[Federal Register: November 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 227)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62213-62215]
[DOCID:fr27no09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0753; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-31-AD;
Amendment 39-16102; AD 2009-24-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH (TAE)
Model TAE 125-01 Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    In-flight engine shutdown incidents were reported on aircraft
equipped with TAE-125-01 engines. This was found to be mainly the
result of operation over a long time period with broken piston
cooling oil nozzles which caused thermal overload of the piston.

    We are issuing this AD to prevent engine in-flight shutdown,
possibly resulting in reduced control of the aircraft.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 4, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of January 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2009
(74 FR 47760). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for
the specified products. The MCAI states that:

    In-flight engine shutdown incidents were reported on aircraft
equipped with TAE-125-01 engines. This was found to be mainly the
result of operation over a long time period with broken piston
cooling oil nozzles which caused thermal overload of the piston.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request for Changes to Paragraph (e)(4)

    One commenter, Thielert Engine Owners Group, requests that we
delete the requirement to remove the engine, and modify the proposed AD
paragraph (e)(4) to state that if any evidence of a failed cooling
nozzle is found, repair or replace the cooling nozzle before further
flight.
    We partially agree. We do not agree that a broken cooling nozzle is
repairable. We agree that the engine does not need to be replaced, and
that a broken cooling nozzle must be replaced before further flight. We
changed paragraph (e)(4) in the AD from ``If any evidence of a failed
cooling nozzle is found, remove the engine from service before further
flight'' to ``If any evidence of a failed cooling nozzle is found,
replace the failed cooling nozzle before further flight.''

Request for Reference to the Thielert Repair Manual

    Two commenters, Thielert Engine Owners Group and Alpine Aviation,
request that we modify proposed AD paragraph (e)(4) to state that if
any evidence of a failed cooling nozzle is found, replace the cooling
nozzle in accordance with Thielert Repair Manual, Document No. RM-02-
01, latest revision.
    We partially agree. We agree that failed cooling nozzles must be
replaced. We do not agree that the Thielert Repair Manual must be
referenced in the AD. Part 43 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 43) already requires that corrective actions specified in ADs
be performed using the appropriate manuals and or service bulletins
that were previously FAA-approved. We changed the AD to require
replacing failed cooling nozzles.

Request To Leave in the Ferry Flight Permit Option Paragraph

    Alpine Aviation requests that we leave the ``standard'' paragraph
in the AD regarding the option to ferry the aircraft to a location to
where the AD can be accomplished.
    We do not agree. In July 2002, we published a new Part 39 that
contains a general authority regarding special flight permits and
airworthiness directives; see Docket No. FAA-2004-8460, Amendment 39-
9474 (69 FR 47998, July 22, 2002). Thus, when we now issue ADs, we will
not include a specific paragraph on special flight permits unless we
want to limit the use of that general authority granted in section
39.23. We did not change the AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will
affect about 250 engines of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
will take about 2 work-hours per engine to comply with this AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about
$30 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD
on U.S. operators to be $47,500.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2009-24-10 Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH: Amendment 39-16102.
Docket No. FAA-2009-0753; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-31-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January
4, 2010.

Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH (TAE)
model TAE 125-01 reciprocating engines, excluding engines that have
been modified to TAE Design Modification No. 2007-001. These engines
are installed in, but not limited to, Diamond Aircraft Industries
Model DA42, Piper PA-28-61 (Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) No.
SA03303AT), Cessna 172F, 172G, 172H, 172I, 172K, 172L, 172M, 172N,
172P, 172R, 172S, F172F, F172G, F172H, F172K, F172L, F172M, F172N,
and F172P (STC No. SA01303WI) airplanes.

Reason

    (d) This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
    In-flight engine shutdown incidents were reported on aircraft
equipped with TAE-125-01 engines. This was found to be mainly the
result of operation over a long time period with broken piston
cooling oil nozzles which caused thermal overload of the piston.
    We are issuing this AD to prevent engine in-flight shutdown,
possibly resulting in reduced control of the aircraft.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 110 flight hours, or during the next
scheduled maintenance, whichever occurs first after the effective
date of this AD, inspect the engine and engine oil for any evidence
or pieces of broken piston cooling nozzles.
    (2) Use the inspection instructions in Thielert Service Bulletin
No. TM TAE 125-0017, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2008, to perform
the inspection.
    (3) Thereafter, repetitively inspect the engine and engine oil
for any evidence or pieces of broken piston cooling nozzles, within
every additional 100 flight hours.
    (4) If any evidence of a failed cooling nozzle is found, replace
the failed cooling nozzle before further flight.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (f) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (g) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2008-0016 R1,
dated February 22, 2008, and Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH,
Platanenstrasse 14 D-09350, Lichtenstein, Germany, telephone: +49-
37204-696-0; fax: +49-37204-696-55; e-mail: info@centurion-
engines.com, for related information.
    (h) Contact Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information
about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Thielert Service Bulletin No. TM TAE 125-0017,
Revision 2, dated February 22, 2008 to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14 D-09350,
Lichtenstein, Germany, telephone: +49-37204-696-0; fax: +49-37204-
696-55; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 18, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-28166 Filed 11-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 57 (Monday, March 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17988-17992]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06716]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69175; File No. SR-ISE-2013-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Regarding Market Maker Quoting Requirements

March 19, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 5, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to make changes to market
maker quoting requirements. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site www.ise.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The 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
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 804
regarding market maker quoting requirements to: (1) Eliminate
Competitive Market Maker (``CMM'') pre-opening obligations; (2) change
the CMM quoting requirements to be based on a percentage of time; and
(3) specify compliance standards for market maker quoting obligations.
All of the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of
other options exchanges. In this respect, the Exchange believes that
the current quotation requirements act as a competitive disadvantage
that limits its ability to attract liquidity providers to the ISE.
Moreover, applying quotation standards that are substantially similar
to other options exchanges will remove a significant compliance burden
on members who provide liquidity across multiple options exchanges.
Background
    There have been a number of recent rule filings from other options
exchanges related to market maker quotation requirements that have
brought the rules of most other options exchanges substantially in
line: The Chicago Board Options Exchange amended its rules relating to
continuous electronic quoting requirements in July 2012; \3\ the NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM'') eliminated its market maker pre-opening
obligations in August 2012; \4\ and NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``Phlx'') amended
its rules to specify that compliance with market maker continuous
quoting rules would be determined on a monthly basis.\5\ In each of
these filings, the exchanges explained how the proposed changes were
substantially similar to the requirements of other options exchanges
and represented that applying a differing quoting standard placed the
exchanges at a competitive disadvantage. ISE now seeks to make similar
changes to its rules so that they are substantially similar to other
options exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Exchange Act Release No. 67410 (July 11, 2012), 77 FR 42040
(July 17, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-064) (the ``CBOE Release''). This rule
change was effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act.
    \4\ Exchange Act Release No. 67722 (August 23, 2012), 77 FR
52375 (August 29, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-095) (the ``NOM Release'').
This rule change was effective upon filing pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.
    \5\ Exchange Act Release No. 67700 (August 21, 2012), 77 FR
51835 (August 27, 2012) (the ``Phlx Release''). This rule change was
effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Quotation Requirements
    Pursuant to ISE Rule 804(e)(1), Primary Market Makers (``PMMs'')
must maintain continuous quotations in all of the series of the options
classes to which they are appointed. CMMs do not have a minimum number
of options classes for which they must enter quotations. Pursuant to
ISE Rule 804(e)(2)(ii), a CMM may initiate quoting in options classes
to which it is appointed intraday, but only up to the number of
appointed options classes for which it participated in the opening
rotation on that day. Whenever a CMM enters a quote in an options class
to which it is appointed, it must maintain continuous quotations for
that series and at least 60% of the series of the options class listed
on the Exchange until the close of trading that day. Preferenced CMMs
must maintain continuous quotations for 90% of the series. Rule 804
does not define the meaning of ``continuous'' nor specify any
compliance standards associated with the quoting requirements.
CMM Pre-Opening Obligation
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the requirement that CMMs quote
before the opening in a minimum number of options classes to put them
on par with market makers on other options

exchanges that do not have pre-market quoting obligations.\6\ As
explained above, ISE Rule 804(e)(2)(ii) currently requires CMMs to
participate in the opening in at least half of the classes in which it
enters quotations on a daily basis. The Exchange proposes to eliminate
this requirement so that CMMs are not restricted in the number of
options classes they quote during regular trading hours on this basis.
As a result, CMMs will not have an obligation to quote any options
classes prior to the opening, just as other options exchanges (e.g.,
Phlx and NOM) do not impose a pre-opening quoting obligation on their
electronic market makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NOM Release, supra note 4; and Phlx Rule
1014(b)(ii)(D)(1) (continuous quoting requirements do not include a
requirement to enter quotes before the opening).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange market makers have indicated that the Exchange's
requirement to participate in the opening for a minimum number of
securities is a deterrent to providing liquidity on the ISE. Such
market makers have indicated that, unlike other options exchanges such
as Phlx and NOM, the current ISE rule restricts the number of option
classes in which they enter quotations during regular market hours.
Thus, the proposed rule change will level the playing field with
respect to pre-opening obligations while encouraging greater liquidity
on the ISE during regular trading hours.
    Moreover, the Exchange notes that under the current structure of
the rule, options classes currently may not have CMM participation in
the opening process and that in such cases the PMM provides liquidity
when necessary. Accordingly, the proposal will have no impact on the
functioning of the ISE's opening process, but will serve to encourage
greater liquidity during regular trading hours by allowing CMMs to
quote additional options classes. The Exchange further believes that
eliminating pre-opening obligations would be pro-competitive in that it
will attract more market makers to the Exchange, thereby increasing the
amount of liquidity on the ISE.
Calculation of CMM Continuous Quotation Requirements
    As noted above, currently under ISE Rule 804(e)(2)(iii), once a CMM
chooses to enter quotations in an options class, it is required to
quote 60% of the series of the options class (90% for preferenced CMMs)
until the end of the trading day. The Exchange proposes to modify this
requirement to be 60% of the time an options class is open for trading
on the Exchange (90% of the time for preferenced market makers).
Currently, some options exchanges, such as NYSE Amex and NYSE Arca,
apply a 60% minimum quoting requirement as a percentage of time rather
than as a percentage of the series of a class.\7\ Under the proposal,
the Exchange will calculate the percentage of time a market maker
quotes by dividing the number of minutes a market maker entered quotes
in series of an options class (the numerator) by the total minutes all
series of the options class were open for trading on the Exchange
(denominator).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NYSE Amex Rule 925.1NY(c); and NYSE Arca Rule 6.37B(c).
    \8\ For example, if a market maker quotes an options class that
has 150 series all of which opened at 9:30 a.m. the denominator will
be 150 x 390 minutes, or 58,500 minutes. The minimum CMM quoting
requirement would therefore be 35,100 minutes (60% of 58,500
minutes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that imposing minimum CMM quoting
requirements based on a percentage of series or as a percentage of time
achieves the same result in terms of the amount of liquidity being
provided by a market maker, but that measuring market maker
participation in terms of a percentage time is a more reasonable and
fair way of evaluating whether market makers are providing appropriate
levels of liquidity to the market. For example, when measured as a
percentage of series, a market maker that continuously quoted 80% of
the series of an options class for an entire day, except for a 5 minute
period where it quoted only 58% of the series, may be deemed in
violation of the current minimum quoting requirement, even though such
market maker provided more liquidity to the market than a CMM that
continuously quoted the minimum 60% of the series for the entire
day.\9\ Accordingly, the Exchange believes that measuring the minimum
quoting requirements in terms of a percentage of time, in the same
manner as NYSE Amex and NYSE Arca are doing currently, will more fairly
achieve the objective of the minimum quoting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ If an options class has 100 options series, a market maker
that quotes 60% of the series continuously for an entire trading day
provides liquidity for 60 series x 390 minutes, which equals 23,400
minutes. A market maker that provides liquidity for 80 series for
385 minutes and 58 series for 5 minutes provides liquidity for a
total of 31,090 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quotation Compliance Standards
    Rule 804 does not currently contain any standards by which
compliance with market maker continuous quotation requirements are
measured. Specifically, Rule 804 does not provide any guidance on how
market makers satisfy their continuous quotation requirements, nor the
method by which the Exchange reviews whether a market maker has met its
quoting obligations. In contrast, Phlx and CBOE rules specify that
market makers must quote 90% of the time to meet their continuous
quotation requirements.\10\ Many exchanges also have established a time
period of one month to determine whether a market maker has met its
quoting obligation, stating that compliance with the continuous quoting
obligations will be determined collectively across all options classes
on a monthly basis.\11\ These exchanges' rules also explicitly state
that periods where market makers fail to maintain continuous quotes due
to technical problems are not considered when determining whether
market makers satisfied their quoting obligations.\12\ The Exchange
proposes to adopt similar provisions under ISE Rule 804.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(D); CBOE Rule 1.1(ccc) (as amended by
CBOE Release, supra note 3).
    \11\ Phlx Release, supra note 5; NYSE Amex Rule 925.1NY and NYSE
Arca Rule 6.37B.
    \12\ Id. Market makers will be required to promptly notify the
Exchange of any technical problems that prevent them from
maintaining continuous quotes. In normal circumstances, such
notification should be made on the same trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to state in Supplementary
Material to Rule 804 that PMMs shall be deemed to have provided
continuous quotes pursuant to Rule 804(e)(1) if they provide two-sided
quotes for 90% of the time that the Exchange is open for trading.\13\
The Exchange further proposes to state that compliance with the PMM and
CMM quoting requirements will be applied to all options classes quoted
collectively on a daily basis and will be determined on a monthly
basis.\14\ Further, the Exchange proposes to specify that if a
technical failure or limitation of a system of the Exchange prevents a

market maker from maintaining, or prevents a market maker from
communicating to the Exchange, timely and accurate quotes, the duration
of such failure will not be considered in determining whether the
market maker has satisfied its quoting obligations. Additionally the
proposed text states that the Exchange may consider other exceptions to
the continuous quoting obligation based on demonstrated legal or
regulatory requirements or other mitigating circumstances. Finally, the
Exchange proposes to specify that the CMM continuous quoting
requirements do not include adjusted options series or long-term
options.\15\ All of these proposed changes are consistent with the
rules of other options exchanges.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This provision would apply only to PMMs and not to CMMs, as
CMMs would no longer have an obligation to continuously quote a
minimum number of series under the proposal. To calculate whether a
PMM has maintained quotations for at least 90% of the time, the
Exchange will divide the total number of minutes a PMM maintained
quotations in options series of a class (the numerator) by the total
minutes all series of the options class were open for trading on the
Exchange (the denominator).
    \14\ Compliance with market maker quoting obligations will be
determined on a monthly basis. However, the ability of the Exchange
to determine compliance on a monthly basis does not: (1) Relieve
market makers from their obligation to meet daily quoting
requirements in Rule 804; and (2) prohibit the Exchange from
bringing disciplinary action against a market maker for failure to
meet its daily quoting requirements set forth in Rule 804. The
Exchange provides daily reports to market makers to enable them to
monitor their compliance with quoting requirements. The Exchange
will continue to provide such daily reports and to monitor market
maker compliance on a daily basis.
    \15\ Adjusted options series are series wherein, as a result of
a corporate action by the issuer of the underlying security, one
options contract in the series represents the delivery of other than
100 shares of underlying stock or exchange-traded fund shares. Long-
term options are series with a time to expiration of nine (9) months
or greater for options on equities and exchange-traded funds, and
options with a time to expiration of twelve (12) months or greater
for index options. CMMs may choose to quote such series in addition
to regular series in the options class, but such quotations will not
be considered when determining whether a CMM has met the obligation
contained in paragraph (e)(2)(iii). Thus, such series are not
included in the denominator nor are any quotes entered in such
series included in the numerator when the Exchange calculates the
percentage of time a market maker has quoted an options class. See
supra note 8 and accompanying text. This exclusion is limited to CMM
quoting requirements. The PMM quoting requirements include all
series of an appointed options class, including adjusted series and
long-term options. A CMM that chooses to quote adjusted series and/
or long-term options must meet all of the quoting obligations
applicable to CMMs generally, and may be preferenced in such series
and receive enhanced allocations pursuant to ISE Rule 713,
Supplementary Material .03, only if it complies with the heightened
90% quoting requirement contained in Rule 804(e)(2)(iii).
    \16\ With respect to compliance standards, see CBOE Rule
1.1(ccc); NYSE Arca Rule 6.37B; NYSE Amex Rule 925.1NY; and Phlx
Rule 1014(d)(4). With respect to excluding adjusted series and long
term options from the CMM quoting obligation, see CBOE Rule
8.7(d)(ii)(B) (requiring market makers to maintain continuous
electronic quotes in 60% of the non-adjusted options series that
have a time to expiration of less than nine months); NYSE Arca Rule
6.37B, Commentary .01; NYSE Amex Rule 9.25.1NY, Commentary .01; and
Phlx Rule 1014(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal assures that compliance standards for two-sided
quoting will be the same on the ISE as on other options exchanges. The
Exchange believes these standards are appropriate, and that applying
consistent standards across options exchanges lessens compliance
burdens on members and reduces the potential for regulatory arbitrage.
Specifically, specifying that PMMs satisfy their quoting obligations if
they quote at least 90% of the time will provide clarity and allow PMMs
to better monitor whether they are in compliance with their continuous
quoting obligations.\17\ Moreover, the Exchange believes that applying
the quoting requirements for market makers collectively across all
options classes and measuring such compliance over a monthly basis is a
fair and more efficient way for the Exchange and market participants to
evaluate compliance with market maker continuous quoting
requirements.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 14.
    \18\ On the basis of the daily reports, the Exchange will
continue to inform market makers if they are failing to achieve
their quoting requirements. Moreover, on the basis of daily
monitoring activity, the Exchange can determine whether market
makers violated any other Exchange rules such as, for example, Rule
400 regarding just and equitable principles of trade. Such daily
monitoring will allow the Exchange to investigate unusual activity
and to take appropriate regulatory action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \19\ (the
``Act'') in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act \20\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general to protect
investors and the public interest. All of the proposed changes are
consistent with standards currently in place at other options
exchanges. As such, the proposed change conform ISE market maker
obligations to the requirements of competing markets, which will
promote the application of consistent trading practices across markets
that provide market makers with similar benefits. In this respect, the
Exchange notes that CBOE, Phlx and NYSE Amex all have market structures
that allocate trades to market makers in a manner similar to the
ISE.\21\ However, the Exchange also notes that the same market maker
obligations currently are being applied on competitive exchanges to
options classes traded in a price-time market structure (such as Arca).
While these different markets and market structures may provide
slightly different benefits to market makers, the Exchange does not
believe these differences are sufficient to out-weigh the significant
existing competitive burden applying more stringent quotation
requirements places on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \21\ See, e.g., CBOE Rule 6.45A and NYSE Amex Rule 964NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, with respect to the proposal to eliminate the
requirement that CMMs quote before the opening in a minimum number of
options classes, the Exchange believes that the proposal removes a
requirement that is unnecessary, as evidenced by the fact that it does
not exist on other competitive markets. The Exchange operates in a
highly competitive market comprised of eleven U.S. options exchanges in
which sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can, and do,
send order flow and/or provide liquidity to competing exchanges if they
deem trading practices at a particular exchange to be onerous or
cumbersome. With this proposal, ISE market makers will be relieved of a
requirement that limits their ability to provide liquidity during
regular market hours and places a burden upon them that does not exist
on other competitive markets with similar market structures. The
Exchange believes that eliminating pre-opening quoting obligations will
attract more CMMs to the Exchange, thereby increasing competition and
liquidity on the ISE.
    With respect to the proposal to base the CMMs minimum quotation
requirements on a percentage of time rather than as a percentage of
series, the Exchange believes that that measuring market maker
participation in terms of a percentage of time is a more reasonable and
fair way of evaluating whether market makers are providing appropriate
levels of liquidity to the market. Moreover, the Exchange believes that
measuring the minimum quoting requirements in terms of a percentage of
time, as NYSE Amex and NYSE Arca are doing currently, will provide a
better measure of the level of liquidity being provided by market
makers.
    Finally, with respect to compliance standards, the Exchange
believes that adopting the proposed standards will enhance compliance
efforts by market makers and the Exchange, and are consistent with the
requirements currently in place on other exchanges. The proposal
ensures that compliance standards for continuous quoting will be the
same on the Exchange as on other options exchanges, and the proposal to
exclude adjusted series and long-term options from the CMM continuous
quoting requirements assures that the quotation requirements are being
applied similarly across exchanges,

such as the CBOE, Phlx, NYSE Amex and NYSE Arca.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 16. In this respect, the Exchange notes that
NYSE Arca and NYSE Amex exclude adjusted series and long-term
options from the quoting requirements for all market makers,
including those markets' equivalent of the ISE's PMMs. For quote
mitigation purposes, Arca only disseminates quotes in active options
series. NYSE Arca Rule 6.86, Commentary .03, and NYSE Amex Rule
970.1NY. The ISE, however, has not implemented a similar approach to
quote mitigation. Rather, the ISE disseminates quotations in all
options series listed on the exchange, and pursuant to ISE Rule
804(e)(1) the ISE requires PMMs to maintain continuous quotations in
all listed series of their appointed options classes, including
adjusted series and long-term options. Thus, the Exchange does not
believe that it is necessary to require CMMs to quote such series,
and that it is appropriate to exclude such options series from the
CMM quoting requirements contained in ISE Rule 804(e)(ii) in the
interest of applying consistent standards across exchanges for non-
specialist market makers, such as CBOE and Phlx, as well as NYSE
Arca and NYSE Amex. See supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While under the proposal the quoting requirements are changing, the
Exchange does not believe that these changes reduce the overall
obligations applicable to market makers. In this respect, the Exchange
notes that such market makers are subject to many obligations,
including the obligation to maintain a fair and orderly market in their
appointed classes, which the Exchange believes eliminates the risk of a
material decrease in liquidity. In addition to this and other
requirements applicable to market maker quotations under Rules 803 and
804, PMMs continue to have an obligation to conduct the opening and
enter continuous quotations in all of the series of their appointed
options classes and to do so within maximum spread requirements. CMMs
have an obligation to maintain continuous quotes for at least 60% of
the time the options class is open for trading on the Exchange (as
opposed to 60% of the series), and to do so within maximum spread
requirements. Preferenced market makers will continue to have a
heighted quotation requirement, as they are required to maintain
continuous quotes for at least 90% of the time the options class is
open for trading on the Exchange (as opposed to 90% of the series) and
to do so within maximum spread requirements. Additionally, CMMs will
continue to be obligated to enter quotes whenever, in the judgment of
an Exchange official, it is necessary to do so in the interest of fair
and orderly markets.\23\ Accordingly, the benefits the proposed rule
change confers upon market makers are offset by the continued
responsibilities to provide significant liquidity to the market to the
benefit of market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ISE Rule 804(e)((2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the balance
between the benefits provided to market makers and the obligations
imposed upon market makers by the proposed rule change is appropriate.

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

    The Exchange believes that the current quotation requirements act
as a competitive disadvantage that limits the ISE's ability to attract
liquidity providers. The proposal is comparable to current rules at
competing options exchanges related to market-maker continuous quoting
obligations and will ensure fair competition among the options exchange
that provide market makers with similar benefits. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes that the proposal will enable the Exchange to attract
additional CMMs, thereby increasing competition and liquidity on the
ISE.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \24\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \25\ thereunder. The Exchange provided 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 the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2013-17 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-ISE-2013-17. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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-ISE-2013-17 and should be
submitted on or before April 15, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-06716 Filed 3-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 25398]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08737]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5867-054]

Alice Falls Hydro, LLC; Notice of Waiver Period for Water Quality
Certification Application

(April 19, 2023)
    On April 13, 2023, Alice Falls Hydro, LLC submitted to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its application for
a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed
with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New
York DEC), in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to
40 CFR 121.6 and section 4.34(b)(5) of the Commission's regulations,\1\
we hereby notify New York DEC of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 4.34(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: April 12, 2023.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One
year (April 12, 2024).
    If New York DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality
certification request on or before the above date, then the agency
certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: April 19, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-08737 Filed 4-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77395-77396]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30212]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0717; FRL-9918-65]

Beauveria bassiana Strain ANT-03; Exemption From the Requirement
of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of the microbial insecticide Beauveria
bassiana strain ANT-03 in or on all food commodities when used in
accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.
Technology Sciences Group, Inc., agent for Anatis Bioprotection Inc.,
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of Beauveria bassiana strain ANT-03.

DATES: This regulation is effective December 24, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 23, 2015,
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-2013-0717, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, 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-2013-0717 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
February 23, 2015. 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-2013-0717, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of December 30, 2013 (78 FR 79359) (FRL-
9903-69), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 3F8176) by Anatis Bioprotection Inc., 278, rang Saint-
Andree, St.-Jacques-le-Mineur, Quebec J0J 1Z0, Canada. The petition
requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Beauveria bassiana
strain ANT-03. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by the petitioner Technology Sciences Group, Inc. as agent for
Anatis Bioprotection Inc., which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption and
to

``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .'' Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D)
requires that 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.''

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with 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 to Beauveria bassiana strain
ANT-03. 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.
    A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and a summary
of its risk assessment based on that data can be found within the
October 23, 2014 document entitled ``Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Beauveria bassiana strain ANT-03.'' This
document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the
docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES.
    Based upon that evaluation, EPA concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population,
including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of
Beauveria bassiana strain ANT-03. Therefore, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Beauveria
bassiana strain ANT-03 in or on all food commodities when used in
accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

IV. Other Considerations

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for
the reasons contained in the document entitled ``Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Beauveria bassiana strain
ANT-03,'' and because the EPA is establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance exemption 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 action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance
exemption in this 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 action 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 action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VI. 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 5, 2014.
Marty Monell,
Acting Director, 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. Add Sec.  180.1328 to subpart D to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1328  Beauveria bassiana strain ANT-03; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of Beauveria bassiana strain ANT-03 in or on all food
commodities, when applied as a microbial insecticide and used in
accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

[FR Doc. 2014-30212 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 71845]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29319]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: [77 FR 71203,
November 29, 2012]

STATUS: Closed Meeting.

PLACE: 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC

DATE AND TIME OF PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED MEETING: Monday, December 3, 2012
at 2:00 p.m.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: Date Change.
    The Closed Meeting scheduled for Monday, December 3, 2012 at 2:00
p.m., has been changed to Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 29, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29319 Filed 11-30-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


November 22, 2002 Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( 7502C) Office of Pesticide Programs Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC, 20460 0001 To Whom It May Concern:

Re: Diazinon Availability of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document for Comment; OPP 2002 0251, FRL 7274 4 The U. S. Apple Association ( USApple) is the national trade association representing all segments of the apple industry. Members include 40 state and regional apple associations representing the 9,000 apple growers throughout the country, as well as more than 400 individual firms involved in the apple business. USApple appreciates this opportunity to comment on the critical need for diazinon use on apples.

USApple understands that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) plans to delete from the current diazinon label all pests and directions for use except for one application to control woolly apple aphids. USApple wishes to emphasize the critical need for diazinon use on apples to control woolly apple aphid. No other tool is available to apple growers to control infestations of this destructive pest. This use is needed to avoid debilitating apple tree damage that reduces tree vigor, productivity and apple size. The inability to control woolly apple aphid will result in lower productivity, which reduces grower revenue and our industry's international competitiveness. Therefore, USApple supports the agency's plans to maintain this critical use.

Additionally, USApple urges the agency to maintain a single application of diazinon to control San Jose scale crawlers. Apple growers are experiencing greater persistence of scale in apple orchards due to the loss of methyl parathion and chlorpyrifos. While pyriproxyfen ( Esteem ® ) provides excellent control of San Jose scale crawlers, apple growers are concerned that this is currently the only available alternative for this pest. Thus, USApple urges the agency to maintain this use to assist apple growers with their insect resistance management plans that would prolong the efficacy of pyriproxyfen and avoid future problems controlling San Jose scale.

It has come to USApple's attention that the use of thiamethoxam ( Actara ® ) may be limited to the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York. If thiamethoxam's use is restricted to these states in the future, many apple growers will need diazinon to control rosy apple aphids and mealybugs. Thiamethoxam controls both rosy apple aphids and mealybugs. However, if growers do not have access to this tool, diazinon would be the preferred alternative. Should North Carolina growers lose the thiamethoxam use, only dimethoate and diazinon would be available for adequate mealybug control. Therefore, USApple urges EPA to allow a single application of diazinon to control rosy apple aphids and mealybugs.

The agency's interim reregistration eligibility decision for diazinon mandates use of diazinon in closed cabs. USApple requests that the agency remove this restriction, since the majority of apple growers either do not use closed cab tractors or they are impossible to use in many orchard production systems currently in use in the apple industry. The U. S. apple industry has been transitioning to higher density orchards with narrower rows or trellis systems that cannot accommodate the higher profile of closed cab tractors. Should the agency maintain this restriction, it will effectively prohibit diazinon use on significant apple acreage.

USApple recommends the following protective measures as an alternative when closed cabs are not used for diazinon applications:

  chemical resistant coveralls over long sleeve shirt and long pants,   chemical resistant gloves,   chemical resistant footwear plus socks,   protective eyewear,   chemical resistant apron if exposed to the concentrate,   chemical resistant headgear for overhead exposure, and   A respirator with an organic vapor removing cartridge with a prefilter approved for pesticides ( MSHA/ NIOSH approval number prefix TC 23C), or a canister approved for pesticides ( MSHA/ NIOSH approval number prefix TC 14G), or a NIOSHapproved respirator with an organic vapor ( OV) cartridge or canister with any N, R or P or He prefilter.

Note: The registrant must drop the N series filter from the respirator filter designation if the pesticide product contains or is used with oil.

USApple appreciates your consideration of these recommendations.

Sincerely yours,

James R. Cranney, Jr. Vice President


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62346-62350]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24492]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0529; FRL-9915-53-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, California
Air Resources Board--Consumer Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the California Air Resources Board
portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern

volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from consumer products. We
are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on December 16, 2014 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 17, 2014. If
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0529, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4122<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the date it was
amended by the State and submitted by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB).

                             Table 1--Submitted California Air Resources Board Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Filed with California
          Regulation                       Amended                 Secretary of State         Submitted to EPA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter 8.5--Consumer        March 15, 2013..............  April 25, 2013.............  May 28, 2014.
 Products; Article 2--Consumer
 Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 18, 2014, EPA determined that the submittal for California
Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5--
Consumer Products; Article 2--Consumer Products met the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal
EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved an earlier version of CARB's Consumer Products
Regulation (amended on August 6, 2010 and submitted to EPA on January
28, 2011), into the SIP on February 13, 2012 (77 FR 7535). CARB's
submittal letter advised EPA that its SIP submission did not include
the second tier 3% VOC limits for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint
Thinners. CARB's intent was to monitor manufacturers' progress to meet
both the technology forcing lower VOC limit and a less flammable
product. In 2013 CARB determined the 3% VOC limit for Multi-purpose
Solvents and Paint Thinners was technically feasible and included the
limit in a May 28, 2014 SIP submittal.
    On September 29, 2011, and March 15, 2013 CARB adopted additional
revisions to the SIP-approved version and submitted them to us along
with the 3% VOC limit for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners on
May 28, 2014. Table 2 lists the three amendments. While we can act on
only the most recently amended version that was submitted to EPA, we
have reviewed materials provided with the SIP submittal and note that
it includes and builds on the previous amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Date the Final Rulemaking Package was filed with the
California Office of Administrative Law.

         Table 2--California Air Resources Board Submitted Revisions to Its Consumer Products Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Filed with California
         Board hearing                    Amended \1\                 Secretary of State        Submitted to EPA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 24, 2009.............  August 6, 2010...............  September 20, 2010...........  May 28, 2014 (2nd
                                                                                tier--3% VOC
                                                                                limit for Multi-
                                                                                purpose Solvents
                                                                                and Paint
                                                                                Thinners only).
November 18, 2010..............  September 29, 2011...........  November 10, 2011............  May 28, 2014.
October 18, 2012...............  March 15, 2013...............  April 25, 2013...............  May 28, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. The California Health
and Safety Code (Section 41712(b)) requires CARB to adopt regulations
to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in volatile organic compounds
emitted by consumer products if the state board determines that
adequate data exist to establish both of the following:
    (1) The regulations are necessary to attain state and federal
ambient air quality standards.
    (2) The regulations are commercially and technologically feasible
and necessary.
    CARB's May 28, 2014 submittal contains the following three
amendments to its Consumer Products Regulation: (1) The second tier 3%
VOC limits for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners from CARB's
August 6, 2010 amendments (September 24, 2009 Board Hearing), but
excluded from CARB's January 28, 2011 SIP submittal; \2\ (2) CARB's
September 29, 2011 amendments (November 18, 2010 Board Hearing), which
established new or lower VOC limits for 11 consumer product categories;
and (3) CARB's March 15, 2013 amendments (October 18, 2012 Board
Hearing), which incorporates additional areas where higher VOC
automobile windshield washer fluid could be sold to accommodate
mountainous areas that routinely experience freezing temperatures in
the winter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Robert D. Fletcher (CARB), letter to Jared Blumenfeld (EPA
Region IX), January 28, 2011, submitting the August 6, 2010
amendments to California's Consumer Products Regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments also: (1) Add or modify the definitions for artist's
solvent/thinner, oven cleaners, spot removers, and the ``Most
Restrictive Limit'' provision; (2) consolidate existing requirements
into a table listing the consumer product categories that prohibit the
use of the toxic air contaminants methylene chloride,
perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene. This will make it easier to
find the requirements for all consumer product categories where use of
these compounds is prohibited; (3) consolidate into a table listing the
consumer product categories that prohibit the use of compounds with a
global warming potential (GWP) of 150 or greater; (4) consolidate into
a table listing the consumer products that prohibit the use of para-
dichlorobenzene; (5) add additional test methods to be used to
determine the aromatic content of Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint
Thinners and the VOC content of Fabric Softener-Single Use Drying
Product; (6) raise the VOC limit for nonaerosol Oven or Grill Cleaners
products to 4% to accommodate the use of noncaustic technologies; (7)
delay the effective date until December 31, 2012 for Spot Removers, and
until December 31, 2013 for Flying Bug Insecticide (aerosol) and Wasp
or Hornet Insecticide (aerosol); and (8) prohibit the use of
alkylphenol ethoxylates in certain products to ensure these compounds
are not used when reformulating the products.
    Generally, CARB received support for its amendments from both the
consumer products industry and environmental organizations. Although
industry commented about the serious and costly reformulation
challenges posed by the amendments, industry was committed to expending
the money to conduct the research and development necessary to meet the
new requirements. Environmental organizations were also generally
supportive of the proactive approach CARB was taking to prohibit the
use of certain toxic compounds in order to help protect the health of
workers and consumers, and prohibiting the use of compounds with high
global warming potential in the reformulation of products to meet lower
VOC limits.
    CARB estimates that raising the VOC limit for Oven or Grill
Cleaners to 4% will result in an increase of approximately 0.1 tons per
day (tpd) and that increasing the number of areas where higher VOC
automotive windshield washer fluid could be sold will result in an
increase of 0.12 tpd VOC. CARB's staff reports indicate these increases
would be offset by approximately 11 tpd of VOC reductions from other
consumer product categories. EPA's technical support document (TSD) has
more information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted to EPA
for approval into a SIP must be clear and legally enforceable. CAA
section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement
of the CAA. California's consumer products regulation covers VOC area
sources and not stationary sources. In 1998 EPA promulgated a national
rule to regulate VOC emissions from consumer products (63 FR 48831,
September 11, 1998). EPA's national rule largely parallels an early
SIP-approved version of CARB's consumer products regulation. The
amendments from CARB that we are approving today regulate nearly three
times the number of consumer product categories and has more stringent
VOC limits than categories covered under EPA's 1998 national rule. CARB
points out that although emissions from individual consumer products
may not seem large, collectively, they represent a significant source
of emissions when taking into account 39 million California residents
use these products and that given the severity of air pollution in
California, ``dramatic emission reductions from all sources
contributing to ground-level ozone are necessary''.\3\ CARB estimates
that ozone pollution damage to crops is estimated to cost agriculture
over $500 million dollars annually.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Initial Statement of Reasons; Proposed Amendments to the
California Regulation for Reducing Emissions from Consumer Products;
Release Date: September 29, 2010. IV-25. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/cpmthd310/cpmthdisor.pdf.
    \4\ Ibid. IV-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and SIP requirements consistently include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988, revised January 11, 2000 (the
Bluebook).
    2. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. 40 CFR 59 Subpart C, National Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Standards for Consumer Products.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. CARB estimates
that raising the VOC limit for Oven or Grill Cleaners and increasing
the mountainous areas where higher VOC windshield washer fluid can be
sold will increase VOC emissions by approximately 0.1 and 0.12 tpd
respectively, but that these increases are offset by VOC reductions
(approximately 11 tpd) from other consumer product categories. We have

reviewed CARB's analysis and agree that the emission increases are
offset by greater VOC reductions achieved in other consumer product
categories and that it will not interfere with attainment, RFP, or any
other applicable CAA requirement. Our TSD has more information on our
evaluation.
    Our action is being taken under CAA Title 1 part D and is limited
to the control of criteria pollutants. However, we support CARB's
actions to limit toxic or potentially toxic compounds and those
compounds with a high global warming potential.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we
receive adverse comments by November 17, 2014, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on December 16, 2014. This will incorporate the
rule into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 16, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 5, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52 [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(444) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (444) New and amended regulations were submitted on May 28, 2014,
by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) California Air Resource Board.
    (1) ``Final Regulation Order, Regulation for Reducing Emissions
from Consumer Products,'' Subchapter 8.5 (Consumer Products), Article 2

(Consumer Products), amended March 15, 2013.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-24492 Filed 10-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 64 (Thursday, April 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18679-18681]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07430]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG14-34-000.
    Applicants: Lone Valley Solar Park I LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Lone Valley Solar Park I LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140326-5095.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/14.

    Docket Numbers: EG14-35-000.
    Applicants: Lone Valley Solar Park II LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Lone Valley Solar Park II LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140326-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-3125-007; ER10-3243-002; ER10-3102-007; ER10-
3245-001; ER10-3249-001; ER10-3250-001; ER10-3169-005; ER10-3100-007;
ER12-2570-003; ER11-2639-001; ER10-3143-009; ER13-821-003; ER10-3107-
007; ER10-3109-007; ER13-618-002; ER12-1301-002.
    Applicants: AL Sandersville, LLC, Chandler Wind Partners, LLC,
Effingham County Power, LLC, Foote Creek II, LLC, Foote Creek III, LLC,
Foote Creek IV, LLC, Michigan Power Limited Partnership, MPC
Generating, LLC, Panther Creek Power Operating, LLC, Ridge Crest Wind
Partners, LLC, Scrubgrass Generating Company, L.P., Walton County
Power, LLC, Washington County Power, LLC, Westwood Generation, LLC,
Zone J Tolling Co., LLC, Sabine Cogen, LP.
    Description: Supplement to January 22, 2014 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of AL Sandersville, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 3/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140325-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2300-002.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Cancellation of Interruptible Trans Agreement Portion
of Rate Schedule No. 198 to be effective 4/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140325-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-776-002.
    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.
    Description: Order Nos. 764, 764-A and 764-B Compliance Filing
Amendment to be effective 11/12/2013.
    Filed Date: 3/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140326-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1569-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Energy Services, LLC.
    Description: Errata to March 24, 2013 Dynegy Energy Services, LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 3/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140325-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1581-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-03-25--SA 764/766 ATC D-T Update Amendment to be
effective 5/25/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140325-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1582-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-03-25--ATC D-T Update Batch 1 to be effective 5/
25/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140325-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1583-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation, Ohio Power
Company, AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc., PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: AEP submits 40th Revised Service Agreement No. 1336 to
be effective 9/26/2013.
    Filed Date: 3/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140325-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1584-000.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
    Description: Application of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. under New
Docket for authorization to sell electricity to two affiliated public
utilities; The Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power Company.
    Filed Date: 3/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140325-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1585-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Kendall Energy, LLC, Dynegy Marketing and Trade,
LLC.
    Description: Request for Limited Waiver of Dynegy Kendall Energy,
LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 3/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140325-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1586-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Kendall Energy, LLC.
    Description: Request for Limited Waiver of Dynegy Kendall Energy,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140325-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1587-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2154 Midwest Energy, Inc. NITSA NOA Notice of
Cancellation to be effective 12/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 3/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140326-5028.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1588-000.
    Applicants: KeyTex Energy, LLC.
    Description: KeyTex Energy LLC, Notice of Cancellation of MBR
Tariff to be effective 3/27/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140326-5036.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1589-000.
    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
    Description: Order No. 784 Compliance Filing to be effective 12/20/
2013.
    Filed Date: 3/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140326-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1590-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Agreement To Sponsor
Facilities Upgrades of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 3/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140326-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1591-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of American Electric Power
Service Corporation Letter Agreement of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 3/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140326-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1592-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Network Integration
Transmission Service Agreement and Network Operating Agreement of
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 3/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140326-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1593-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Interconnection Agreement
with Lowell Cogeneration Co. to be effective 5/26/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140326-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES14-30-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., PJM Settlement, Inc.
    Description: Application of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., and PJM

Settlement, Inc. under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for an
order authorizing the issuance of securities.
    Filed Date: 3/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140326-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/14.

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

    Dated: March 26, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07430 Filed 4-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Rick Westlund Office of Environmental Information ( 2822T) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Phone: ( 202) 566 1682 Fax: ( 202) 566 1639  Forwarded by Rick Westlund/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 03/ 16/ 2004 04: 48 PM

oira_ docket@ omb. eop. gov 03/ 16/ 2004 04: 27 PM To: actionnotices. prams@ epamail. epa. gov cc: Keith_ B._ Belton@ omb. eop. gov, Rick Westlund/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Susan Auby/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: 2070 0167 OMB NOTICE OF ACTION NOTICE OF OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ACTION Rick Westlund 03/ 16/ 2004 Office of Environmental Information ( 2822T) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. Washington, DC 20460 In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB has taken the following action on your request for approval of a new information collection received on 03/ 15/ 2004.

TITLE: Pesticide Registration Fee Waiver Processing; Emergency Processing Request AGENCY FORM NUMBER( S): 2147.01 ACTION : APPROVED WITHOUT CHANGE OMB NO.: 2070 0167 EXPIRATION DATE: 09/ 30/ 2004 BURDEN: RESPONSES HOURS COSTS($, 000) Previous 0 0 0 New 360 21,600 0 Difference 360 21,600 0 Program Change 21,600 0 Adjustment 0 0 TERMS OF CLEARANCE: None OMB Authorizing Official Title Donald R. Arbuckle Deputy Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs _____________________________________________________________