[Federal Register: September 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 182)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54917-54922]
[DOCID:fr20se06-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0623; FRL-8090-5]

Dithianon; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
dithianon, (5,10-dihydro-5,10-dioxonaphtho(2,3-b)-1,4-dithiin-2,3-
dicarbonitrile in or on imported fruit, pome, group 11, and hop, dried
cones. BASF Corporation requested this tolerance under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 20, 2006. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 20, 2006,
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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0623. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Mary Kearns, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., agricultural workers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and
farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural
workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and
floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
 To access the

OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to
the guidelines at http://www.epa.gpo/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 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-2006-0623. in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be
in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or
before November 20, 2006.
    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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0623, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of April 12, 2006 (71 FR 19733) (FRL-7767-
7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6E4781) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. 22709. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180
be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide
dithianon, 5,10-dihydro-5,10-dioxonaphtho(2,3-b)-1,4-dithiin-2,3-
dicarbonitrile, in or on imported fruit, pome, group 11 at 5 parts per
million (ppm) and hop, dried cones at 100 ppm. There were no comments
received in response to the notice of filing.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue....''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm
.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, 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, consistent with section
408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for a tolerance for residues of dithianon on fruit,
pome, group 11 at 5 parts per million and hop, dried cones at 100 ppm.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing
the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the toxic effects caused by dithianon as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found either in the
docket ID number HQ-EPA-2006-0623 at http://www.regulations.gov or at

http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the dose at which no adverse effects are observed
(the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use
in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of
concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk
assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected.
An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent
in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the
variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well
as other unknowns.
    The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method
currently used by the Agency to quantify non-threshold hazards such as
cancer. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead
to some degree of cancer risk, estimates risk in terms of the
probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases. More information
can be found on the general principles EPA uses in risk
characterization at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm or http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science.

1/trac/science.

human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit:

      Table 1.--Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Dithianon for Use in Human Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Dose Used in Risk
                                             Assessment,          Special FQPA SF and
          Exposure/Scenario                Interspecies and       Level of Concern for   Study and Toxicological
                                         Intraspecies and any       Risk Assessment              Effects
                                            Traditional UF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (Females 13-49 years of  NOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day...  Special FQPA SF = 1....  Developmental toxicity
 age).                                 UF = 1,000.............  aPAD = acute RfD/         study in rats.
                                       aAcute RfD = 0.02 mg/kg/  Special FQPA SF = 0.02  LOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day
                                        day.                     mg/kg/day.               based on post
                                                                                implantation loss due
                                                                                to early resorptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (General population      None...................  None...................  Not selected.
 including infants and children).                                                        No appropriate dose and
                                                                                endpoint could be
                                                                                identified for these
                                                                                population groups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic Dietary (All populations)....  NOAEL = 6 mg/kg/day....  Special FQPA SF = 1....  Combined chronic
                                       UF = 1,000.............  cPAD = chronic RfD/       toxicity/oncogenicity
                                       a Chronic RfD = 0.006     Special FQPA SF =        study in rats.
                                        mg/kg/day.               0.006 mg/kg/day.        LOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day
                                                                                based on decreased
                                                                                body weight gains and
                                                                                increased relative to
                                                                                body kidney weights (M
                                                                                and F), grossly
                                                                                observed kidney
                                                                                lesions in males
                                                                                (irregular surfaces,
                                                                                pale kidneys, cysts,
                                                                                and enlarged kidneys)
                                                                                and females (masses),
                                                                                and non-neoplastic
                                                                                lesions of the kidney
                                                                                in males (tubular
                                                                                nephrosis, renal
                                                                                cysts, and end-stage
                                                                                kidney lesions) and
                                                                                females (tubular
                                                                                nephrosis,
                                                                                proliferative tubules,
                                                                                and
                                                                                glomerulonephropathy).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)      .......................  .......................  Classification:
                                                                                Classification is
                                                                                ``Suggestive Evidence
                                                                                of Carcinogenic
                                                                                Potential''. The risk
                                                                                assessment for chronic
                                                                                effects is considered
                                                                                protective of any
                                                                                cancer effect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UF = uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = FQPA safety factor, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest
  observed effect level, PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic), RFD = reference dose, MOE =
  margin of exposure, LOC = level of concern, N/A = Not Applicable, \a\ Additional 10x database uncertainty
  factor for lack of an acceptable developmental rabbit study.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have not
been established for the residues of dithianon, in or on a variety of
raw agricultural commodities because it is a new pesticide chemical.
Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from
dithianon in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a one-day or single exposure.
    An appropriate endpoint attributable to a single exposure for
females 13-49 years of age was identified in the toxicological studies
for dithianon, therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is necessary for this population. In conducting the acute
dietary exposure assessment EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation
Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\),
which incorporates food consumption data as reported by respondents in
the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII), and accumulated exposure to the chemical
for each commodity. The following assumptions were made for the acute
exposure assessment. This acute analysis was based on tolerance-level
residues, and an assumption of 100% crop treated.
    No appropriate dose and endpoint could be identified attributable
to a single exposure for the general population, including infants and
children. Therefore, an acute dietary exposure assessment is not
necessary for these populations.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with
the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\), which incorporates
food consumption data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII), and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity.
The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure
assessment: This chronic analysis was based on anticipated (average)
residues and an assumption of 100% crop treated. Exposure to dithianon
would originate from food only, because the proposed tolerances would
only be established on imported commodities. With no proposed U.S.
registration, there is no expectation that dithianon residues would
occur in surface or ground water sources of drinking water.
    iii. Cancer. The Agency classified dithianon as having ``Suggestive
Evidence of Carcinogenicity'', based on the presence of renal adenomas
and carcinomas in the female rat at doses that were adequate to assess
carcinogenicity. This classification is based on several weight-of-
evidence

considerations. First treatment-related rare kidney tumors, primarily
adenomas, were seen only at the highest dose tested (HDT) (600 ppm) in
one sex (females) and in one species (rats). The HDT was considered
adequate, but not excessive, to assess the carcinogenicity of
dithianon; however, significant renal toxicity occurred at this dose.
Second, there is no mutagenicity concern for dithianon. Finally, the
Agency concluded that the registrant's hypothesized non-genotoxic mode
of action involving nephrotoxicity and sustained regenerative
proliferation is biologically plausible. The risk assessment for
chronic effects is considered protective of any cancer effects.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Since dithianon is
proposed for use only on imported pome fruit and imported hops
commodities, the sole anticipated exposure route for the U.S.
population is via dietary (food) exposure. With no proposed U.S.
registration, there is no expectation that dithianon residues would
occur in surface or ground water sources of drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Dithianon is not registered for use on any sites that would result
in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to dithianon and any other
substances and dithianon does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that dithianon has a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs
concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for
cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on
EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are
incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a
MOE analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in
calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X
when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or,
if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional safety
factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty factors and/or
special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no indication of
increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of the offspring
in the developmental and 2-generation reproduction studies. In the
developmental toxicity study in rats, reductions in maternal body
weights, body weight gains, and food consumption were seen at 50 mg/kg/
day, but a higher dose (100 mg/kg/day) was required to produce a
reduction in fetal body weights. The significant increase in post-
implantation loss due to early resorptions occurred at 50 mg/kg/day,
including dams that experienced total litter loss, is not evidence of
increased qualitative susceptibility; instead, it is likely due to
maternal toxicity. In the 2-generation reproduction study, decreased
body weights, body weight gains, and food consumption were observed in
the parents but no adverse effects were seen in the offspring up to the
HDT.
    3. Conclusion. The toxicology database shows no evidence of
increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in the offspring.
The dietary food exposure assessment utilizes tolerance level residues
and 100% crop treated assumptions for acute risk, and average residues
from crop field trials and 100% crop treated assumptions for chronic
risk; by using these conservative assumptions, exposures/risks will not
be underestimated. There are no existing or proposed residential uses
for dithianon at this time. Nonetheless, because an acceptable rabbit
developmental study is not available, the Agency retained the 10x FQPA
safety factor, in the form of data base uncertainty factor of
(UFDB).

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    1. Acute risk. An acute endpoint was selected for only one
population subgroup, females 13-49. Using the exposure assumptions
discussed in this unit for acute exposure, EPA has concluded that acute
exposure to dithianon from food will utilize 66% of the aPAD for
females 13 to 49 years of age.

                 Table 2.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Acute and Chronic Exposure to Dithianon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Acute dietary (95th Percentile)*               Chronic dietary*
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Population subgroup          aPAD (mg/     Exposure                 cPAD (mg/     Exposure
                                        kg)      (mg/kg/day)     % aPAD        kg)      (mg/kg/day)     % cPAD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General U.S. Population                     Not          Not          Not        0.006      .000738           12
                                    applicable.  applicable.  applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Infants < 1 year                         Not          Not          Not        0.006     0.003268           55
                                    applicable.  applicable.  applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children 1-2 years                          Not          Not          Not        0.006     0.002773           46
                                    applicable.  applicable.  applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Children 3-5 years                          Not          Not          Not        0.006     0.001995           33
                                    applicable.  applicable.  applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children 6-12 years                         Not          Not          Not        0.006     0.000903           15
                                    applicable.  applicable.  applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Youths 13-19 years                          Not          Not          Not        0.006     0.000313            5
                                    applicable.  applicable.  applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adults 20-49 years                          Not          Not          Not        0.006     0.000583           10
                                    applicable.  applicable.  applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adults 50+ years                            Not          Not          Not        0.006     0.000483            8
                                    applicable.  applicable.  applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Females 13-49 years                        0.02      .013119           66        0.006     0.000369            6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values for the population with the highest risk are bolded.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
dithianon from food will utilize 12% of the cPAD for the U.S.
population and 55% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1 year of age.
There are no residential uses for dithianon that result in chronic
residential exposure to dithianon.
    3. Short-term risk. Dithianon is not registered for use on any
sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the
aggregate risk is the risk from food only, which does not exceed the
Agency's level of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Dithianon is not registered for use on
any sites that would result in residential exposure and is intended
only for imported fruit, pome, group 11 and hops, dried cones.
Therefore, the aggregate risk is the risk from food only, which does
not exceed the Agency's level of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. In accordance with
EPA's Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March, 2005),
the Agency classified dithianon into the category ``Suggestive Evidence
of Carcinogenicity'', based on the presence of renal adenomas and
carcinomas in the female rat at doses that were adequate to assess
carcinogenicity. However, as noted in Unit.III.C.1.iii., the chronic
risk assessment is protective of any possible cancer effect.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to dithianon residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (HPLC/UV for pome fruit and HPLC/
ECD for hops) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The
method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

B. International Residue Limits

    Codex MRLs have been established for residues of dithianon in or on
pome fruit at 5 ppm and hops at 100 ppm; the proposed tolerances on
imported commodities are harmonized with established MRLs. There are
currently no established Canadian or Mexican MRLs for dithianon.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of dithianon,
5,10-dihydro-5,10-dioxonaphtho(2,3-b)-1,4-dithiin-2,3-dicarbonitrile,
in or on imported fruit, pome, group 11 at 5 ppm and hop, dried cones
at 100 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA 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 rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of
significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4). 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); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive
Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does
not involve any technical standards that would require Agency
consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a
petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance 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. In addition, the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects 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.'' This final rule directly regulates
growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States.
This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power
and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption
provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the
Agency has determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal
implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications'' is
defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.'' This rule will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule.

VII. Congressional Review Act

    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 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 this final rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule 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: September 11, 2006.
James Jones,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
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. Section 180.621 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  180.621  Dithianon; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
fungicide dithianon, (5,10-dihydro-5,10-dioxonaphtho(2,3-b)-1,4-
dithiin-2,3-dicarbonitrile) in or on the following commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruit, pome, group 11\1\.......                                        5
Hop, dried cones\1\............                                      100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No U.S. registration as of September 5, 2006.

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]
[FR Doc. E6-15460 Filed 9-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 82 (Thursday, April 30, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19902-19904]
[FR Doc No: E9-9866]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0399; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-226-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional
Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and
CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated 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:

    A change in dimensions of the fuse blocks in the Auxiliary Power
Unit (APU) Start Contactor Assembly (ASCA) box assembly can cause an
incorrect interface between the bus bars and fuses. This condition
can result in an increase in temperature, which could damage the
ASCA box and/or compromise the availability of battery bus supply.

The unsafe condition could result in the ignition of a fire in the ASCA
box. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 1, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    You may review copies of the referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wing Chan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems
and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification
Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0399;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-226-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2008-34, dated December 2, 2008 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    A change in dimensions of the fuse blocks in the Auxiliary Power
Unit (APU) Start Contactor Assembly (ASCA) box assembly can cause an
incorrect interface between the bus bars and fuses. This condition
can result in an increase in temperature, which could damage the
ASCA box and/or compromise the availability of battery bus supply.

The unsafe condition could result in the ignition of a fire in the ASCA
box. The required actions include inspecting the ASCA boxes to
determine the part number; and for certain ASCA boxes, doing a detailed
inspection of the fuse block date code, and replacement of the fuse
block with new hardware if necessary. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-49-012, Revision A,
dated August 28, 2008. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or

develop on other products of the same type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 108 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $43,200, or $400 per product.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed
regulation:
    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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

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

Bombardier (Formerly Canadair): Docket No. FAA-2009-0399;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-226-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by June 1, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 &
702), serial numbers 10112 through 10199, and 10201 through 10206.
    (2) Bombardier Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and
CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), serial numbers 15007 through
15026, 15030, and 15031.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 49: Airborne
Auxiliary Power.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    A change in dimensions of the fuse blocks in the Auxiliary Power
Unit (APU) Start Contactor Assembly (ASCA) box assembly can cause an
incorrect interface between the bus bars and fuses. This condition
can result in an increase in temperature, which could damage the
ASCA box and/or compromise the availability of battery bus supply.

The unsafe condition could result in the ignition of a fire in the
ASCA box. The required actions include inspecting the ASCA boxes to
determine the part number; and for certain ASCA boxes, doing a
detailed inspection of the fuse block date code, and replacement of
the fuse block with new hardware if necessary.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within 1,500 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, perform an inspection of the ASCA box to determine the part
number and, for ASCA boxes having part number BA670-53328-1 or
BA670-53328-951, perform a detailed inspection of the fuse block
date code, in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-49-
012, Revision A, dated August 28, 2008. Before further flight,
replace all fuse blocks that have a date code between K23 (0323)
through M08 (0508) inclusive, in accordance with Bombardier Service
Bulletin 670BA-49-012, Revision A, dated August 28, 2008.
    (2) Inspections and replacement actions are also acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, if
done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-49-012, dated June 28, 2007.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No Differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Wing Chan, Aerospace
Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (516) 794-
5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the
AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada Civil Aviation Airworthiness
Directive CF-2008-34, dated December 2, 2008; and Bombardier Service
Bulletin 670BA-49-012, Revision A, dated August 28, 2008; for
related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 22, 2009.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-9866 Filed 4-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48417-48419]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22595]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0858]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Clinch River, Oak Ridge, TN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for
all navigable waters of the Clinch River from mile marker (MM) 49.5 to
MM 54.0. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on
these navigable waters near Oak Ridge, TN during the Secret City Head
Race. Entry into, transiting through, or anchoring within this
regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m. on October 21,
2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0858 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Petty Officer Vera Max, Marine Safety Detachment Nashville, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must
establish the special local regulation by October 21, 2017 and lack
sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then
consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective
date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest because immediate action is needed to protect the persons and
property from the dangers associated with the race.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1233. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined
that potential hazards associated with the Secret City Head Race from 6
a.m. through 6 p.m. on October 21, 2017 will be a safety concern for
all navigable waters on the Clinch River extending from mile marker
(MM) 49.5 to MM 54.0. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the
safety of life and vessels on these navigable waters before, during,
and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a special local regulation from 6 a.m.
through 6 p.m. on October 21, 2017 for all navigable waters on the
Clinch River from MM 49.5 to MM 54.0. The duration of the regulated
area is intended to ensure the safety of life and vessels on these
navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled event. No
vessel or person will be permitted to enter the regulated area without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation.
Vessel traffic will be able to safely navigate through the affected
area before and after the scheduled event. Moreover, the Coast Guard
will issue Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners
via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated area and the rule
allows vessels to seek permission to enter the area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
special local regulation, may be small entities, for the reasons stated
in section V. A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves the establishment of a special local regulation lasting
twelve hours on one day extending less than five miles of the Clinch
River from MM 49.5 to MM 54.0. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.35T08-0858 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T08-0858  Special Local Regulation; Clinch River, Oak
Ridge, TN.

    (a) Location. All navigable waters of the Clinch River between mile
marker (MM) 49.5 and MM 54.0, Oak Ridge, TN.
    (b) Effective period. This section will be enforced from 6 a.m.
through 6 p.m. on October 21, 2017.
    (c) Special local regulations. (1) Entry into this area is
prohibited unless authorized by Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley
(COTP) or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring entry into or passage through the
area must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. U.S. Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley may be contacted on
VHF Channel 13 or 16 or by telephone at 1-800-253-7465.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to
mariners of the enforcement period for the special local regulation, as
well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

    Dated: October 10, 2017.
M.B. Zamperini,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2017-22595 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49527-49528]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20295]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket Nos. FMCSA-2006-26367 and FMCSA-2011-0131]

Joint Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee and Medical Review
Board Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Joint Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC)
and Medical Review Board (MRB) meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the Agency's MCSAC and MRB will hold a
joint meeting on Monday, August 29, 2011. The MCSAC will continue to
meet on Tuesday, August 30-Wednesday, August 31, with the afternoon of
August 31 being used for a meeting of the Cross-Border Trucking Pilot
Program subcommittee. All three days of the meeting will be open to the
public for their duration.

TIME AND DATES: The MCSAC-MRB meeting will be held on Monday, August
29, 2011, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Time (E.T.), and the MCSAC
meeting will continue on Tuesday and Wednesday, August 30-31, from 8:30
a.m. to 1 p.m., E.T. The last hour of each day of the full committee
meeting will be reserved for public comment. At 1:30 p.m., E.T., on
Wednesday, August 31, the MCSAC Cross Border Trucking Pilot Program
subcommittee will meet until 5 p.m., E.T., with a public comment period
from 4:30-5 p.m., E.T. The meeting will be held at the Hilton
Alexandria Old Town, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 in the
Washington and Jefferson Rooms on the 2nd floor.
    Matters to be considered: The MCSAC and MRB will consider expert
presentations on obstructive sleep apnea during the joint meeting on
Monday. On Tuesday, the MCSAC will consider the report of its
Electronic On-Board Recorder (EOBR) Implementation Subcommittee
established in response to Task 11-04, with relevant expert
presentations on the topic. On Wednesday, the MCSAC will return to its
Task 11-02 regarding roadside violation severity weightings in the
Carrier Safety Measurement System in FMCSA's Compliance, Safety,
Accountability (CSA) program. That afternoon, the MCSAC Subcommittee
established in response to Task 11-03, regarding the Agency's Cross
Border Trucking Pilot Program, will meet. Copies of all MCSAC Task
Statements

are available at http://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Adviser
to the Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Information on services for individuals with disabilities:
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Elizabeth Turner at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

MCSAC

    Section 4144 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L.
109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, August 10, 2005) required the Secretary of
Transportation to establish a Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee.
The committee provides advice and recommendations to the FMCSA
Administrator on motor carrier safety programs and regulations, and
operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA, 5
U.S.C. App 2).

MRB

    Section 4116 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-
59) requires the Secretary of Transportation with the advice of the MRB
to ``establish, review, and revise medical standards for operators of
Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs) that will ensure that the physical
condition of operators is adequate to enable them operate the vehicles
safely.'' On November 2, 2010, the Secretary of Transportation
announced the five medical experts who serve on the MRB. FMCSA is
planning revisions to the physical qualification regulations of CMV
drivers, and the MRB will provide the necessary science-based guidance
to establish realistic and responsible medical standards. The MRB
operates in accordance with FACA.

Sleep Apnea and Other Sleep Disorders

    The MCSAC and the MRB will discuss ideas and concepts the Agency
should consider for regulatory guidance or future rulemaking on
obstructive sleep apnea.

EOBR Implementation Task

    The MCSAC EOBR Implementation Subcommittee will report back to the
full committee on its work on Task 11-04, to examine technical issues
relating to the electronic transfer of hours-of-service information
from trucks to law enforcement personnel at the roadside.

Roadside Violation Severity Weightings Task

    The MCSAC will continue its deliberations on Task 11-02, concerning
violation severity weightings under the Compliance, Safety,
Accountability (CSA) program.

 Cross Border Trucking Pilot Program Task

    The MCSAC Subcommittee will continue its work on Task 11-03
concerning the opening of the Southern Border to long-haul Mexican
trucks.

II. Meeting Participation

    Oral comments from the public will be heard during the last hour of
each day of this meeting. Members of the public may submit written
comments on this topic by Wednesday, August 24, 2011, to Federal Docket
Management System (FDMC) Docket Number FMCSA-2006-26367 using any of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room WI2-
140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Room WI2-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: August 5, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-20295 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7824-7826]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02290]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68747; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Attestation
Requirement of Rule 107C To Allow a Retail Member Organization To
Attest That ``Substantially All'' Orders Submitted To The Retail
Liquidity Program Will Qualify As ``Retail Orders''

January 28, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on January 17, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or ``Exchange'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the attestation requirement of Rule
107C to

allow a Retail Member Organization (``RMO'') to attest that
``substantially all'' orders submitted to the Retail Liquidity Program
(the ``Program'') will qualify as ``Retail Orders.'' Rule 107C(b)(2)(C)
currently requires RMOs to attest that ``any order'' will so qualify,
effectively preventing certain significant retail brokers from
participating in the Program due to operational constraints. The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing an amendment to Rule 107C to provide that
an RMO may attest that ``substantially all'' of the orders it submits
to the Program are Retail Orders, as defined in Rule 107C, replacing
the requirement that the RMO must attest that all submitted orders
qualify as Retail Orders.
    Under current Rule 107C(b)(2), a member organization wishing to
become an RMO must submit: (A) An application form; (B) supporting
documentation; and (C) an attestation that ``any order'' submitted as a
Retail Order will qualify as such under Rule 107C.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Retail Order is defined in Rule 107C(a)(3) as ``an agency
order that originates from a natural person and is submitted to the
Exchange by a Retail Member Organization, provided that no change is
made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of
market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or
any other computerized methodology.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the categorical nature of the current
attestation language is preventing certain member organizations with
retail customers from participating in the Program. In particular, the
Exchange understands that some member organizations wishing to
participate in the Program represent both ``Retail Orders,'' as defined
in Rule 107C(a)(3), as well as other agency flow that may not meet the
strict definition of ``Retail Order.'' The Exchange further understands
that limitations in order management systems and routing networks used
by such member organizations may make it infeasible for them to isolate
100% of Retail Orders from other agency, non-Retail Order flow that
they would direct to the Program. Unable to make the categorical
attestation required by the current language of Rule 107C, some member
organizations have chosen not to participate, notwithstanding that
substantially all order flow from such member organizations would be
Retail Orders. This limitation has the effect of preventing their
retail customers from benefiting from the enhanced price competition
and transparency of the Program.
    Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing a de minimis relaxation of
the RMO attestation requirement in order to accommodate these system
limitations and expand the access of retail customers to the benefits
of the Program.
    Specifically, as proposed an RMO would be permitted to send de
minimis quantities of agency orders to the Exchange as Retail Orders
that cannot be explicitly attested to under existing definitions of the
Program.
    The Exchange will issue a Trader Notice to make clear that the
``substantially all'' language is meant to permit the presence of only
isolated and de minimis quantities of agency orders that do not qualify
as Retail Orders that cannot be segregated from Retail Orders due to
systems limitations. In this regard, an RMO would need to retain, in
its books and records, adequate substantiation that substantially all
orders sent to the Exchange as Retail Orders met the strict definition
and that those orders not meeting the strict definition are agency
orders that cannot be segregated from Retail Orders due to system
limitations, and are de minimis in terms of the overall number of
Retail Orders sent to the Exchange.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA''), on behalf of the Exchange, will review a member
organization's compliance with these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\6\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\7\ in particular, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices because, while
the proposed rule change represents a relaxation of the attestation
requirements, the change is a de minimis relaxation that still requires
the RMO applicant to attest that ``substantially all'' of its orders
will qualify as Retail Orders. The slight relaxation will allow enough
flexibility to accommodate system limitations while still ensuring that
only a fractional amount of orders submitted to the Program would not
qualify as Retail Orders.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change promotes just
and equitable principles of trade because it will ensure that similarly
situated member organizations who have only slight differences in the
capability of their systems will be able to equally benefit from the
Program.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it will allow member organizations,
who are concerned about its system limitations not allowing 100%
certification that submitted orders are Retail Orders, to still
participate in the Program. By removing impediments to participation in
the Program, the proposed change would permit expanded access of retail
customers to the price improvement and transparency offered by the
Program and thereby potentially stimulate further price competition for
retail orders.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the amendment, by increasing the level of participation in the program,
will increase the level of competition around retail executions such
that retail investors would receive better prices than they currently
do on the Exchange and potentially through bilateral internalization
arrangements.

The Exchange believes that the transparency and competitiveness of
operating a program such as the Retail Liquidity Program on an exchange
market would result in better prices for retail investors, and benefits
retail investors by expanding the capabilities of Exchanges to
encompass practices currently allowed on non-Exchange venues.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2013-08 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-NYSE-2013-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2013-08 and should be
submitted on or before February 25, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02290 Filed 2-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 52957-52958]
[DOCID:fr15oc09-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13470-000]

Swalley Irrigation District; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests,
Recommendations, and Terms and Conditions

October 7, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Conduit Exemption.
    b. Project No.: 13470-000.
    c. Date filed: May 21, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Swalley Irrigation District.
    e. Name of Project: Swalley Irrigation District Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Swalley Irrigation District Project would
be located on the Swalley Main Canal in Deschutes County, Oregon. The
land in which all the project structures are located is owned by the
applicant.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Gary Blake, Chairmen, Swalley Irrigation
District, 64672 Cook Avenue, Suite 1, Bend, OR 97701, phone (541) 388-
0658.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Status of Environmental Analysis: This application is ready for
environmental analysis at this time, and the Commission is requesting
comments, reply comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and
prescriptions.
    k. Deadline for filing responsive documents: The Commission
directs, pursuant to section 4.34(b) of the Regulations (see Order No.
533, issued May 8, 1991, 56 FR 23,108 (May 20, 1991)) that all
comments, motions to intervene, protests, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions concerning the application be filed with
the Commission: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. All reply
comments must be filed with the Commission: 105 days from the issuance
of this notice.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing''
link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    l. Description of Project: The proposed Swalley Irrigation District
Project consists of: (1) A proposed powerhouse containing one
generating unit having an installed capacity of 750 kilowatts, and (2)
appurtenant facilities. The Swalley Irrigation District, estimates the
project would have an average annual generation of 2.7 gigawatt-hours
that would be sold to a local utility.
    m. This filing is available for review and reproduction at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, P-13470, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for review and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    n. Development Application--Any qualified applicant desiring to
file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular application, a
competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such
an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an
interested person to file the competing development application no
later than 120 days after the specified deadline date for the
particular application. Applications for preliminary permits will not
be accepted in response to this notice.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit a competing development application. A notice of intent must be
served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
    p. Protests or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit a protest or
a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In
determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will
consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to
intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party
to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be
received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular
application.
    q. All filings must (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMMENTS'',
``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply

with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Any of these documents must be
filed by providing the original and eight copies to: The Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director,
Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Office of Energy
Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above address. A
copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each
representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this
application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24800 Filed 10-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P