[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 51972]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18230]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2420-059]

PacifiCorp; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Assessment

    On March 28, 2022, PacifiCorp filed an application for a major, new
license for the 30-megawatt Cutler Hydroelectric Project (Cutler
Project; FERC No. 2420). The Cutler Project is located on the Bear
River in Box Elder and Cache Counties, Utah. No federal or tribal lands
occur within the project boundary or along the Bear River downstream of
the project. There are three parcels of land located in Cutler Canyon
adjacent to the project boundary that are administered by the Bureau of
Land Management.
    In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on July 6, 2022,
Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for
environmental analysis (REA Notice). Based on the information in the
record, including comments filed on the REA Notice, staff does not
anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, staff intends to prepare a draft and final Environmental
Assessment (EA) on the application to relicense the Cutler Project.
    The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested
parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and
considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
    The application will be processed according to the following
schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission issues draft EA................  February 2023.
Comments on draft EA......................  April 2023.
Commission issues final EA................  August 2023.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Khatoon
Melick at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations
under 40 CFR 1501.10(b)(1) require that EAs be completed within 1
year of the federal action agency's decision to prepare an EA. This
notice establishes the Commission's intent to prepare a draft and
final EA for the Cutler Project. Therefore, in accordance with CEQ's
regulations, the final EA must be issued within 1 year of the
issuance date of this notice.

    Dated: August 18, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-18230 Filed 8-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 29569-29570]
[DOCID:fr26my10-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0031]

Recovery Policy RP9526.1, Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section
406 (Stafford Act)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the final Recovery Policy
RP9526.1, Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section 406 (Stafford Act),
which is being issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA).

DATES: This policy is effective March 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: This final policy is available online at http://
www.regulations.gov under docket ID FEMA-2010-0031 and on FEMA's Web
site at http://www.fema.gov. You may also view a hard copy of the final
policy at the Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Room 835, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lu Juana Richardson, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, via e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This policy provides guidance on the
appropriate use of hazard mitigation discretionary funding available
under Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5172. This will
ensure national consistency in the use of Section 406 mitigation funds
and promote measures that reduce future loss to life and property,
protect the Federal investment in public infrastructure and ultimately
help build disaster-resistant communities.
    FEMA has revised this policy to reflect the alignment of benefit
cost analysis methodologies between the Mitigation and Recovery
Directorates. In order to achieve consistency across program areas and
to maximize FEMA's ability to support and encourage cost-effective
hazard mitigation, the Public Assistance Division has adopted the
Mitigation Directorate's Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) methodology for
Section 406 hazard mitigation projects. Previously, the only benefits
considered in the BCA were damage to the facility

and its damaged contents, necessary emergency protective measures and
temporary relocation assistance. Section VII.B.3. of the policy has
been changed to also consider social net benefits (e.g., loss of
function, casualty, and cost avoidance) in the BCA.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207; 44 CFR part 206.

David J. Kaufman,
Director, Office of Policy and Program Analysis, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-12663 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80804-80805]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32200]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

December 14, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP11-1609-000.
    Applicants: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc. submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Order No. 714 Compliance Filing Baseline Tariff to
be effective 7/13/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101209-5135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1610-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits tariff filing per
154.204: 20101210 Storage Account Balance Transfers to be effective 1/
10/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101210-5168.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1611-000.
    Applicants: PetroLogistics Natural Gas Storage, LLC.
    Description: PetroLogistics Natural Gas Storage, LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Compliance Filing Revising FERC Gas Tariff to
Comply with Order No. 587-U to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/13/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101213-5110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 27, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: CP11-48-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company Abandonment of Service.
    Filed Date: 12/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101210-5238.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 27, 2010.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32200 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69562-69569]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27680]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0899; FRL-9902-44]

Fenpropathrin; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fenpropathrin in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. This regulation additionally removes
several permanent tolerances as they will be superseded by the
tolerances established by this document. Interregional Research Project
Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective November 20, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 21, 2014,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID)

number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0899, is available at http://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP
Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor
instructions and additional information about the docket available at
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OPPTS
test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go
to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0899 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
January 21, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0899, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerances

    In the Federal Register of February 15, 2013 (78 FR 11126) (FRL-
9378-4), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
2E8107) by IR-4,500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W., Princeton, NJ 08540.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.466 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the insecticide fenpropathrin, alpha-cyano-
3-phenoxybenzyl 2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on
barley, grain at 0.04 parts per million (ppm); barley, hay at 3.0 ppm;
barley, straw at 2.0 ppm; berry, low-growing, subgroup 13-07G at 2.0
ppm; bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 3.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10
at 2.0 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 5.0 ppm; fruit, small vine
climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 5.0 ppm; and
vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 1.0 ppm. The petition additionally
requested the removal of the following established tolerances in 40 CFR
180.466 for fenpropathrin as they will be superseded by new tolerances,
if established: Fruit, citrus, group 10; fruit, pome, group 11;
bushberry subgroup 13B; grape; juneberry; salal; strawberry; and
vegetable, fruiting, group 8.
    That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared on
behalf of IR-4 by Valent USA Corporation, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that the established tolerance for lingonberry will also be
removed. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.C

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for fenpropathrin including
exposure resulting from the

tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures
and risks associated with fenpropathrin follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Fenpropathrin is a member of the pyrethroid class of insecticides.
Pyrethroids have historically been classified into two groups, Type I
and Type II, based on chemical structure and toxicological effects.
Type I pyrethroids, which lack an alpha-cyano moiety, induce in rats a
syndrome consisting of aggressive sparring, altered sensitivity to
external stimuli, hyperthermia, and fine tremor progressing to whole-
body tremor and prostration (T-syndrome). Type II pyrethroids, which
contain an alpha-cyano moiety, produce in rats a syndrome that includes
pawing, burrowing, salivation, hypothermia, and coarse tremors leading
to choreoathetosis (CS-syndrome). Fenpropathrin is a mixed-type
pyrethroid because the biochemical responses and resulting clinical
signs of neurotoxicity are intermediate between those of Type I and
Type II pyrethroids. The adverse outcome pathway shared by pyrethroids
involves the ability to interact with voltage-gated sodium channels in
the central and peripheral nervous systems, leading to changes in
neuron firing and, ultimately, neurotoxicity.
    Fenpropathrin exhibits high acute toxicity via the oral and dermal
routes but low toxicity via the inhalation route of exposure.
Fenpropathrin is a mild eye irritant, but does not cause dermal
irritation or skin sensitization. Toxicological effects characteristic
of pyrethroids were seen in most of the experimental toxicology studies
including the acute, subchronic, and developmental neurotoxicity
studies, subchronic studies in the rat and dog, the chronic
carcinogenicity study in the rat, the developmental studies in the rat
and rabbit, and in the 3-generation reproduction study in rats. Tremors
were the most common indication of neurotoxicity; however, ataxia,
increased sensitivity (e.g., heightened response) to external stimuli,
convulsions, and increased auditory startle response were also
observed.
    In developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, maternal
toxicity included neurological effects such as ataxia, sensitivity to
external stimuli, tremors in the rat, and flicking of forepaws in the
rabbit. Developmental effects were limited to incomplete or
asymmetrical ossification of sternebrae at the maternally toxic dose in
the rat. There were no developmental effects in the rabbit. In a 3-
generation reproduction study in the rat, maternal and offspring
effects were observed at the mid- and high-dose. At the high dose,
maternal effects included increased deaths and clinical signs of
toxicity (tremors, muscle twitches, and increased sensitivity) during
lactation. Pup deaths were noted at this level. At the mid-dose,
minimal signs of treatment-related effects were observed for both
adults and pups, reducing concern for quantitative or qualitative
sensitivity. There were no indications of immunotoxicity in any of the
guideline studies, including the immunotoxicity study in rats.
    There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in either the rat or mouse
long-term dietary studies, nor was there any mutagenic activity in
bacteria or cultured mammalian cells. Fenpropathrin has been classified
as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.'' Specific information on
the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by
fenpropathrin as well as the toxicological points of departure (POD)
derived from the BMDL (statistical lower confidence limit on the dose
at the benchmark dose) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Fenpropathrin. Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Proposed Section 3 Registration on Barley and the
Request to Update Several Existing Crop Groups with Revised Crop
Grouping Definitions'' starting at p. 12, in docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2012-0899.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological POD and levels of concern to use in evaluating
the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that
have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the
toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference
values for risk assessment. For fenopropathrin, the PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study; a
benchmark dose analysis was conducted to derive the BMDL. Uncertainty/
safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe
exposure level--generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose
(PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe margin of exposure (MOE).
For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure
will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in
terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles
EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the
risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fenpropathrin used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of November 28, 2012 (77 FR 70902)
(FRL-9366-1).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fenpropathrin, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing fenpropathrin
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.466. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
fenpropathrin in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for fenpropathrin. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in
food, EPA utilized percent crop treated (PCT) estimates and tolerance
level residues, distributions of field trial values, and distributions
of Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data.
    Residue distributions were used for the commodities that made the
most significant contributions to the risk estimates (i.e., the ``risk
drivers''). Monitoring data were used for risk drivers when they were
available; however, field trial data were used for the remaining risk
drivers. Distributions of monitoring data values were used for the
following risk drivers: Apple juice, apples, blackberries, blueberries,
broccoli, cauliflower, Chinese mustard cabbage, grape juice, grapes,
huckleberries, oranges, pears, raspberries, squash, strawberries,
tangerines, and watermelon. Monitoring

data from the years 2007 through 2010, inclusive, were used. Broccoli
PDP data were translated to Chinese mustard cabbage and cauliflower.
Orange PDP data were translated to tangerines. Blueberry PDP data were
translated to blackberries, huckleberries, and raspberries. Finally,
strawberry PDP data were translated to cranberries. Distributions of
field trial data were used for apricot juice, apricots, Brussels
sprouts, cabbage, cherries, cherry juice, Chinese napa cabbage,
cucumbers, grapefruit, grapefruit juice, guava, mango, mango juice,
nectarines, olives, papaya, papaya juice, passion fruit, passion fruit
juice, peach juice, peaches, plums, prune plum juice, prune plums,
tomato juice, and tomatoes. For most processed commodities, DEEM
(Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model) default processing factors were
used for those commodities for which they were available. In some
cases, empirical processing factors were used.
    ii. Chronic exposure. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A.,
there is no increase in hazard from repeated exposures to
fenpropathrin; the acute dietary exposure assessment is protective for
chronic dietary exposures because acute exposure levels are higher than
chronic exposure levels. Accordingly, a dietary exposure assessment for
the purpose of assessing chronic dietary risk was not conducted.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that fenpropathrin does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing dietary risk only
if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows: Apples,
15%; apricots 2.5%; blueberries, 2.5%; broccoli, 2.5%; Brussels
sprouts, 10%; cabbage, 2.5%; cauliflower, 2.5%; cherries, 5%; cotton,
2.5%; cucumbers, 2.5%; grapefruit, 35%; grapes, 10%; nectarines, 2.5%;
oranges, 35%; peaches, 2.5%; pears, 10%; plums, 2.5%; prune plums,
2.5%; squash, 2.5%; strawberries, 50%; tangerines, 15%; tomatoes, 10%;
and watermelons, 2.5%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7
years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining
available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging
across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for
those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those
cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum
PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey
data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which fenpropathrin may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fenpropathrin in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of fenpropathrin. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST),
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of fenpropathrin for
acute exposures are estimated to be 10.3 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 0.005 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 10.3 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Fenpropathrin is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular

pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.''
    The Agency is required to consider the cumulative risks of
chemicals sharing a common mechanism of toxicity. The Agency has
determined that the pyrethroids and pyrethrins, including
fenpropathrin, share a common mechanism of toxicity. The members of
this group share the ability to interact with voltage-gated sodium
channels, ultimately leading to neurotoxicity. The cumulative risk
assessment for the pyrethroids/pyrethrins was published in the Federal
Register of November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69726) (FRL 8888-9), and is
available at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2011-0746. Further information about the determination that pyrethroids
and pyrethrins share a common mechanism of toxicity may be found in
document ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0489-0006.
    Fenpropathrin was included in the cumulative risk assessment for
pyrethrins and pyrethroids. The proposed new uses of fenpropathrin will
not significantly impact the cumulative assessment because, in the
cumulative assessment, residential exposure was the greatest
contributor to the total exposure. As there are no new residential uses
for the fenpropathrin, the proposed new uses will have no impact on the
residential component of the cumulative risk estimates.
    Dietary exposures make a minor contribution to total pyrethroid
exposure. The dietary exposure assessment performed in support of the
pyrethroid cumulative was much more highly refined than that performed
for the single chemical. The dietary exposure assessment for the single
chemical included conservative assumptions, using field trial data for
many commodities, including the proposed new uses with the assumption
of 100 PCT, and the most sensitive apical endpoint in the fenpropathrin
hazard database was selected to derive the POD. Additionally, the POD
selected for fenpropathrin is specific to the fenpropathrin, whereas
the POD selected for the cumulative assessment was based on common
mechanism of action data that are appropriate for all 20 pyrethroids
included in the cumulative assessment.
    For information regarding EPA's efforts to evaluate the risk of
exposure to pyrethroids, refer to http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reevaluation/pyrethroids-pyrethrins.html.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
SF when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a
different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The fenpropathrin toxicity
database includes developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit,
a 3-generation reproduction study in the rat, and a developmental
neurotoxicity (DNT) study in rats. There was no evidence of increased
qualitative or quantitative susceptibility noted in any of these
studies. This lack of susceptibility is consistent with the results of
the guideline pre- and postnatal testing for other pyrethroid
pesticides.
    High-dose LD50 studies (studies assessing what dose
results in lethality to 50% of the tested population) in the scientific
literature indicate that pyrethroids can result in increased
quantitative sensitivity in the young, specifically in the form of
neurotoxicity. Examination of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data
indicates that the sensitivity observed at high doses is related to
pyrethroid age-dependent pharmacokinetics--the activity of enzymes
associated with the metabolism of pyrethroids. With otherwise
equivalent administered doses for adults and juveniles, predictive
pharmacokinetic models indicate that the differential adult-juvenile
pharmacokinetics will result in a 3X greater dose at the target organ
in juveniles compared to adults. No evidence of increased quantitative
or qualitative susceptibility was seen in the pyrethroid scientific
literature related to pharmacodynamics (the effect of pyrethroids at
the target tissue) with regard to differences between juveniles and
adults. Specifically, there are in vitro pharmacodynamic data and in
vivo data indicating similar responses between adult and juvenile rats
at low doses and data indicating that the rat is a conservative model
compared to the human based on species-specific pharmacodynamics of
homologous sodium channel isoforms in rats and humans.
    3. Conclusion. EPA is reducing the FQPA SF to 3X for infants and
children less than 6 years of age. For the general population,
including children greater than 6 years of age, EPA is reducing the
FQPA SF to 1X. The decisions regarding the FQPA SFs being used are
based on the following considerations:
    i. While the database is considered to be complete with respect to
the guideline toxicity studies for fenpropathrin, EPA lacks additional
data to fully characterize the potential for juvenile sensitivity to
neurotoxic effects of pyrethroids. In light of the literature studies
indicating a possibility of increased sensitivity in juvenile rats at
high doses, EPA identified a need, and requested proposals for,
additional non-guideline studies to evaluate the potential for
sensitivity in juvenile rats. A group of pyrethroid registrants is
currently conducting those studies. Pending the results of those
studies, however, the available toxicity studies for fenpropathrin can
be used to characterize toxic effects including potential developmental
and reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity, and neurotoxicity.
Acceptable developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits,
reproduction studies in rats, neurotoxicity studies (acute, subchronic,
and developmental) in rats, and immunotoxicity studies in rats are
available. In addition, a route-specific dermal toxicity study is
available, and the inhalation study has been waived.
    ii. After reviewing the extensive body of data and peer-reviewed
literature on pyrethroids, the Agency has reached a number of
conclusions regarding fetal and juvenile sensitivity for pyrethroids,
including the following:
     Based on an evaluation of over 70 guideline toxicity
studies for 24 pyrethroids submitted to the Agency, including prenatal
developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, and pre- and
postnatal multi-generation reproduction toxicity studies and DNTs in
rats in support of pyrethroid registrations, there is no evidence that
pyrethroids directly impact developing fetuses. None of the studies
show any indications of fetal toxicity at doses that do not cause
maternal toxicity.
     Increased susceptibility was seen in offspring animals in
the DNT study with the pyrethroid zeta-cypermethrin (decreased pup body
weights) and DNT and reproduction studies with another pyrethroid beta-
cyfluthrin (decreased body weights and tremors). However, the
reductions in body weight and the other non-specific effects occur at

higher doses than neurotoxicity, the effect of concern for pyrethroids.
The available developmental and reproduction guideline studies in rats
with zeta-cypermethrin did not show increased sensitivity in the young
to neurotoxic effects. Overall, findings of increased sensitivity in
juvenile animals in pyrethroid studies are rare. Therefore, the
residual concern for the postnatal effects is reduced.
     High-dose LD50 studies (studies assessing what
dose results in lethality to 50% of the tested population) in the
scientific literature indicate that pyrethroids can result in increased
quantitative sensitivity to juvenile animals. Examination of
pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data indicates that the sensitivity
observed at high doses is related to pyrethroid age-dependent
pharmacokinetics--the activity of enzymes associated with the
metabolism of pyrethroids. Furthermore, a rat physiologically-based
pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model predicts a 3-fold increase of pyrethroid
concentration in juvenile brain compared to adults at high doses.
     In vitro pharmacodynamic data and in vivo data
indicate that adult and juvenile rats have similar responses to
pyrethroids at low doses and therefore juvenile sensitivity is not
expected at relevant environmental exposures. Further, data also show
that the rat is a conservative model compared to the human based on
species-specific pharmacodynamics of homologous sodium channel
isoforms.
    iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. Although the acute dietary exposure estimates are refined,
as described in Unit III.C.1.i., the exposure estimates will not
underestimate risk for the established and proposed uses of
fenpropathrin. The residue levels used are based on distributions of
residues from field trial data, monitoring data reflecting actual
residues found in the food supply, and tolerance-level residues for
several commodities; the use of estimated PCT information; and, when
appropriate, processing factors measured in processing studies or
default high-end factors representing the maximum concentration of
residue into a processed commodity. EPA made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess
exposure to fenpropathrin in drinking water. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by fenpropathrin.
    Taking all of this information into account, EPA has reduced the
FQPA SF for women of child-bearing age because there is no evidence in
the over 70 guideline toxicity studies submitted to the Agency that
pyrethroids directly impact developing fetuses. Additionally, none of
the studies show any indications of fetal toxicity at doses that do not
cause maternal toxicity. Because there remains some uncertainty as to
juvenile sensitivity due to the findings in the high-dose
LD50 studies, EPA is retaining a 3X FQPA SF for infants and
children less than 6 years of age. By age 6, the metabolic system is
expected to be at or near adult levels thus reducing concerns for
potential age-dependant sensitivity related to pharmacokinetics;
therefore for children over 6, 1X is appropriate. Although EPA is
seeking additional data to further characterize the potential
neurotoxicity for pyrethroids, EPA has reliable data that show that
reducing the FQPA SF to 3X will protect the safety of infants and
children less than 6 years old. These data include:
    a. Data from developmental, reproductive, and DNT guideline studies
with fenpropathrin that show no sensitivity.
    b. Data showing that the potential sensitivity at high doses is
likely due to pharmacokinetics.
    c. A rat PBPK model predicting a 3-fold increase of pyrethroid
concentration in juvenile brain compared to adults at high doses due to
age-dependent pharmacokinetics.
    d. Data indicating that the rat is a conservative model compared to
the human based on species-specific pharmacodynamics of homologous
sodium channel isoforms.
    For several reasons, EPA concludes these data show that a 3X factor
is protective of the safety of infants and children less than 6 years
of age. First, it is likely that the extensive guideline studies with
pyrethroids, which indicate that increased sensitivity in juvenile
animals in pyrethroid studies is rare, better characterize the
potential sensitivity of juvenile animals than the LD50
studies. The high doses that produced juvenile sensitivity in the
literature studies are well above normal dietary or residential
exposure levels of pyrethroids to juveniles and lower levels of
exposure anticipated from dietary and residential uses are not expected
to overwhelm the juvenile's ability to metabolize pyrethroids, as
occurred with the high doses used in the literature studies. The fact
that a greater sensitivity to the neurotoxicity of pyrethroids is not
found in guideline studies following in utero exposures (based on 76
studies for 24 pyrethroids) supports this conclusion, despite the
relatively high doses used in the studies. Second, in vitro data
indicate similar pharmacodynamic response to pyrethroids between
juvenile and adult rats. Finally, as indicated, pharmacokinetic
modeling only predicts a 3X difference between juveniles and adults.
Therefore, the FQPA SF of 3X is protective of potential juvenile
sensitivity.
    Further information about the reevaluation of the FQPA SF for
pyrethroids may be found in document ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0746-
0011.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to fenpropathrin will occupy 93% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure from the
dietary assessment for infants and children less than 6 years old; and
20% of the aPAD for children 6 to 12 years old, the population group
receiving the greatest exposure from the dietary assessment for the
general population other than children less than 6 years old.
    2. Chronic risk. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., there
is no increase in hazard with increasing dose duration. Therefore, the
acute aggregate assessment is protective of potential chronic aggregate
exposures.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term
adverse effect was identified; however, fenpropathrin is not registered
for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential
exposure. Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term residential
exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short-term
residential exposure and acute dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective aPAD (which is at least as

protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further
assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the acute
dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for
fenpropathrin.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Because no intermediate-term adverse effect was identified,
fenpropathrin is not expected to pose an intermediate-term risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, fenpropathrin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to fenpropathrin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology utilizing gas chromatography with
electron capture detector (GC/ECD), Residue Method Numbers RM-22-4
(plants) and RM-22A-1 (animals), is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    Codex has established MRLs for tomatoes, sweet peppers, dried chili
peppers, eggplant, grapes, and pome fruits. The MRLs for tomatoes,
sweet peppers, grapes, and pome fruits are harmonized with the U.S.
tolerances for the corresponding crop groups or subgroups. Codex MRLs
for dried chili peppers (10 ppm) and eggplant (0.2 ppm) cannot be
harmonized with the U.S. tolerance for the fruiting vegetable crop
group (1.0 ppm), of which those commodities are a part. The Codex MRL
for eggplant is lower than the recommended corresponding U.S.
tolerance. Because the permitted domestic use on eggplant in accordance
with the approved pesticide label results in residue levels higher than
the Codex MRLs, the U.S. tolerance cannot be harmonized (lowered) since
doing so would result in residues in excess of the approved tolerance
in spite of use consistent with label directions. Concerning dried
chili peppers, EPA, under its Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines (OPPTS
860.1000), does not set tolerances for dried chili peppers. Rather,
residues on dried chili peppers would be covered under tolerances for
non-bell peppers, which, for this chemical, are captured by the
fruiting vegetable crop group tolerance. Under that U.S. tolerance,
residues of fenpropathrin on dried chili peppers would be covered up to
1.0 ppm; residues in excess of that level would only be covered if EPA
established a separate tolerance for them. At this time, however, EPA
does not have data to support establishing a tolerance for dried chili
peppers at 10 ppm.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on the data submitted with the petition, EPA is also removing
the established tolerance for lingonberry. The Agency is removing this
tolerance because it will be superseded by the new tolerance for
bushberry subgroup 13-07B, established by this document. The removal
does not substantively affect whether residues of fenpropathrin may be
present on lingonberry. The new bushberry subgroup 13-07B tolerance is
at the same level as the lingonberry tolerance being removed--3.0 ppm.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
fenpropathrin, alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl 2,2,3,3-
tetramethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on barley, grain at 0.04 ppm;
barley, hay at 3.0 ppm; barley, straw at 2.0 ppm; berry, low-growing,
subgroup 13-07G at 2.0 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 3.0 ppm;
fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 2.0 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 5.0
ppm; fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-
07F at 5.0 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 1.0 ppm.
Additionally, this document removes the established tolerances of
fenpropathrin in or on fruit, citrus, group 10; fruit, pome, group 11;
bushberry subgroup 13B; grape; juneberry; lingonberry; salal;
strawberry; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal

governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order
13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C.
1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 7, 2013.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.466:
0
a. Remove the entries for ``Bushberry subgroup 13B,'' ``Fruit, citrus,
group 10,'' ``Fruit, pome, group 11,'' ``Grape,'' ``Juneberry,''
``Lingonberry,'' ``Salal,'' ``Strawberry,'' and ``Vegetable, fruiting,
group 8'' from the table in paragraph (a).
0
b. Add alphabetically the following entries to the table in paragraph
(a).
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  180.466  Fenpropathrin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Barley, grain.............................................          0.04
Barley, hay...............................................          3.0
Barley, straw.............................................          2.0
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G.......................          2.0

                                * * * * *
Bushberry subgroup 13-07B.................................          3.0

                                * * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10................................          2.0
Fruit, pome, group 11-10..................................          5.0
Fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,                 5.0
 subgroup 13-07F..........................................

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10...........................          1.0

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-27680 Filed 11-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 82 (Wednesday, April 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 23850]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09991]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Request for Comment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and
solicitation of public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The ICR describes the
nature of the information collection and its expected burden. A Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting public comments
on the following information collection was published on January 21,
2015 (80 FR 3010).

DATES: Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on
or before XXX. May 29, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. J. Stephen Higgins,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2127--New.
    Title: Characterizing Ambulance Driver Training in EMS Systems.
    Form No.: NHTSA Form 1186.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Respondents: The study sample will consist of two distinct groups.
The first sample will include representatives from EMS agencies across
the United States. The second will include representatives from State
offices that are responsible for various aspects of ambulance driver
training and regulation for the 50 States and Washington, DC.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: A maximum of 8,000 agencies will
be solicited for the survey. Up to 153 representatives from State
agencies may be contacted for semi-structured interviews.
    Estimated Time per Response: The expected average completion time
for the Internet-based survey of EMS agency representatives is 15
minutes. The 153 semi-structured interviews with State personnel are
expected to average approximately 60 minutes in length.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 2,153 hours if all 8,000 EMS
agencies and State personnel respond to the solicitations. The real
burden will be reduced proportionally by the actual response rates to
each information gathering effort.
    Frequency of Collection: Each data collection effort will take
place a single time.
    Abstract: Although emergency vehicle operator training for EMS
personnel has been repeatedly identified as an important step in the
safety system, the current situation with respect to EMS personnel
driver training in the United States is not well characterized. In
order to characterize training for EMS personnel driving ambulances
across the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) proposes to collect information from EMS
agencies providing ambulance services and State offices responsible for
overseeing training, licensing, and regulation of EMS agencies and
their personnel that drive ambulances. NHTSA is interested in learning
about what types of driver training are required, when the training is
required (new drivers, continuing education, etc.), how driving
incidents (crashes, moving violations, etc.) impact driving privileges,
initial qualification standards (age, number of years with license,
driving record, type of license, etc.), and other related topics.
Participation in the study will be voluntary and will only include
State level agency representatives and representatives from EMS
agencies that offer ambulance services. Data collection will be in the
form of semi-structured interviews (in-person or over the phone) for
personnel at State offices, and an Internet-based survey for personnel
at public and private EMS agencies providing ambulance services. EMS
agencies will be contacted via email, mail, or phone with a link to the
Internet survey. State offices will be contacted via email or phone to
participate in the semi-structured interviews. The results of this
project will assist NHTSA in determining the current state of driver
training for EMS personnel which will help the Agency determine if
additional research and development on the topic are warranted.
ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments Are Invited On: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department of Transportation, including whether the information
will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is most
effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this
notice.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Dated: April 23, 2015.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2015-09991 Filed 4-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 18988]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07085]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0636]

Establishing the Performance Characteristics of In Vitro
Diagnostic Devices for the Detection of Antibodies to Borrelia
burgdorferi; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the guidance entitled ``Establishing the Performance
Characteristics of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for the Detection of
Antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi.'' FDA is issuing this guidance to
provide industry and Agency staff with recommendations for studies to
establish the analytical and clinical performance of in vitro
diagnostic devices (IVDs) intended for the detection of antibodies to
B. burgdorferi. These devices are used to aid in the diagnosis of Lyme
disease.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at
any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at
any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance
document entitled ``Establishing the Performance Characteristics of In
Vitro Diagnostic Devices for the Detection of Antibodies to Borrelia
burgdorferi'' to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and
Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4613,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to
assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to
301-847-8149. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information
on electronic access to the guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Prasad Rao, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5508, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    This guidance recommends studies for establishing the performance
characteristics of in vitro diagnostic devices for the detection of
antibodies to B. burgdorferi in human serum, plasma, and blood. These
devices are used to aid in the diagnosis of Lyme disease. This document
does not apply to B. burgdorferi nucleic acid amplification assays. A
manufacturer who intends to market an in vitro device for the detection
of antibodies to B. burgdorferi must conform to the general controls of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and, unless exempt, obtain
premarket clearance or approval prior to marketing the device.
    The draft guidance was announced in the Federal Register of January
5, 2011 (76 FR 570), and the comment period closed on April 5, 2011. No
comments were received during the comment period.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
Agency's current thinking on establishing the performance
characteristics of in vitro diagnostic devices for the detection of
antibodies to B. burgdorferi. It does not create or confer any rights
for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents
is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. To receive
``Establishing the Performance Characteristics of In Vitro Diagnostic
Devices for the Detection of Antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi,'' you
may either send an email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an
electronic copy of the document or send a fax request to<PHONE_NUMBER>
to receive a hard copy. Please use the document number 1721 to identify
the guidance you are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 801 and 21 CFR 809.10 have been approved
under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in
21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078;
the collections of information in 42 CFR 493.15 have been approved
under OMB control number 0910-0598; the collections of information 21
CFR 50.23 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0586; and
the collections of information in 21 CFR 56.115 have been approved
under OMB control number 0910-0130.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 22, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-07085 Filed 3-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 75561]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29572]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-494-000]

South Bay Energy Corp.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of South Bay Energy Corp.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is December 26, 2013.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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>.

    Dated: December 5, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29572 Filed 12-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 141 (Thursday, July 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43663]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17976]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0759; FRL-9930-95-Region-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 2011 Base Year Emissions
Inventories for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the
2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the District of
Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia
(collectively, the States). The submittals are comprised of the 2011
base year carbon monoxide (CO) emissions inventories for the
Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). In the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the
States' SIP submittals as a direct final rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval
is set forth in the direct final rule and EPA's Technical Support
Document (TSD) prepared in support of this rulemaking action. The TSD
is available in the Docket for this rulemaking action. If no adverse
comments are received in response to this action, no further activity
is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final
rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by August 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0759 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0759, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0759. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at 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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site 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 email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public 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 electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the District of Columbia Department of the
Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th Floor,
Washington, DC 20002; the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800
Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230; and the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register publication.

    Dated: July 10, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-17976 Filed 7-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 21085-21087]
[DOCID:fr22ap10-133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61929; File No. SR-BX-2010-031]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending
the Effective Date of the Rule Governing the Exchange's Directed Order
Process on the Boston Options Exchange

April 16, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 15, 2010, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the effective date of the amended
rule governing the Exchange's Directed Order process on the Boston
Options Exchange (``BOX'') from April 30, 2010 to June 25, 2010. The
text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office
of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on
the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://
nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/.

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On March 14, 2006, the Exchange proposed an amendment to the BOX
Rules governing the Directed Order \5\ process on BOX.\6\ The Rules
were amended to clearly state that the BOX Trading Host identifies to
an Executing Participant (``EP'') the identity of the firm entering a
Directed Order. The amended rule was to be effective until June 30,
2006, (``Pilot Program'') while the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') considered a corresponding Exchange proposal \7\ to
amend its rules to permit EPs to choose the firms from whom they will
accept Directed Orders, while providing complete anonymity of the firm
entering a Directed Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have
the meanings prescribed within the BOX Rules.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53516 (March 20,
2006), 71 FR 15232 (March 27, 2006) (SR-BSE-2006-14).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53357 (February 23,
2006), 71 FR 10730 (March 2, 2006) (SR-BSE-2005-52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 20, 2006, the Exchange proposed extending the effective
date of the rule governing its Directed Order process on BOX from June
30, 2006 to September 30, 2006,\8\ while the Commission continued to
consider the corresponding Exchange proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54082 (June 30,
2006), 71 FR 38913 (July 10, 2006) (SR-BSE-2006-29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 11, 2006, January 16, 2007, July 2, 2007, January 18,
2008, January 26, 2009, May 21, 2009, November 24, 2009 and February
22, 2010 the Exchange proposed extending the effective date of the
amended rule governing the Directed Order process on BOX from September
30, 2006 until January 31, 2007,\9\ from January 31, 2007 until July
31, 2007,\10\ from July 31, 2007 until January 31, 2008,\11\ from
January 31, 2008 until January 31, 2009,\12\ from January 31, 2009
until May 29, 2009,\13\ from May 29, 2009 until November 30, 2009,\14\
from November 30, 2009 until February 26, 2010,\15\ and from February
26, 2010 until April 30, 2010,\16\ respectively, while the Commission
considered the corresponding Exchange proposal to amend the BOX Rules
to permit EPs to choose the firms from whom they will accept Directed
Orders, while providing complete anonymity of the firm entering a
Directed Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54469 (September 19,
2006), 71 FR 56201 (September 26, 2006) (SR-BSE-2006-38).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55139 (January 19,
2007), 72 FR 3448 (January 25, 2007) (SR-BSE-2007-01).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56014 (July 5,
2007), 72 FR 38104 (July 12, 2007) (SR-BSE-2007-31).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57195 (January 24,
2008), 73 FR 5610 (January 30, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-04).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59311 (January 28,
2009), 74 FR 6071 (February 4, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-007).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59983 (May 27,
2009), 74 FR 26445 (June 2, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-027).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61065 (November 25,
2009), 74 FR 62860 (December 1, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-076).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61577 (February 24,
2010), 75 FR 9464 (March 2, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-017).

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

    This filing from the Exchange again proposes extending the
effective date of the amended rule governing its Directed Order process
on BOX, from April 30, 2010 to June 25, 2010.\17\ In the event the
Commission reaches a decision with respect to the corresponding
Exchange proposal to amend the BOX Rules before June 25, 2010, the
amended rule governing the Directed Order process on the BOX will cease
to be effective at the time of that decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In the event that the issue of anonymity in the Directed
Order process is not resolved by June 25, 2010 the Exchange will
consider whether to submit another filing under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
extending this rule and system process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Basis
    The amended rule is designed to clarify the information contained
in a Directed Order. This proposed rule filing seeks to extend the
amended rule's effectiveness from April 30, 2010 to June 25, 2010. This
extension will afford the Commission the necessary time to consider the
Exchange's corresponding proposal to amend the BOX rule to permit EPs
to choose the firms from whom they will accept Directed Orders while
providing complete anonymity of the firm entering a Directed Order.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\18\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ in particular, in that it is designed
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \20\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission deems this requirement to have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \22\ normally
may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \23\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii),\24\ which would make the rule change effective and
operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because such waiver would continue to conform the BOX
rules to BOX's current practice without interruption and clarify that
Directed Orders on BOX are not anonymous.\25\ Accordingly, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing
with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2010-031 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2010-031. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such 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-BX-2010-031 and should be
submitted on or before May 13, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9283 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P