in a security and there were no consolidated last-sale eligible trades
in a security on a trading day in such security, the Official Closing
Price would be the prior day's Official Closing Price.
     Finally, proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii)(E) would provide
that if an Official Closing Price for a security cannot be determined
under (A), (B), or (C) of proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii) and there is no
prior day's Official Closing Price, the Exchange would not publish an
Official Closing Price for such security.
    The Exchange would use the hierarchy set forth in proposed Rule
123C(e)(ii)(B)-(E) only if the designated alternate exchange did not
disseminate an official closing price in a security. In such case, the
proposed hierarchy is based on current Rule 123C(1)(e)(i), which
provides that, if the Exchange is unable to conduct a closing
transaction, the Official Closing Price will be the last consolidated
last-sale eligible trade for such security during regular trading hours
on that trading day, and if there were no consolidated last-sale
eligible trades in a security, the Official Closing Price of such
security will be the prior day's Official Closing Price. In addition,
the Exchange proposes to add as paragraph (E) of Rule 123C(e)(ii) what
would happen if there were no Official Closing Price published on the
prior trading day (i.e., the Exchange would not publish an Official
Closing Price). The Exchange believes not publishing an Official
Closing Price would be a rare occurrence, and is most likely to occur
for a thinly-traded security, such as a when issued security, right, or
warrant, that has been listed for trading but does not have any
consolidated last-sale eligible trades.
    If the Exchange determines that it is impaired before 3:00 p.m. and
the Official Closing Price for an Exchange-listed security is
determined pursuant to proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii), the SIP would
publish the Official Closing Price for such security no differently
than how the SIP publishes the Official Closing Price for an Exchange-
listed security pursuant to Rule 123C(1)(e)(i).\8\ Accordingly, if the
Official Closing Price is determined pursuant to proposed Rule
123C(1)(e)(ii), recipients of SIP data would not have to make any
changes to their systems because the SIP would publish the ``M'' last
sale condition as an Exchange Official Closing Price for any impacted
Exchange-listed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Operating Committees of the CTA Plan, CQ Plan, and the
Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection,
Consolidation, and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction
Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an
Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis approved the Impaired Market
Contingency Plan under which the SIPs would print an impaired
primary listing exchange's contingency Official Closing Price as the
Official Closing Price of that primary listing exchange as provided
for in the rules of respective primary listing exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As further proposed, Rule 123C(1)(e)(iii) would describe how the
Exchange would determine the Official Closing Price for a security if
the Exchange determines after 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time that it is unable
to conduct a closing transaction in one or more securities due to a
systems or technical issue. Based on input from market participants,
the Exchange believes that, if the Exchange were to announce after 3:00
p.m. Eastern Time that it is impaired and unable to conduct a closing
transaction, market participants would not have sufficient time to re-
direct closing-only orders to an alternate venue. The proposed
hierarchy would be similar to proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii), but would
not contemplate a closing transaction on a designated alternate
exchange. Accordingly, in such scenario, the Exchange proposes to use
the following hierarchy for determining the Official Closing Price for
a security:
     Proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(iii)(A) would provide that the
Official Closing Price would be the VWAP of the consolidated last-sale
eligible prices of the last five minutes of trading during regular
trading hours up to the time that the VWAP is processed, including any
closing transactions on an exchange. The VWAP would take into account
any trade breaks or corrections up to the time of the VWAP is
processed. This VWAP would be calculated in the same manner as set
forth in proposed in Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii)(B), described above. However,
if the Exchange's determination that it is unable to conduct a closing
transaction is after 3:00 p.m. ET, the proposed VWAP calculation would
be the primary means for determining the Official Closing Price for a
security. In such case, the Exchange believes that the VWAP would
appropriately reflect the pricing of a security because it would
include, in a volume-weighted manner, the price and volume of closing
transactions on other exchanges if market participants are able to
route closing interest in Exchange-listed securities to an alternate
venue for participation in a closing auction.
     Proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(iii)(B) would provide that if
there were no consolidated last-sale eligible trades in the last five
minutes of trading during regular trading hours in such security, the
Official Closing Price would be the last consolidated last-sale
eligible trades during regular trading hours on that trading day. This
proposed rule text is the same as proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii)(C).
     Proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(iii)(C) would provide that if
there were no consolidated last-sale eligible trades in such security
on a trading day, the Official Closing Price would be the prior day's
Official Closing Price. This

proposed rule text is the same as proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii)(D).
     Finally, proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(iii)(D) would provide
that if an Official Closing Price for a security cannot be determined
under (A), (B), or (C) of proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(iii) and there is no
prior day's Official Closing Price, the Exchange would not publish an
Official Closing Price for such security. This proposed rule text is
based on proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii)(E).
    Similar to how the Official Closing Price would be published under
proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii), if the Exchange determines that it is
impaired after 3:00 p.m. and the Official Closing Price is determined
pursuant to proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(iii), the SIP would publish the
Official Closing Price for such security no differently than how the
SIP publishes the Official Closing Price for an Exchange-listed
security pursuant to Rule 123C(1)(e)(i). Accordingly, if the Official
Closing Price is determined pursuant to proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(iii),
recipients of SIP data would not have to make any changes to their
systems because the SIP would publish the ``M'' last sale condition as
an Exchange Official Closing Price for any impacted Exchange-listed
securities.
    For purposes of Rule 440B(b), the Official Closing Price would
still be determined based on Rule 123C and if the market is impaired,
the Official Closing Price as defined in proposed Rules 123C(1)(e)(ii)
and (iii) would be used for purposes of determining whether a Short
Sale Price Test is triggered in a security the next trading day.
    Because of the technology changes associated with this proposed
rule change, the Exchange will implement the proposed back-up
procedures for determining an Official Closing Price no later than 120
days after approval of this proposed rule change and will announce the
implementation date via Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it
is 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 facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it would provide transparency in how
the Exchange would determine the Official Closing Price in Exchange-
listed securities when the Exchange is unable to conduct a closing
transaction due to a systems or technical issue. The Exchange believes
that the proposed amendments would remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because the proposed determination of an Official Closing Price was
crafted in response to input from industry participants and would:
     Provide a pre-determined, consistent solution that would
result in a closing print to the SIP within a reasonable time frame
from the normal closing time;
     minimize the need for industry participants to modify
their processing of data from the SIP; and
     provide advance notification of the applicable closing
contingency plan to provide sufficient time for industry participants
to route any closing interest to an alternate venue to participate in
that venue's closing auction.
    More specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed hierarchy for
determining the Official Closing Price if the Exchange determines that
it is impaired before 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time would remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system because the proposal, which is based on input from market
participants, would provide sufficient time for market participants to
direct closing-only interest to a designated alternate exchange in time
for such interest to participate in a closing auction on such alternate
venue in a meaningful manner. The Exchange further believes that
relying on the official closing price of a designated alternate
exchange would provide for an established hierarchy for determining an
Official Closing Price for an Exchange-listed security if there is
insufficient interest to conduct a closing auction on the alternate
exchange. In such case, the rules of NYSE Arca and Nasdaq already
provide a mechanism for determining an official closing price for
securities that trade on those markets.
    The Exchange further believes that if the Exchange determines after
3:00 p.m. that it is impaired and unable the [sic] conduct a closing
transaction, the proposed VWAP calculation would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system because it would provide for a mechanism to determine the
value of an affected security for purposes of determining an Official
Closing Price. By using a volume-weighted calculation that would
include the closing transactions on an affected security on alternate
exchanges as well as any busts or corrections that were reported up to
the time that the SIP calculates the value, the Exchange believes that
the proposed calculation would reflect the correct price of a security.
In addition, by using a VWAP calculation rather than the last
consolidated last-sale eligible price as of the end of regular trading
hours, the Exchange would reduce the potential for an anomalous trade
that may not reflect the true price of a security from being set as the
Official Closing Price for a security.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system because the proposal would have
minimal impact on market participants. As proposed, from the
perspective of market participants, even if the Exchange were impaired,
the SIP would publish an Official Closing Price for Exchange-listed
securities on behalf of the Exchange in a manner that would be no
different than if the Exchange were not impaired. If the Exchange
determines that it is impaired after 3:00 p.m., market participants
would not have to make any system changes. If the Exchange determines
that it is impaired before 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time and designates an
alternate exchange, market participants may have to do systems work to
re-direct closing-only orders to the alternate exchange. However, the
Exchange understands, based on input from market participants, that
such changes would be feasible based on the amount of advance notice.
In addition, the Exchange believes that designating an alternate
exchange when there is sufficient time to do so would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it would allow for the price-discovery
mechanism of a closing auction to be available for impacted Exchange-
listed securities.

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

    The Exchange 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. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any competitive issues, but rather to provide
for how the Exchange would determine an Official Closing Price for
Exchange-listed securities if it is impaired and cannot conduct a
closing transaction due to a systems or technical issue. The proposal
has been crafted with input from market participants, Nasdaq, and the
SIPs, and is designed to reduce the burden on competition by having
similar back-up procedures across all primary listing exchanges if such
exchange is is [sic] impaired and cannot conduct a closing transaction.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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 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 the 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-NYSE-2016-18 on the subject line.

Paper Comments:

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-18. 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-NYSE-2016-18 and should be
submitted on or before April 1, 2016.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05436 Filed 3-10-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 202 (Thursday, October 18, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 52828-52829] [FR Doc No: 2018-22727]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP16-454-000]

Rio Grande LNG, LLC, Rio Bravo Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of

Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the

Proposed Rio Grande LNG Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS)

for the Rio Grande LNG Project (Project) proposed by Rio Grande LNG,

LLC (RG LNG) and Rio Bravo Pipeline Company, LLC (RB Pipeline)

(collectively referred to as the RG Developers) in the above-referenced

dockets. RG LNG requests authorization pursuant to section 3(a) of the

Natural Gas Act (NGA) to construct and operate liquefied natural gas

(LNG) export facilities in Cameron County, Texas, and RB Pipeline

requests a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to

section 7(c) of the NGA to construct, operate, and maintain a new

pipeline system in Jim Wells, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron

Counties, Texas.

    The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the

construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC

staff concludes that construction and operation of the Rio Grande LNG

Project would result in some adverse environmental impacts, but these

impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. However, the

Rio Grande LNG Project, combined with other projects within the

geographic scope, would result in certain significant cumulative

impacts.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department

of Energy, U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous

Materials Safety Administration, the DOT's Federal Aviation

Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park

Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--National Marine Fisheries

Service participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the

EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise

with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and

participate in the NEPA analysis. Although the cooperating agencies

provided input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the

draft EIS, the agencies will present their own conclusions and

recommendations in their respective Records of Decision for the

Project.

    The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the

construction and operation of the following proposed facilities:

     Six liquefaction trains at the Rio Grande LNG Terminal,

each with a nominal capacity of 4.5 million tons per annum of LNG for

export, resulting in the total nominal capacity of 27.0 million tons

per annum;

     four LNG storage tanks, each with a net capacity of

180,000 cubic meters;

     LNG truck loading facilities with four loading bays, each

with the capacity to load 12 to 15 trucks per day;

     a refrigerant storage area and truck unloading facilities;

     a condensate storage area and truck loading facilities;

     a new marine slip with two LNG vessel berths to

accommodate simultaneous loading of two LNG vessels, an LNG vessel and

support vessel maneuvering area, and an LNG transfer system;

     a materials off-loading facility;

     2.4 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline, including 0.8 mile

of dual pipeline, to gather gas from existing systems in Kleberg and

Jim Wells Counties (referred to as the Header System);

     135.5 miles of parallel 42-inch-diameter pipelines

originating in Kleberg County and terminating at the Rio Grande LNG

Terminal in Cameron County (referred to as Pipelines 1 and 2);

     four stand-alone metering sites along the Header System;

     two new interconnect booster compressor stations, each

with a metering site;

     three new compressor stations (one at the LNG Terminal

site); and

     other associated utilities, systems, and facilities

(yards, access roads, etc.).

    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to

federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies;

elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native

American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested

individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project

area. The draft EIS is only available in electronic format. It may be

viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the

Environmental Documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). In addition, the draft EIS may be accessed by using

the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link

(https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp), click on General

Search, and enter the docket number in the Docket Number field,

excluding the last three digits (i.e. CP16-454 or CP16-455). Be sure

you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please

contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free

at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. Your

comments should focus on draft EIS's disclosure and discussion of

potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures

to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. To ensure consideration of

your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that

the Commission receive

your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 3, 2018.

    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit

your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal

consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form

or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of

comments and has staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or

[email protected]. Please carefully follow these instructions

so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment

feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to

Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,

text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the

eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the

link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide

comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with

your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by

clicking on eRegister. If you are filing a comment on a particular

project, please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type;

or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them

to the following address. Be sure to reference the Project docket

numbers (CP16-454-000, CP16-455-000) with your submission: Kimberly

D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426

    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the

Commission invites you to attend one of the public comment sessions

its staff will conduct in the Project area to receive comments on

the draft EIS, scheduled as follows:

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

             Date and time                           Location

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

Tuesday, November 13, 2018: 5:00-8:00    Texas A&M, 700 University

 p.m. local time.                         Blvd., Kingsville, TX 78363,

<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Wednesday, November 14, 2018: 5:00-8:00  La Quinta, 128 N Expressway 77,

 p.m. local time.                         Raymondville, TX 78750, 956-

                                          689-4000.

Thursday, November 15, 2018: 5:00-9:00   Port Isabel Convention Center,

 p.m. local time.                         309 E. Railroad Ave., Port

                                          Isabel, TX 78578, 956-433-

                                          7195.

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

    The primary goal of these comment sessions is to have you

identify the specific environmental issues and concerns with the

draft EIS. Individual verbal comments will be taken on a one-on-one

basis with a court reporter. This format is designed to receive the

maximum amount of verbal comments in a convenient way during the

timeframe allotted.

    The Kingsville and Raymondville scoping sessions are scheduled

from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. local time, and the Port Isabel scoping

session is scheduled from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. local time. You may

arrive at any time after 5:00 p.m. There will not be a formal

presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish

to speak, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of

your arrival. Comments will be taken until the closing hour for all

scoping sessions. However, if no additional numbers have been handed

out and all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an

opportunity to do so, staff may conclude the session 30 minutes

before the closing hour. Please see appendix 1 for additional

information on the session format and conduct.\1\

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

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in

the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all

those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at

www.ferc.gov using the link called eLibrary or from the Commission's

Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or

call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary,

refer to the last page of this notice.

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

    Your verbal comments will be recorded by the court reporter

(with FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the

public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly

available on FERC's eLibrary system (see below for instructions on

using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in

providing verbal comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit

of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor.

    It is important to note that verbal comments hold the same

weight as written or electronically submitted comments. Although

there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be

available throughout the comment session to answer your questions

about the environmental review process.

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a

motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of

Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214). Motions to intervene are

more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or

judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants

affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor

status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and

direct interest in this proceeding that no other party can adequately

represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you

intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your

comments considered.

Questions?

    Additional information about the Projects is available from the

Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the

FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link

also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the

Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called

eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and

submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you

spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with

notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to

the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: October 12, 2018.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-22727 Filed 10-17-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY
			2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD
                        ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

                                                                   OFFICE OF
                                                           AIR AND RADIATION

Dear Vehicle Owner:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) monitors vehicle emissions before, during, and after vehicle production to confirm that vehicles meet emission standards not only when they are new but also even years after the vehicles enter customer service. EPA is pleased to invite you (and your car!) to participate in this important air pollution control program. We would like to borrow your vehicle for testing at EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Your participation is entirely voluntary.   However, by allowing EPA to test your vehicle, you will contribute significantly to our understanding of emission control system performance and effectiveness over time. We can offer you the following compensation for your participation if your vehicle qualifies for the testing program:

 The use of a fully insured loaner car with a full tank of fuel, and $20.00 per day; or, $50.00 per day if you do not wish to use a loaner vehicle.
 Your vehicle will be returned to you after testing washed and clean, with a full tank of fuel.

EPA's testing involves driving your vehicle indoors at NVFEL, in a test cell equipped with laboratory equipment that simulates over-the-road driving conditions. Testing could also include driving your vehicle outside over specific routes in and around the Ann Arbor area.  Both laboratory test cycles and outdoor routes are designed to reflect typical vehicle driving patterns and do not involve any unusual operation. Test vehicles normally accumulate less than 300 miles over the full suite of tests. Testing takes approximately one to four weeks. Your vehicle will be fully insured for the entire test period.

Jacobs, a contractor to the EPA, is working with EPA to procure vehicles for this program. Please complete and return the enclosed reply form in the prepaid envelope to Jacobs as soon as possible, even if you choose not to participate.   If you are willing to participate, a Jacobs representative may contact you to ask further questions about your vehicle. The information that you provide to EPA in the reply form and your answers to our questions will indicate your willingness to participate and whether your vehicle is eligible to participate.

The EPA will keep the personal information that you provide (name, contact information and, if collected, social security number) confidential. However, EPA must share certain, limited information to specific parties:
 We must submit your social security number to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) if your incentive is $600 or more. Please note that you have the option to cap your total incentive at $599 if you do not wish to provide your social security number.
 We will share your vehicle's Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) with the vehicle manufacturer. This is necessary because the VIN provides vehicle-specific information the manufacturer maintains and needs to give EPA in order to test your vehicle's emissions systems.

In addition, on rare occasions manufacturers request contact information so that they may contact vehicle owners with further questions. We will always obtain your permission before sharing your contact information with the manufacturer.

The enclosed information sheet answers some questions people often ask about this program. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call Jacobs toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Someone is available between 8 AM and 4 PM or you may leave a message for a return call. You may also call me at<PHONE_NUMBER>. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have related to this program. We look forward to receiving your reply form or a telephone call very soon.

For more information on this program, please visit  https://www.epa.gov/ve-certification/in-use-testing

Sincerely,

Lynn Sohacki
Environmental Engineer
Compliance Division
Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI  48105


[Federal Register: August 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 43744-43745]
[DOCID:fr02au06-69]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0062; FRL-8082-4]

Boric Acid/Sodium Borate Salts; Tolerance Reassessment Decision;
Notice of Availability

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  This notice announces the availability of EPA's Tolerance
Reassessment Decision (TRED) for the boric acid/sodium borate salts
pesticides, and opens a 60 day public comment period on this document.
The Agency's risk assessments and other related documents also are
available in the boric acid/sodium borate salts pesticides Docket.
Through the tolerance reassessment program, EPA is ensuring that all
pesticides meet current health and food safety standards.

DATES:  Comments must be received on or before October 2, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0062, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0062. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Nathan Mottl, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that

includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does
not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
     iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
     viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA has reassessed risks associated with use of the boric acid/
sodium borate salts pesticides, reassessed 5 existing tolerances or
legal residue limits, and on July 13, 2006, reached a tolerance
reassessment and risk management decision. Boric acid and sodium borate
salts are used as algaecides, fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides.
Boric acid and sodium borate salts are frequently used for control of
insects such as ants or roaches by application in non-agricultural food
and feed areas. Other uses include use in animal housing, wood
structures, forests, sewage systems, transportation and storage
facilities, medical/veterinary institutions, uncultivated agricultural/
nonagricultural areas, refuse/solid waste sites, swimming pool algae
control, ornamental lawns and turf, paved areas and aquatic structures.
The Agency is now issuing for comment a Report on Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk
Management Decision for boric acid/sodium borate salts, known as a
TRED, as well as related technical support documents.
    EPA must review tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in
effect when FQPA was enacted in August 1996, to ensure that these
existing pesticide residue limits for food and feed commodities meet
the safety standard established by the new law. Tolerances are
considered reassessed once the safety finding has been made or a
revocation occurs. EPA has reviewed and made the requisite safety
finding for the boric acid/sodium borate salts tolerances included in
this notice.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004, (69 FR 26819)(FRL-7357-9) explains that in conducting these
programs, EPA is tailoring its public participation process to be
commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide.
Due to its uses, risks, and other factors, boric acid/sodium borate
salts was reviewed through the modified 4-Phase public participation
process. Through this process, EPA worked extensively with stakeholders
and the public to reach the regulatory decisions for boric acid/sodium
borate salts.
    The tolerance reassessment program is being conducted under
Congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both
to make timely decisions and to involve the public. The Agency is
issuing the boric acid/sodium borate salts TRED for public comment.
This comment period is intended to provide an additional opportunity
for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary
amendments to the TRED. All comments should be submitted using the
methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA on or before the
closing date. These comments will become part of the Agency Docket for
boric acid/sodium borate salts. Comments received after the close of
the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to
consider these late comments.
    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and will provide a Response to Comments Memorandum in the
Docket and regulations.gov. If any comment significantly affects the
document, EPA also will publish an amendment to the TRED in the Federal
Register. In the absence of substantive comments requiring changes, the
tolerance reassessment decisions reflected in this TRED will be
implemented as presented.

 B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 408(q) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to
review tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of
August 2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets
the requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review
is to be completed by August 3, 2006.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: July 20, 2006.
 Debra Edwards,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-12347 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE

(1/1/2005)

EPA Registration Division contact: Dan Peacock<PHONE_NUMBER>

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance
petition documents.  In cases where the outline element does not apply
please insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline.  The comment
notes that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes
designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document.
Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins,
font, or format  in your document. Simply replace the instructions that
appear in italics and brackets, i.e., “[insert company name],” with
the information specific to your action.

Gowan Company

9E5059

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (9E5059) from Gowan Company, 370
S. Main Street, Yuma, AZ 85364 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR Part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of
fenazaquin in or on the raw agricultural commodity apples at 0.2 parts
per million (ppm), pears at 0.2 ppm and citrus fruits at 0.5 ppm. EPA
has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding
the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA
has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this
time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.  Additional
data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

.

Apples:  Two studies were conducted.  In the first study, apple trees
were foliar-treated with C14-fenazaquin (two positions) using a 2x
maximum label rate when the apples were approximately 2.5 cm in size
(early treatment) and 5 weeks later (late treatment).  Apples were
harvested at maturity approximately 15 weeks after the early treatment
and 10 weeks after the late treatment.  Depending on position of the
label the TRR (total radioactive residue) was 0.136 ppm and 0.161 ppm in
whole apples treated early in the season.  The TRR of the apples treated
later was 0.367 and 0.498 ppm depending upon the position of the
radiolabel.  At both application times, 85 to 90% of the TRR was in the
peel.  Parent fenazaquin was identified as the major component of the
TRR (20%).  The remaining extractable radioactivity was identified as
photoproducts.  Approximately 40 to 55% of the peel TRR was
nonextractable and appeared to be located in the cutin fraction of the
peel.  None of the extractable metabolites in the pulp were present at
high enough levels for identification.

In the second study, apple trees were foliar-treated with approximately
1.3x the maximum use rate in an early and late treatment as described
above.  The TRR (total radioactive residue) were 0.048 ppm or 0.040 ppm
depending upon the position of the radiolabel in whole apples treated
early in the season.  In the late season treatment, the TRR was 0.120 or
0.168 ppm.  Regardless of the application time, 74 to 91% of the TRR was
in the peel and solvent surface wash with only 9 to 26% in the pulp.
Fenazaquin and Metabolite A (a labile dimer of fenazaquin that converts
back to parent) are the major substances identified in apples.  These
accounted for approximately 24.7 to 34.6% of the TRR (0.01 to 0.016 ppm)
in apples receiving the early application and approximately 47.1 to
55.7% of the TRR (0.067 to 0.078ppm) in apples receiving the late
application.

Oranges:  Orange trees were foliar treated with radiolabeled fenazaquin
(two positions) at approximately 4x the maximum use rate.  Two trees
were treated 191 days before fruit harvest (early treatment) and two
trees were treated 63 days before fruit harvest (late treatment).  The
mean TRR was equivalent to 0.313 ppm and 0.580 ppm in the early and late
treatments, respectively.  Approximately 90% and 98% of the TRR was
located in the peel in the early and late applications, respectively.

Parent fenazaquin was the major metabolite  constituting 46% of the TRR
in the early application and 60% in the late application.  A metabolite
hydroxylated in the quinazoline ring represented approximately 7% of the
TRR in the early treatment.

Conclusion:  These metabolism studies support the import tolerances on
apples, pears and citrus.  The similarities of metabolic patterns for
fenazaquin in these two crops is sufficient to define the pathway of
fenazaquin metabolism in plants.  These studies show the breakdown of
fenazaquin occurs primarily by photodegradation; therefore the metabolic
pathway in other crops is likely to be similar.

.

A method for the determination of fenazaquin residues in raw and
processed commodities has been developed and validated.  The general
method includes extraction with acetonitrile:water and partitioning into
hexane.  Cleanup is accomplished by solid phase chromatography using
Florisel and aminopropyl cartridges.  The final eluate is evaporated and
the residuum is reconstituted in trimethylpentane containing
1,4-dibromonapthlene, an internal standard.  Resides of fenazaquin are
quantified using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) with
selected ion monitoring.  The limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.01 mg/kg
for all matrices tested.

.

Field trials have been conducted in apples, pears, oranges, mandarins,
and lemons.

Apples and Pears:  Magnitude of the Residue trials have been conducted
in Argentina, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, South
Africa and the United Kingdom.  The data indicate that an import
tolerance of 0.2 ppm is appropriate to support the typical use patterns
of fenazaquin in these commodities.

.

The acute oral toxicity of technical fenazaquin in the rat is 134 mg/kg
in males and 136 mg/kg in females.

A battery of genotoxicity studies has been performed on fenazaquin.

.

In vitro Gene Mutation:  A Salmonella typhimurium gene mutation assay
was performed with and without activation in strains TA98, TA100,
TA1535, and TA 1537 at concentrations up to 3 mg/plate.  An Escherichia
coli test using strain WP2 uvrA was also performed.  These tests were
negative both in the presence and absence of metabolic activation
systems.  A mouse lymphoma L5178Y TK+/- assay was done at concentrations
up to 12 ug/ml in the presence of S9 activation and up to 20 ug/ml
without activation.    There was an increase in mutation frequency in
the activated treatments that also displayed high cytotoxicity and low
cloning efficiency.  Fenazaquin was tested in an in vitro Unscheduled
DNA Synthesis assay (UDS) at concentrations up to 5 ug/ml.  Fenazaquin
was not genotoxic in this UDS assay.

In vitro Chromosomal Aberration:  Fenazaquin was evaluated in two
independent Chinese hamster ovary cell (CHO) chromosome aberration
assays at concentrations up to 1 or 4 ug/ml without activation and up to
60 or 50 ug/ml in the presence of activation.  Fenazaquin was negative
in both tests.

In vivo Gene Mutation:  It was shown that fenazaquin did not induce in
vivo unscheduled DNA synthesis in rat liver in rats exposed to up to 600
mg/kg.

In vivo Chromosomal Aberration:  In a mouse bone marrow micronucleus
study, fenazaquin was administered to ICR mice by gavage in two doses
separated by 24 hours.  Micronuclei were evaluated 24 hours following
the second dose.  No micronuclei were observed at the highest dose of
1600 males or 1200 females.  An in vivo sister chromatid exchange (SCE)
study was performed in CD-1 male mice at doses up to 2000 mg/kg.
Fenazaquin did not induce SCEs in bone marrow even at overtly toxic
doses.

Overall:  Based on a weight of the evidence evaluation, fenazaquin is
non-genotoxic.

Rat Dietary: Groups of ten male and ten female Fischer 344 rats were fed
98% fenazaquin for three months at dietary levels of 0, 15, 45, 150, or
450 ppm (1.0, 3.0, 9.6, or 28.7 mg/kg/day and 1.2, 3.5, 11.5, or 33.0
mg/kg/day males and females, respectively).  The predominant
toxicological effects observed were decreases in growth and food
consumption at 450 ppm.  The NOAEL was judged to be 150 ppm (9.6 mg/kg/d
in the males, 11.5 mg/kg/d in the females).

Rat Gavage: Male and female Fischer 344 rats were administered 98%
fenazaquin in 10% aqueous acacia by gavage for three months at dosages
of 0, 1, 3, 10, or 30 mg/kg/day.  Toxicologically significant decreases
in growth, food consumption and food utilization efficiency were
observed at 30 mg/kg/day.  The NOAEL was considered to be 10 mg
fenazaquin/kg/day.

Hamster Gavage:  Syrian golden hamsters (15/sex/dose) were administered
98% fenazaquin in 10% acacia by gavage at dosages of 0, 5, 25, 75, or
150 mg/kg/day in the males and 0, 5, 25, 50, or 100 mg/kg/day in the
females.  Although the mouse is generally the species of choice, the
hamster was used based on pharmacokinetic considerations. The mouse
excreted fenazaquin much more rapidly than either the rat or hamster.
Severe decreases in body weight gain were observed at 75/50 and 175/100
mg/kg/day in both males and females.  Although minor increases in
hepatic enzyme activity occurred at doses equal to or grater than 25
mg/kg/day, these changes were not correlated with any histopathologic
findings and were therefore, considered to be toxicologically
insignificant.  Statistically significant histopathological changes of
testicular atrophy were noted in the 75 and 150 mg/kg/day males.  Based
on body weight and related effects, the NOAEL was considered to be 25
mg/kg/day.

Dog Dietary:  Groups of four male and four female six-month old Beagle
dogs were administered diets containing technical fenazaquin (98%) at 0,
1, 5, or 15 mg/kg/day.  Body weight, weight gain and food consumption
were all decreased in the 15 mg/kg/day dose groups.  Cholesterol and
potassium levels in the high-dose groups were significantly lowered and
elevated, respectively.  A decrease in vacuolation of hepatocytes was
observed in the 15 mg/kg/day animals.  Based on these effects, the NOAEL
was judged to be 5 mg/kg/day.

Syrian golden hamster:  Male and female Syrian golden hamsters were
administered daily gavage doses of 0, 2, 25, 30 (male) and 35 (female)
mg/kg/day of 97-98% fenazaquin in 10% acacia for 18 months.  The study
was divided into two parts.  Each study part consisted of 50
controls/sex and 40 animals/sex/treated group.  The studies were
combined for statistical analysis.  Survival was unaffected in the males
and improved in treated females.  The occurrence of Clostridium
difficile on-study required the use of vancomycin to control the
infection.  Body weight gain was reduced in both sexes at doses equal to
and greater than 15 mg/kg/day during the first third of the study;
terminal body weigh was reduced only in the 30 mg/kg/day treated males.
Treatment related changes were noted in hematology and clinical
chemistry at doses of 15 mg/kg/day and above but were of minimal
toxicological significance.

Statistically significant changes in both absolute and/or relative organ
weights were observed in the spleen and kidneys of males and females and
the thyroid of females treated with doses 15 mg/kg/day and above.
Increases in relative heart, brain and testes weights in the high dose
males are considered secondary to the reduced body weight in this group.
 The only treatment related pathologic changes were decreases in the
incidence and severity of amyloidosis in both sexes and an increase in
the incidence of enterotoxic enteritis.  The NOAEL was considered to be
2 mg/kg/day based on reduced body weight gain and changes in hematology
and clinical chemistry parameters.

Dog:  In a 1-year study, 98% fenazaquin was fed to groups of 4
beagles/sex/dose at doses of 0, 1, 5, and 15 mg/kg/day.  Due to
palatability problems, the 15 mg/kg/day dose was lowered to 10 mg/kg/day
on day 95 giving an overall time-weighted consumption value of 12
mg/kg/day.   Body weight gain was reduced at the intermediate and top
doses compared to controls, however this was attributed primarily to a
single large control male.   Food consumption appeared to be reduced at
the top dose.  High dose males showed increased ALT and creatine kinase
activities and reduced cholesterol values throughout the study.  No
treatment related pathological abnormalities were recorded.  Based on
reduced body weights, the NOEL was judged to be 5 mg/kg/day.  Since the
reduction in body weight observed in the high dose group was associated
with decreased food consumption and was not associated with any other
toxicological change or histopathological finding, it was concluded that
the NOAEL was 12 mg/kg/day.

Rat:  In a two year chronic/oncogenicity study, groups of 60 male and 60
female Fischer 344 rats were administered diets containing 0, 10, 100,
200, and 400 ppm males or 450 ppm females.  There were no
treatment-related effects on survival or clinical signs of toxicity for
any treated group.  Body weight, body weight gain, food consumption and
efficiency of food utilization were significantly decreased throughout
most of the treatment period for animals receiving fenazaquin at dose
levels of 200 ppm and above.  There were mild to moderate dose
responsive decreases in serum cholesterol and triglyceride
concentrations at dosages of 200 ppm and above.

The only lesion which was associated with treatment was hepatocellular
atypia in males receiving  100 ppm fenazaquin and higher.  The incidence
but not the severity was increased compared to control males.  Foci of
hepatic cellular alteration are spontaneous in Fischer 344 rats.
Although these lesions may be precursors of hepatocellular neoplasia,
this was not observed after 24 months of exposure,  indicating that the
hepatic cellular changes were not a preneoplastic condition.  The NOAEL
for fenazaquin in this study was considered to be 10 ppm (0.46 mg/kg/day
males, 0.57 mg/kg/day females) based on the finding of hepatocellular
atypia in males at 100 ppm fenazaquin.

The metabolism of fenazaquin is well understood.  Several metabolism
studies were performed in rats using mixtures of fenazaquin, labeled
uniformly in either the t-butyl phenyl ring or the quinazoline-phenyl
ring at doses of 1, 10, or 30 mg/kg.

Absorption occurs within 8 hours and excretion in 24 hours with 75%
excreted within 48 hours and 84-98% within 72 hours.  The majority of
the fenazaquin is excreted in the feces (approximately 80%) with the
remainder in the urine.  Less than 2% of the radioactivity remained in
the carcass.  No radioactivity was exhaled within 48 hours of dosing
indicating that the phenyl rings were not cleaved.  Tissue levels after
7 days were low with the highest levels found in the ovaries and fat
(<0.01%).  There was no difference in excretion patterns based on sex or
dosing regime.   Fenazaquin represented between 1.2 to 20.6% of the
total fecal radioactivity.  Three major metabolites were identified in
the feces.  Two were the result of oxidation of one of the methyl groups
on the dimethylethyl sidechain to either an alcohol or carboxylic acid.
The third was the result of oxidation of the same methyl group on the
dimethylethyl sidechain plus oxidation of the two position of the
quinazoline ring to give a phenolic-like hydroxyl group.  The
characterized urinary metabolite is produced by cleavage of the ether
bridge.  None of the metabolites found in urine were observed in feces.

The pharmacokinetics of fenazaquin was compared in F344 rats, CD-1 mice
and Syrian golden hamsters.  Based on the relative toxicity of
fenazaquin to each species, doses in rats were 1, 10, and 30 mg/kg; in
hamsters 5, 25, and 125 mg/kg; in mice 30, 300 and 750 mg/kg.  Results
show doses of  < 30 mg/kg are rapidly absorbed in mice and hamsters with
relatively slow but prolonged absorption in the rats.  There is evidence
of saturation of the metabolism of fenazaquin at 125 mg/kg in hamsters
and at 750 mg/kg in mice.  In mice, plasma concentrations dropped
rapidly at 30 mg/kg but at 300 and 750 mg/kg the decline was slower and
more extended, with evidence of a second peak in plasma concentrations
at approximately 48 hours.  In rats and hamsters, plasma half lives and
profiles were similar irrespective of administered dose, although
hamsters showed a longer half life.

No toxicological studies on presumptive metabolites were performed.

No evidence of estrogenic or anti-estrogenic activity was present in the
available animal studies. The developmental toxicity and reproductive
toxicity studies showed no effects suggestive of endocrine disruption
(i.e., change in fetal sex ratios, change in estrous cyclicity or mating
performance, change in fertility, or malformed or altered reproductive
organ development.

.

Screening level acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were
conducted using Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) software
systems, Version 2.04 (acute) and Version 2.00 (chronic).   The 1994-98
USDA food consumption data (CSFII) were used in the assessments.

Proposed tolerance levels were used for the raw agricultural
commodities.  Based on the processing studies,  fenazaquin does not
concentrate in most processed products for human consumption, with the
exception of citrus peel (10x) and citrus oil (25x).   For the processed
commodities, the proposed tolerances were either set at 1x or were
increased by the appropriate concentration factor.    The highly
conservative assumption of 100% treated crops was assumed for both the
acute and chronic screening assessments.

Acute:   The highest sub-population exposure was to children aged 1 to 2
years, with an exposure estimate of 0.015 mg/kg at the 95th percentile
of exposure and 0.039 mg/kg at the 99.9th percentile of exposure.
Based on the acute endpoint selected, the most relevant sub-population
group is females 13-50 years.  For this population sub-group the
estimated exposure is 0.0032 mg/kg at the 95th percentile of exposure
and 0.012 mg/kg at the 99.9th percentile.

Chronic:   The highest exposure was to children 1-2 years, at 0.0042
mg/kg/day.

Both the acute and chronic screening assessments greatly overestimate
the actual anticipated dietary exposures because tolerance values were
used as the basis for the residue inputs and it was assumed that all
imported apples, pears, and citrus were treated with fenazaquin.

There is no drinking water exposure to fenazaquin associated with the
proposed import tolerances.

.

	There is no evidence of increased sensitivity of infants and children
to fenazaquin in the developmental and reproductive toxicity studies.

1.  Acute Risk

To estimate acute exposure risk, the exposure value from food was
compared to the acute Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD).  The acute
endpoint selected was the maternal toxicity NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day in the
rat developmental study.   Based on an uncertainty factor of 100x, the
aPAD was calculated to be 0.1 mg/kg/day.

The DEEM assessment predicts that at the 95th percentile, fenazaquin
exposure will comprise 4.6% of the aPAD for the U.S. population, 14.7%
for children aged 1 to 2 years, and 3.3% for females aged 13 to 50 (the
most relevant population subgroup, based on the endpoint selected).   At
the 99.9th percentile, the DEEM assessment predicts that fenazaquin
exposure will comprise 20.6%, 11.7% and 39.1% of the aPAD for the U.S.
population, children aged 1 to 2 years and  females aged 13 to 50,
respectively.   Since acute levels of concern are not reached in a Tier
1 assessment, refinements were not performed.  Based on a screening
level assessment, it can be concluded that there is a reasonable
certainty of no harm to the U.S. population or any population subgroup
from acute dietary exposure to fenazaquin.

2.  Chronic Risk

To estimate chronic exposure risk, the exposure value from food was
compared to the  chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD).   The chronic
endpoint selected was the male rat NOAEL of 0.46 mg/kg/day, based on the
increased incidence of non-neoplastic hepatocellular atypia..  An
uncertainty factor of 100 was assumed, yielding a cPAD of 0.0046
mg/kg/day.

The DEEM assessment predicts fenazaquin exposure will comprise 21.2% of
the cPAD for the U.S. population and 90.8% for children aged 1 to 2
years.  These estimates represent exposures at tolerance and assume 100%
crop treated.  Since chronic levels of concern are not reached in a
screening assessment, refinements were not performed.   It can be
concluded that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S.
population or any population subgroup from chronic dietary exposure to
fenazaquin.

No Codex tolerances have been set for fenazaquin.  For apples, MRLs have
been established in Luxemburg, France Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and
 Korea at 0.1 ppm, in Argentina at 0.2 ppm and in Taiwan at 0.5 ppm.
For pears, MRLs were similar to apples with the exception of Korea which
has an MRL of 0.3 ppm in pears.  Citrus fruits have established MRLs of
0.2 ppm in Spain and  Italy and 0.5 ppm in Greece and Portugal.  Korea
has an established MRL of 0.7 ppm for tangerines.

  PAGE

  PAGE   8

{<HD1>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

	{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

	{<P>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 38023]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15076]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-500-000]

Hanover Foods Corporation v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC;
Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on June 13, 2013, pursuant to the Natural Gas Act,
15 U.S.C. 717 et seq. and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.206, Hanover Foods Corporation (Complainant) filed a formal
complaint against Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Respondents), for
improperly exercising the right of condemnation and pipeline
construction over the Complaint's property under a thirty-year old
blanket certificate issued by the Commission, as more fully explained
in the complaint.
    Hanover Foods Corporation certifies that copies of the complaint
were served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the
Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 3, 2013.

    Dated: June 14, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15076 Filed 6-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 22, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-23240

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  COMPANIA MEXICANA de AVIACION, S.A. de C.V. (Mexicana)
Date Filed:  December 2, 2005

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC § 41301 to permit the
applicant to conduct scheduled foreign air transportation of persons,
property, and mail between: 1) Guadalajara, Mexico, and Stockton,
California; and 2) Leon/El Bajio, Mexico, and Ontario, California.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority.

Applicant representative:  Charles F. Donley II,<PHONE_NUMBER>
DOT analyst:  Robert J. Finamore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved in part (Leon/El Bajio-Ontario), remainder
(Guadalajara – Stockton) deferred.  (See remarks)

Action date:  December 22, 2005

Effective dates of authority granted:  December 22, 2005, through
December 22, 2006.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations of our standard exemption conditions
(attached), and to the otherwise-applicable terms, conditions, and
limitations of Mexicana’s foreign air carrier permit (Order 78-6-127).

Special conditions/Remarks:  Federal inspection services for entry of
international traffic are not currently available at Stockton.  For this
reason, we shall defer action on the Guadalajara – Stockton portion of
this application until such time as these services are available.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director, Office of International
Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

FOREIGN CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
                              ATTACHMENT

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

1) Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

2) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

3) Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage contained
in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any operations
under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the form of a
completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation Administration’s
Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards Service (any
changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be filed with that
office);

4) Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

5) Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

6) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

7) Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: a) based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or b) based on
a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term “international air transportation” means “international
transportation” as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

8) Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

9) Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department’s
rules governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations
required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department,
with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S. agencies and
courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

05/2004


[Federal Register: September 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 48538-48539]
[DOCID:fr23se09-51]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8957-5; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0229]

Draft Toxicological Review of Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether: In
Support of the Summary Information in the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of listening session.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a listening session to be held on October 7,
2009, during the public comment period for the external review draft
document entitled, ``Toxicological Review of Ethyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS)'' (EPA/635/R-08/019A). This listening session
is a step in EPA's revised IRIS process, announced on May 21, 2009, to
develop human health assessments for inclusion in the IRIS database.
The purpose of the listening session is to allow all interested parties
to present scientific and technical comments on draft IRIS health
assessments to EPA and other interested parties during the public
comment period and before the external peer review meeting. EPA
welcomes the scientific and technical comments that will be provided to
the Agency by the listening session participants. The comments will be
considered by the Agency as it revises the draft assessment in response
to the independent external peer review and public comments. All
presentations will become part of the official public record.
    The EPA's draft assessment and peer review charge are available via
the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's
(NCEA) home page under the Recent Additions and Publications menus at
http://www.epa.gov/ncea.

DATES: The listening session on the draft IRIS health assessment for
Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether will be held on October 7, 2009, beginning
at 9 a.m. and ending at 4 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. If you want to
make a presentation at the listening session, you should register by
September 30, 2009, indicate that you wish to make oral comments at the
session, and indicate the length of your presentation. When you
register, please indicate if you will need audio-visual aid (e.g., lap
top and slide projector). In general, each presentation should be no
more than 30 minutes. If, however, there are more requests for
presentations than the allotted time allows, then the time limit for
each presentation will be adjusted. A copy of the agenda for the
listening session will be available at the meeting. If no speakers have
registered by September 30, 2009, the listening session will be
cancelled and EPA will notify those registered of the cancellation.
    The public comment period for review of this draft assessment was
announced previously in the Federal Register (FR) (74 FR 42069) on
August 20, 2009. As stated in that FR notice, the public comment period
began on August 20, 2009, and ends October 19, 2009. Any technical
comments submitted during the public comment period should be in
writing and must be received by EPA by October 19, 2009, according to
the procedures outlined below. Only those public comments submitted
using the procedures identified in the August 20, 2009 FR notice by the
October 19, 2009 deadline will be provided to the independent peer-
review panel prior to the peer-review meeting. The date and logistics
for the peer-review meeting will be announced later in a separate FR
notice.
    Listening session participants who want EPA to share their comments
with the external peer reviewers should also submit written comments
during the public comment period using the detailed and established
procedures included in the aforementioned FR notice (August 20, 2009).
Comments submitted to the docket prior to the end of the public comment
period will be submitted to the external peer reviewers and considered
by EPA in the disposition of public comments. All comments must be
submitted to the docket, but comments received after the public comment
period closes will not be submitted to the external peer reviewers.

ADDRESSES: The listening session on the draft Ethyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether assessment will be held at the EPA offices at Two Potomac Yard
(North Building), 7th Floor, Room 7100, 2733 South Crystal Drive,
Arlington, Virginia 22202. To attend the listening session, register by
September 30, 2009, via e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line: Ethyl
Tertiary Butyl Ether listening session), by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
faxing a registration request to<PHONE_NUMBER> (please reference the
``Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Listening Session'' and include your name,
title, affiliation, full address and contact information). Please note
that to gain entrance to this EPA building to attend the meeting,
attendees must have photo identification with them and must register at
the guard's desk in the lobby. The guard will retain your photo
identification and will provide you with a visitor's badge. At the
guard's desk, attendees should give the name Christine Ross and the
telephone number,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to the guard on duty. The guard will
contact Ms. Ross who will meet you in the reception area to escort you
to the meeting room. When you leave the building, please return your
visitor's badge to the guard and you will receive your photo
identification.
    A teleconference line will also be available for registered
attendees/speakers. The teleconference number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the
access code is<PHONE_NUMBER>, followed by the pound sign ().
The teleconference line will be activated at 8:45 a.m., and you will be
asked to identify yourself and your affiliation at the beginning of the
call.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: EPA
welcomes public attendance at the ``Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
Listening Session'' and will make every effort to accommodate persons
with disabilities. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Christine Ross at 703-
347-8592 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Ms. Ross, preferably at least 10 days prior
to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your
request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public
listening sessions, please contact Christine Ross, IRIS Staff, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, (8601P), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 703-347-
8592; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions about the draft

Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether assessment, contact Andrew Hotchkiss, IRIS
Staff, National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. EPA, 109 T.W.
Alexander Drive, B243-01, Durham, NC 27711; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IRIS is a database that contains potential
adverse human health effects information that may result from chronic
(or lifetime) exposure to specific chemical substances found in the
environment. The database (available on the Internet at http://
www.epa.gov/iris) contains qualitative and quantitative health effects
information for more than 540 chemical substances that may be used to
support the first two steps (hazard identification and dose-response
evaluation) of a risk assessment process. When supported by available
data, the database provides oral reference doses (RfDs) and inhalation
reference concentrations (RfCs) for chronic health effects, and oral
slope factors and inhalation unit risks for carcinogenic effects.
Combined with specific exposure information, government and private
entities can use IRIS data to help characterize public health risks of
chemical substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support
risk management decisions designed to protect public health.
    This listening session is a step in EPA's revised process,
announced on May 21, 2009, for development of human health assessments
for inclusion on IRIS. The updated process is posted on the IRIS home
page at http://www.epa.gov/iris.

    Dated: September 10, 2009.
Rebecca Clark,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E9-22923 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P