[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76481-76490]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31343]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of a petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a
petition Defect Petition (DP) 10-004 submitted by Ms. Lalitha
Seetharaman (petitioner) with the assistance of Emerick Bohmer to NHTSA
by a letter received on November 5, 2010, under 49 CFR part 552. The
petitioners request an investigation of brake failure in model year
2005 Honda Accord Hybrid vehicles.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Derek Rinehardt, Vehicle Controls
Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section--1.0 Introduction

    Interested persons may petition NHTSA requesting that the agency
initiate an investigation to determine whether a motor vehicle or item
of replacement equipment does not comply with an applicable motor
vehicle safety standard or contains a defect that relates to motor
vehicle safety. 49 CFR 552.1. Upon receipt of a properly filed petition
the agency conducts a technical review of the petition, material
submitted with the petition, and any additional information. Sec.
552.6. After considering the technical review and taking into account
appropriate factors, which may include, among others, allocation of
agency resources, agency priorities, and the likelihood of success in
litigation that might arise from a determination of a noncompliance or
a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the agency will grant or deny
the petition. Sec.  552.8.

Petition Review--DP10-004

Section--2.0 Background Information

    Ms. Lalitha Seetharaman of Newton, Pennsylvania (sometimes referred
to as ``Petitioner''), with the assistance of Mr. Emerick Bohmer, a
friend of about a year, filed a petition on November 5, 2010 with NHTSA
alleging that she was the driver of a model year (MY) 2005 Honda Accord
Hybrid (subject vehicle), VIN JHMCN36425C005487, that experienced a
brake failure. The petition states that the incident allegedly occurred
on July 23, 2005, while braking and, at the same time, driving over
rumble strips adjacent to her lane of travel on highway I-195 in New
Jersey. In her petition, Ms. Seetharaman further alleges the brake
failure resulted in a crash, fatally injuring her husband, Mr. Gautama
Saroop (the front seat passenger), severely injuring the petitioner
(the driver), and severely injuring the two occupants of a MY 1990 Ford
Tempo vehicle that was struck by the petitioner's vehicle.
    In March of 2005, four months prior to the crash, Ms. Seetharaman
purchased the subject vehicle as a birthday present for her husband. On
the evening of the crash, Ms. Seetharaman, who also owns a 1999 Mazda
Prot[eacute]g[eacute] as her normal usage vehicle, was driving the
subject vehicle with her husband as the passenger from their home in
Newtown, PA to Bellmawr, NJ. The events leading to the crash and the
crash itself are described by Ms. Seetharaman in the petition document
and in a vehicle owner questionnaire (VOQ) 10329383 submitted to NHTSA.
The two documents contain similar summaries of the event. The Defect
Petition, at page 39, states:

    While traveling East on I-195, I saw that a Police Officer had a
vehicle pulled over on the right shoulder of the highway. I moved
over to the left lane in order to decrease any chance of an accident
with the stopped vehicles. When I did, I crossed onto the rumble
strip on the left side of the highway. I applied the brakes while on
the rumble strip to bring the vehicle under control, and nothing
happened (no brakes) and the vehicle accelerated uncontrollably.
    I tried to bring the vehicle back on the highway. Both my
husband and myself were hoping something would bring the vehicle
under control. In a desperate attempt to bring the vehicle under
control my husband pulled the emergency brake. Upon pulling the

emergency brake, instead of helping to slow down the vehicle, the
vehicle further became uncontrollable and started moving in the
wrong direction. I clearly remember in the last moments before the
vehicle went out of control screaming `Brakes! Brakes!'
    The vehicle then began to go sideways before going across the
grass median. I later learned from the police report that we went
into the westbound lane of the highway where we were immediately
struck on the passenger side by a vehicle-traveling west. The
vehicle that hit us was then struck from behind by another
vehicle.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petition document titled ``INBC-DP10004-45020P.pdf can
be found at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/defects/ in the public file
of this Defect Petition Analysis, DP10-004.

    In addition to Ms. Seetharaman's verbatim recollection of events of
the crash, in multiple interviews with the petitioner, she supplements
the account of the crash with the following information:
    (1) Ms. Seetharaman was in a coma for 4 months as a result of
injuries suffered during the crash.
    (2) The delay in filing the petition was due to the extensive
recuperation period from the injuries Ms. Seetharaman suffered in the
accident.
    (3) The subject vehicle had not been serviced since Ms. Seetharaman
and her husband took ownership of the vehicle 4 months prior to the
crash.
    (4) Ms. Seetharaman stated that the reason for braking was a result
of seeing the police traffic stop. There was no traffic immediately in
front of her.
    (5) She was not using the cruise control feature at the time of the
incident.
    (6) Mr. Saroop (the petitioner's husband) was the primary driver of
the subject vehicle prior to the crash and used the subject vehicle
primarily to travel back and forth to work. The petitioner was
operating the vehicle the day of the crash because her husband had an
eye stigmatism and didn't see well in the evenings.
    (7) The petitioner was charged with reckless driving however the
charges were dismissed.
    (8) In 2006, the subject vehicle involved in the crash was disposed
of by Ms. Seetharaman's insurance company.

Section 3.0--Police Accident Report Based Crash Details

    As supporting documentation, the petitioner submitted to the NHTSA
a copy of the New Jersey State Police accident report.\2\ Based on the
report, the crash occurred on July 23, 2005 at 5:48 p.m. near mile post
2.3 on Interstate I-195 in Hamilton Twp, New Jersey. At the time of
crash, the weather was approximately 84 [deg]F and clear.\3\ The first
responding officer, who was just completing a traffic stop, witnessed
the crash and the sequence of events just prior to the crash. An
account of the crash appears in the police accident report prepared by
the responding police officer:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The police accident report can be found at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/defects/ in the public file of this Defect
Petition Analysis, DP10-004, on pages 25 through 33 of the defect
petition document titled ``INBC-DP10004-45020P.pdf''.
    \3\ Historical Information based on weather conditions at the
crash location documented on http://www.wunderground.com.
Interviewing the petitioner she also noted the conditions were clear
on the day of the incident.

    On this date I was on a routine traffic stop on 1-195 eastbound
at milepost 2.5 at 1745 hours. As I completed the traffic stop and
proceeded to my patrol vehicle SPA288, I witnessed Vehicle
1 [Petitioner's vehicle] traveling eastbound on 1-195
towards my location out of control. Vehicle 1 swerved over
the left side rumble strip came back into the left lane, accelerated
back over the left side rumble strip off the roadway through the
grass median (shrubbery) and into westbound traffic. Immediately as
Vehicle 1 entered the left lane of westbound traffic it was
struck on the passenger side by Vehicle 2. On impact,
Vehicle 1 overturned and Vehicle 2 was struck from
behind by Vehicle 3. The accident occurred at 1748 hours
and traffic was moderate heading eastbound and westbound. There were
no other vehicles traveling in the area of Vehicle 1 when
it left the roadway. I immediately notified communications while
moving my vehicle closer to the accident scene. The driver and
passenger in Vehicle 1 were unconscious and unresponsive.
The driver and passenger in Vehicle 2 were also unconscious
and unresponsive. The driver of Vehicle 3 exited her
vehicle and I advised her to remain on the shoulder of roadway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Services were dispatched to the scene immediately.

    Figure 1 contains a graphical account of the crash as noted by the
responding officer in the police accident report.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07DE11.000

Section 4.0--Petition Allegation Discussion

    In DP10-004, the petitioner identifies MY 2005 Honda Accord Hybrids
as the subject vehicles and requests that NHTSA investigate and recall
all Honda Civic Hybrid vehicles for a braking defect alleged to be
similar to the defect addressed by recall 10V-039 (MY 2010 Toyota Prius
vehicles).\4\ In the defect petition, the petitioner makes six
allegations, each of which is individually addressed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Details of recall 10V-039 can be found at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/recalls/recallsearch.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegation 1: The Petitioner Alleges That She ``Applied the Brakes
While on the Rumble Strips To Bring the Vehicle Under Control, and
Nothing Happened (No Brakes).'' The Petitioner Further Alleges ``the
Vehicle Accelerated Uncontrollably'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Allegation noted by the petitioner on page 39 of the defect
petition document titled ``INBC-DP10004-45020P.pdf'' in the public
file of DP10-004. The file can be found at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/defects/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the crash occurred in July of 2005 and the vehicle was
indisposed at the time the petition was filed nearly 5 years after the
crash, NHTSA was not able to conduct a vehicle inspection of the
subject vehicle. NHTSA conducted vehicle testing on an exemplar subject
vehicle at its Vehicle Research and Testing Center (VRTC) in East
Liberty, OH. NHTSA could not replicate a brake failure similar to that
described by the petitioner in testing of an exemplar vehicle. Results
of the testing are summarized in Section 6.0 of this report. Complete
testing results are also available in the public file of this defect
petition.
    With regard to the petitioner's association of the incident she
experienced and the defect condition addressed by Toyota in recall 10V-
039, significant differences are noted between the subject and recalled
vehicles: (1) The vehicles use fundamentally different hybrid systems,
including different hybrid and brake system architectures and brake
control logic; (2) the condition addressed by Toyota in recall 10V-039
was associated with slight differences in brake line pressure caused by
switching of the brake hydraulic circuit from linear to hydraulic mode
following antilock brake (ABS) activation; and (3) the brake hydraulic
circuit in the subject vehicles does not change when ABS is activated.
The Toyota Prius braking complaints associated with the condition
addressed by recall 10V-039 described symptoms related to brief
disruptions in expected braking decelerations following ABS activation.
None of the associated

Toyota complaints alleged an uncontrollable acceleration event.

Allegation 2: The Petitioner Alleges That the Police Accident Report
Shows That, Aside From the Alleged Defect in the Subject Vehicle, There
Were No Other Contributing Factors to the Crash \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Allegation noted by the petitioner on page 6 of the defect
petition document titled ``INBC-DP10004-45020P.pdf'' in the public
file of DP10-004. The file can be found at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/defects/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The police accident report does not mention or suggest a vehicle-
based defect existed or contributed to the subject vehicle's crash.
Rather, in the Police Accident report,\7\ the investigating police
officer, who was also a witness to the crash, states:

    \7\ The police officer's full statement can be found on page 27
of a document titled ``INBC-DP10004-45020P.pdf'' at http://www.odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/defects/ in the public file of this Defect
Petition Analysis, DP10-004.

    As I completed the traffic stop and proceeded to my patrol
vehicle SPA288, I witnessed Vehicle 1 traveling eastbound
on 1-195 towards my location out of control. Vehicle 1
swerved over the left side rumble strip~ came back into the left
lane, accelerated back over the left side rumble strip off the
roadway through the grass median (shrubbery) and into westbound
traffic. Immediately as Vehicle 1 entered the left lane of
westbound traffic it was struck on the passenger side by Vehicle
2. On impact, Vehicle 1 overturned and Vehicle
2 was struck from behind by Vehicle 3. The
accident occurred at 1748 hours and traffic was moderate heading
eastbound and westbound. There were no other vehicles traveling in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the area of Vehicle 1 when it left the roadway.

The police accident report notes that the petitioner's vehicle
``swerved over the left side rumble strip~ came back into the left
lane, accelerated back over the left side rumble strip off the
roadway.'' This statement suggests the vehicle may have been out of
control (`swerved') prior to traveling over the rumble strips.

Allegation 3: The Petitioner Asserts That the Honda's Integrated Motor
Assist (IMA) Technology Used in the Honda Accord Hybrid and the Honda
Civic Hybrid Have Identical Designs \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Allegation noted by the petitioner on page 2 of the defect
petition document titled ``INBC-DP10004-45020P.pdf'' in the public
file of DP10-004. The file can be found at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/defects/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IMA technologies used by Honda in the Accord Hybrid and Civic
Hybrid models have some similarities; however, several differences
exist with regard to brake control. In fact, within the Honda Civic
Hybrid model, differences exist between the first generation (MY 2003-
2005) and the second generation (MY 2006-2011). All of Honda Hybrid
vehicles discussed in this defect petition analysis utilizes a
different braking strategy than that in the Toyota Prius.
Braking Function in Honda Hybrid Vehicles
    Because the petitioner alleged a braking failure prior to the
crash, this section will give a brief overview of the brake system
function during normal and ABS braking events.
Braking Function in a Non-ABS Braking Event
    The braking strategy for all three Honda Hybrid models have
similarities incorporating regenerative braking (the electric motor is
used as a generator to supplement braking while recharging the
vehicle's batteries), in addition to traditional hydraulic braking. The
models differ in the integration of the regenerative braking system
into the overall braking system. These differences are as follows:
1. Honda Accord Hybrid (Manufactured Only During MY 2005-2007)
    When the accelerator pedal is off (not depressed), a regenerative
braking force equivalent to internal combustion engine braking is
generated (Accelerator off regeneration). When the brake is operated,
the regenerative braking force is increased proportional to operation
amount (master cylinder hydraulic pressure). Regenerative braking force
varies according to vehicle speed. The maximum regenerative
deceleration during brake on regeneration varies according to the
amount of brake operation (master cylinder hydraulic pressure).
2. Honda Civic Hybrid 1st Generation (MY 2003-2005)
    When the accelerator pedal is off, the regenerative braking force
equivalent to the engine brake is generated (Accelerator off
regeneration). Differing from the Honda Accord Hybrid, when the brake
is operated, regenerative braking force is increased when brake lamp
switch is on (Brake on regeneration). Regenerative braking force varies
according to vehicle speed.
3. Honda Civic Hybrid 2nd Generation (MY 2006-2011)
    When the accelerator pedal is off, the regenerative braking force
equivalent to the engine brake is generated (Accelerator off
regeneration). Like the Civic 1st generation, when the brake pedal is
operated, regenerative braking force is increased when the brake lamp
switch is on. (Brake on regeneration). However, this model differs from
the Accord and 1st generation Civic models in that the regenerative
braking force is increased according to the amount of brake operation,
and hydraulic braking force equivalent to regenerative braking force is
controlled in the direction of reduction to generate braking force
required by the driver by both regeneration and hydraulic braking
(Cooperative regeneration). The regenerative braking force varies
according to vehicle speed.
Braking Function in an ABS Braking Event
    Traveling over rumble strips while braking, as the petitioner
alleges preceded her crash, may cause wheel slip and activate the ABS
(as was shown in testing conducted by NHTSA summarized in Section 6.0
of this document). However, in all Honda Hybrids referenced herein, the
reduction in braking force is designed to be an insignificant amount
when the ABS is activated. The hydraulic braking, which is controlled
by the ABS, is still present. As previously discussed, the brake
hydraulic circuit is not changed/switched when ABS is activated, which
was the condition addressed by the Prius recall. The petitioner alleges
that, in her incident, there were ``no brakes'' and the vehicle
accelerated uncontrollably. The petitioner's allegation of a ``loss''
of braking and subsequent acceleration is at odds with NHTSA testing
and the design of the braking system in the subject vehicles.
1. Honda Accord Hybrid (MY 2005-2007)
    When the ABS is activated, the regenerative braking force is
reduced and the ABS is controlled by hydraulic braking. While the ABS
is active, the reduced regenerative braking force is maintained until
the brake is released/vehicle stops. The reduction of regenerative
braking force amounts to a relatively small portion of the total brake
force (hydraulic braking + regenerative braking). The hydraulic braking
system is very similar to the traditional hydraulic system in the
standard Accord models.
2. Honda Civic Hybrid 1st Generation (MY 2003-2005)
    Differing from the Accord Hybrid, when the ABS is activated, the
regenerative braking is stopped and the ABS is controlled by hydraulic
brake. While the ABS is working, the stopped regenerative braking
condition is maintained until the brake is released/vehicle stops. When
a certain brake

pedal effort is maintained while ABS is active, the total braking force
is reduced by a relatively small amount equal to the reduction of
regenerative braking force.
3. Honda Civic Hybrid 2nd Generation (MY 2006-2011)
    When the ABS is activated, the brake ON regenerative braking ceases
and the accelerator off regenerative braking force is reduced. The ABS
is controlled by the hydraulic braking system. While the ABS is active,
the reduced regenerative braking force is maintained until the brake is
released/vehicle stops. When a certain brake pedal effort is maintained
while ABS is active the total braking force is reduced by a relatively
small amount equal to the reduction of the regenerative braking force.
    In summary, all the Honda Hybrid models discussed herein maintain
traditional hydraulic braking functionality in the case of non-ABS
braking events or ABS braking events. The reduction or cessation (in
the case of the 1st generation Honda Civic) in regenerative braking is
a small portion of the total braking force. As stated and explained
above, the petitioner's allegation of a ``loss'' of braking is
inconsistent with the design of the braking system in the subject
vehicles.

Allegation 4: The Petitioner Asserts That the Number of Honda
Complaints as Compared to the Number of Toyota Prius Complaints
Received by NHTSA Is Lower Because the Braking Problem Has Been Largely
Ignored by Honda Hybrid Owners Due to the Lack of Media Coverage \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Allegation noted by the petitioner on page 5 of the defect
petition document titled ``INBC-DP10004-45020P.pdf'' in the public
file of DP10-004. The file can be found at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/defects/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened investigation
PE10-006 on February 3, 2010 to investigate consumer allegations of
momentary disruptions in expected vehicle decelerations during brake
applications while traveling over a road disturbance such as a pothole
or a bump in the road in 3rd generation (MY 2010) Toyota Prius Hybrid
vehicles. The number of Prius complaints before the media coverage is
more than all of the Honda Hybrid models combined. This fact does not
support the petitioner's allegation that media coverage increased the
number of Prius complaints and that the lack of media coverage explains
the small number of the Honda Hybrid models complaints.
    As noted in Table 1, prior to February 3, 2010 (before PE10-006 was
opened) and before there was any significant media coverage regarding
the braking defect (highlighted in NHTSA Recall number 10V-039) in
Toyota Prius vehicles, there was only one (1) similar complaint to
NHTSA involving a Honda Hybrid vehicle (Honda Civic Hybrid) that was
similar in nature to the Toyota Prius braking issue. During this time,
there were no similar complaints related to the subject vehicles (Honda
Accord Hybrids).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07DE11.001

    By contrast, before February 3, 2010, NHTSA received 124 complaints
related to braking in MY 2010 Toyota Prius vehicles. The Honda Hybrid
vehicles had up to 7 years of field exposure but only one complaint
prior to the recall of the Toyota Prius.
    The effect of publicity was not reflected in complaints to NHTSA
until February 3, 2010. Subsequently, over a two day period February
3rd and 4th, over 700 complaints were received by the NHTSA related to
braking issues in MY 2010 Toyota Prius vehicles.

Allegation 5: The Petitioner Asserts That Technical Service Bulletin
(TSB) 05038 \10\ May Be Related to the Alleged Brake Failure Incident
That Is the Subject of the Petition. Further, the Petitioner Also
Suggests That if Honda Was Aware of a Problem With the Hybrid Braking
System on its Vehicle Prior to the Issuance of TSB 05038 This Would Be
a Violation of the Tread Act \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See public file of DP10-004 at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/defects/ for copy of the TSB.
    \11\ Allegation noted by the petitioner on page 3 of the defect
petition document titled ``INBC-DP10004-45020P.pdf'' in the public
file of DP10-004. The file can be found at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/defects/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, in November of 2005, Honda mailed owner
notification letters of a product update in MY 2005 Honda Accord Hybrid
vehicles identified as TSB 05038. In the letter, Honda states:

    The problem: The computer software in your vehicle needs to be
updated. Without the update, a technician, using a scan tool in
generic mode on your vehicle could cause damage to your vehicle's
electric motor battery and/or cause the engine computer to falsely
signal engine misfires.

    The problem addressed by TSB 05038 could occur if a scan tool was
previously used by a service technician.

In multiple ODI interviews with the petitioner, the petitioner noted
that the vehicle was purchased on March 23, 2005, and that, until the
crash on July 23, 2005, the vehicle was not taken to a dealer for
routine maintenance or any other repairs. Thus, a scan tool was not
used between the time the petitioner and her husband took ownership of
the vehicle and the crash. In addition, the potential consequences of
the TSB condition are not related to the defect alleged by the
petitioner or any other aspect of vehicle brake system performance.
    The defect petition notes and interviews with the petitioner
confirm that there were no signs of an engine misfire condition or any
warning of a low battery condition. Based on all of these factors, it
is unlikely that the conditions described in TSB 05038 have relevance
to the crash on July 23, 2005.
    The defect petition suggests that the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act, commonly referred
to as the TREAD Act, is what obligates the manufacturer to report a TSB
to NHTSA. In fact, the reporting requirement for TSBs predates the
TREAD Act \12\. In conformance with the regulation, Honda submitted a
copy of the TSB to NHTSA in November of 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Technical Service Bulletins fit into a category of
communications sent to more than one manufacturer, distributor,
dealer, lessor, lessee, or purchaser regarding any defect,
regardless of safety-relatedness, in a vehicle or item of equipment.
Prior to 2002, the requirement to submit this information was found
in 49 CFR 573.8. With the passage of the TREAD Act, the Sec.  573.8
requirement was moved from Part 573 to Part 579. 67 FR 45873, 45824
(July 10, 2002). It now appears at 49 CFR 579.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegation 6: Prior to the Petitioner's Crash on July 23, 2005, NHTSA
Had Received Two Complaints Regarding Braking Problems With Honda
Hybrid Vehicles When Braking on Bump, or Uneven Surfaces (ODI
10315534, & 10311198). In the Following Months, There Were Two
Additional Complaints (ODI 10306871, & 10307268), One of Which
Resulted in a Crash. NHTSA Is Uncertain if Honda Had Knowledge of the
Fatal Crash in a Fifth Complaint Belonging to the Petitioner
(ODI 10329383) \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Allegation noted by the petitioner on page 3 of the defect
petition document titled ``INBC-DP10004-45020P.pdf'' in the public
file of DP10-004. The file can be found at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/defects/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This section separately reviews each of these five complaints.
ODI 10315534
    On March 3, 2010 NHTSA received this complaint, involving a MY 2003
Honda Civic Hybrid. The incident date noted in this complaint was
January 1, 2003, nearly 7 years before the complaint was filed with the
NHTSA. Also, contrary to the petitioner's assertion that the complaint
was received by the NHTSA prior to her crash in 2005, the complaint was
filed with the NHTSA more than 4 years after the petitioner's crash.
    The complaint description stated:

    Braking while on a bumpy road occasionally results in a delay of
the braking action. We thought this was part of the ABS system, but
there was no ABS ``feel'' in the brake pedal. With the Toyota
problem description, we now feel it may be a similar problem. Only
occurs while braking on rough pavement.

ODI 10311198
    On February 17, 2010 NHTSA received this complaint, involving a MY
2005 Honda Civic Hybrid. The incident date noted in this complaint was
June 8, 2005, more than 4 years before the complaint was filed with the
NHTSA. Also, contrary to the petitioner's assertion that the complaint
was received by the NHTSA prior to her crash in 2005, the complaint was
filed with the NHTSA more than 4 years after the petitioner's crash.
    The complaint description stated:

    The contact owns a 2005 Honda Civic Hybrid. The contact stated
as he is coming to a stop and stepped on his brakes or hit a bump he
loses his brakes it felt as if there is no brakes. The vehicle was
taken to the dealer and contact was told this is normal. The
manufacture was also call and inform contact they will give him a
return call but they never did.* * *The consumer stated the problem
has been persistent since the vehicle was purchased and still
continues.

ODI 10306871
    On February 6, 2010, NHTSA received this complaint, involving a MY
2003 Honda Civic Hybrid. The incident date noted in the complaint was
August 15, 2005, more than 4 years before the complaint was filed with
the NHTSA. Also, contrary to the petitioner's assertion that the
complaint was received by the NHTSA prior to her crash in 2005, the
complaint was filed with the NHTSA more than 4 years after the
petitioner's crash.
    The complaint description stated:

    I wish to make notice to NHTSA that the issue in braking for
Prius vehicles would seem to me to be related, in general, to
hybrids, built in Japan, and not just Toyota. I have an '03 Honda
Civic hybrid, and it has issues. It has been in an accident back in
'05 and what was the issue? Braking! The car went out of control
under heavy braking (though all these vehicles have 4 whl ABS) in an
``animal-avoidance'' attempt. I ended up careening side-wise sliding
until colliding with a utility pole, at the passenger side ``a''
pillar. Raccoon didn't survive. I had noticed on several occasions
that the abs, upon encountering bumps or jolts of any significant
degree, will ``cut-out'' momentarily, and further, the ``engine-
braking'' associated with the hybrid motor-generator also cuts out
and does not return (until after the stop has been concluded using
only the available braking methods left) (no abs ``chatter'' is to
be observed in these scenarios). The phenomenon is definitely
reproducible; I have often found that such bumps are virtually
unavoidable on certain places I commonly drive near my home. It is
such an issue that I have learned to try to compensate for that when
driving over these bumpy places, but one can't compensate when
encountering same in a new, unfamiliar area/situation.
    Please do look into the concept that it could be more of a
Japanese made ABS system-fault, (possibly including engine-
regenerative braking system) rather than a Toyota-only thing. I
would request that my note be acknowledged, myself be contacted so
as to provide any further info needed, and my contact info be
retained so as to be contacted regarding subsequent resolutions, ie
recalls/legal cases/settlements. By the way, I had not ``collision''
insurance, thus I paid to repair my HCH [Honda Civic Hybrid] post
that accident. I still drive the car today, though anyone would have
called it ``totaled''. Tires--were the same set installed as OEM,
were at least 60% even at 51k, they readily wore out afterwards-
post-acc alignment issues.

    ODI made several unsuccessful attempts to contact this complainant
in order to obtain additional information on the incident. After
finally making contact with the consumer approximately 5 months after
the initial attempt, the consumer stated that he did not recall many of
the incident's details. The complaint stated that, preceding the
alleged crash, the driver was making an ``animal avoidance'' maneuver
that resulted in the vehicle careening side-ways and sliding until
eventually colliding with a utility pole. The complaint does not
mention the vehicle travelling over a road disturbance or road
conditions that may have trigged the ABS to function. In this incident,
ODI has no basis upon which to determine whether the alleged crash
could have involved a brake related failure.
ODI 10307268
    This complaint was filed with NHTSA on 2/7/2010 involving a MY 2005
Honda Civic hybrid. The incident date noted in the complaint was 9/01/
2005 was noted, more than 4 years before the complaint was filed with
the NHTSA. Also, contrary to the petitioner's assertion that the
complaint was received by the NHTSA prior to her crash in 2005, the
complaint was filed

with the NHTSA more than 4 years after the petitioner's crash.
    The complaint description stated:

    There was a ``momentary loss of braking capability while
traveling over an uneven road surface, pot hole or bump.''

    ODI was able to contact the consumer for further information
regarding the incident. In response to a survey sent by ODI to obtain
more details about the incident described in the complaint, the
complainant stated: ``I am still driving the car and have not had any
problems with the brakes, so it probably is not a problem. Sometimes it
feels like the car will not stop, but it always does.''
ODI 10329383
    On May 8, 2010, the petitioner filed this complaint. The details of
this complaint are discussed in detail Section 2 and Section 3 of this
document.
    In summary, the petitioner's assertion that the complaints reviewed
in this section were received by the NHTSA prior to or shortly after
her incident is not accurate. Rather the complaints were received by
the NHTSA years after the incident dates and just after the opening of
the Toyota Prius investigation PE10-006.

Section 5.0--NHTSA Field Experience Analysis

[1]. Petitioner Identified Complaints to NHTSA

    As supporting information, the petition included twenty four
complaints filed with NHTSA as summarized in Table 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07DE11.002

    Analysis of these complaints reveals that only two involve MY 2005
Honda Accord Hybrid vehicles. One of the two is the complaint filed by
the petitioner. Eleven of the total 24 complaints allege an issue with
the brakes not performing as expected while braking over a road
disturbance (e.g., a pothole, bump or railroad tracks,). The statements
regarding braking in these complaints are similar to complaints
regarding braking in third generation Toyota Prius vehicles. Only one
of these eleven complaints alleges a crash occurred caused by a brake
failure while simultaneously braking and traveling over a road
disturbance; this one complaint was the petitioner's complaint.

[2]. Current Complaints to NHTSA (as of October 2011)

    NHTSA has conducted a more exhaustive search of its complaint
database that went beyond what the petitioner submitted for braking
complaints similar to those identified in the Toyota Prius
investigation. For example, additional complaints were found using a
keyword search of the description field of the complaints for the word
``hybrid'' where a vehicle model was absent or improperly coded as a
standard model). In total, three complaints filed by Honda Accord
Hybrid owners (including the petitioner's complaint) were found to be
similar to complaints regarding braking in third generation Toyota
Prius vehicles.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07DE11.003

    By contrast, on February 9, 2010, when Toyota announced a safety
recall for the 3rd generation Toyota Prius, NHTSA had received 1,126
complaints including 33 alleged crashes related to the consumer's
perception of a momentary loss of braking while simultaneously braking
and driving over road disturbances. The complaint rate for Prius far
exceeded that of all the Honda Hybrid vehicles not only separately, but
also combined.

[3]. Honda Complaint/Warranty Claim Data Summary

    In ODI's Information Request letter to Honda, the alleged defect
was broadly written as a ``reduction in braking performance and/or
braking failures.''
    Based on this alleged defect definition, Honda searched its
consumer complaint and warranty claim databases for related complaints
and warranty claims. ODI's analysis of the Honda data (summarized in
tables 4 and 5) produced one complaint and no warranty claims similar
to the Toyota Prius problem of a momentary reduction of braking while
braking over road disturbances.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07DE11.004

Section 6.0--NHTSA Vehicle Testing

    In order to better understand the braking characteristics when the
ABS is engaged in the subject vehicle, NHTSA acquired a MY 2005 Honda
Accord Hybrid for testing purposes. The vehicle was tested in Ohio at
NHTSA's Vehicle Research Testing Center (VRTC) on a variety of road
surfaces, including rumble strips and split coefficient of friction
surfaces (asphalt/epoxy), that could trigger the ABS system to
function. The results of the testing can be found in the public file
associated with this Petition analysis.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The complete testing report for DP10-004 can be found at
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/defects/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In short, the testing showed that the Honda Accord hybrid brake
system (including the ABS) is a robust system that worked in all of the
following simulated road surfaces and situations: momentary
perturbations, continuous rumble strips, braking then entering a rumble
strip, and asphalt/epoxy split-coefficient situations. Moreover, the
crash was preceded by the use of the parking brake.
    The petitioner's account of the events just preceding the crash
states:

    In a desperate attempt to bring the vehicle under control my
husband pulled the emergency brake. Upon pulling the emergency
brake, instead of helping to slow down the vehicle, the vehicle
further became uncontrollable and started moving in the wrong
direction.

    The responding police officer's account of the events preceding the
crash states:

    Vehicle 1 swerved over the left side rumble strip--came
back into the left lane, accelerated back over the left side rumble
strip off the roadway through the grass median (shrubbery) and into
westbound traffic.

    Because the petitioner noted that her husband applied the parking
brake (located between the driver and the passenger) during the
sequence of events just prior to the crash, a portion of the VRTC
testing was designed to show the effects of applying the parking brake.
The testing showed that the

application of the parking brake while on a rumble strip or split-
coefficient of friction surface results in a high rate of vehicle yaw
(angle change rotating around the vertical axis) that is uncontrollable
because the locking of the rear wheel decreases its ability to resist
lateral forces.
    Based upon the inspections and tests of a 2005 Honda Accord hybrid
vehicle and the allegations by the petitioner of a brake failure, the
following conclusions were noted by VRTC.
    (1) The Honda Accord hybrid brake system and ABS was found to be a
robust system that could easily handle momentary perturbations,
continuous rumble strips, braking then entering a rumble strip, and
asphalt/epoxy split-co situations.
    (2) Since a locked rear wheel cannot resist lateral forces, the
application of the parking brake while on a rumble strip or split-co
surface resulted in a high rate of vehicle yaw that was uncontrollable.

7.0 Conclusion

    In our view, additional investigation is unlikely to result in a
finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists.
Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's
limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, the
petition is denied. This action does not constitute a finding by NHTSA
that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency will take
further action if warranted by future circumstances.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: November 22, 2011.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011-31343 Filed 12-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52647-52648]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC11-583-001]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-583); Comment
Request; Submitted for OMB Review

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) has submitted the
information collection described below to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any
interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission issued a notice in the Federal Register (76 FR 34689,
06/14/2011) requesting public comments. FERC received no comments on
the FERC-583 and is making this notation in its submission to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by September
22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include OMB Control Number 1902-0136 for
reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202-395-
4638.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and should refer to Docket No. IC11-583-001.
Comments may be filed either electronically or in paper format. Those
persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.
Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in an
acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete filing
instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. To file the document
electronically, access the Commission's Web site and click on Documents
& Filing, E-Filing (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp), and
then follow the instructions for each screen. First time users will
have to establish a user name and password. The Commission will send an
automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt
of comments.
    For paper filings, the comments should be submitted to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, and should refer to Docket No. IC11-
583-001.
    Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in
FERC Docket Number IC11-583 may do so through eSubscription at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp. All comments may be viewed,
printed or downloaded remotely via the Internet through FERC's homepage
using the ``eLibrary'' link. For user assistance, contact
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected under the
requirements of FERC-583, ``Annual Kilowatt Generating Report (Annual
Charges)'' (OMB No. 1902-0136), is used by the Commission to implement
the statutory provisions of section 10(e) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA) (16 U.S.C. 803(e)), which requires the Commission to collect
annual charges from hydropower licensees for, among other things, the
cost of administering part I of the FPA and for the use of United
States dams. In addition, section 3401 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1986 (OBRA) authorizes the Commission to ``assess
and collect fees and annual charges in any fiscal year in amounts equal
to all of the costs incurred by the Commission in that fiscal year.''
The information is collected annually and used to determine the amounts
of the annual charges to be assessed licensees for reimbursable
government administrative costs and for the use of government dams. The
Commission implements theses filing requirements in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR part 11.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
current expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection of
data.

    Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is
estimated as:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of        Number of     Average  burden    Total annual
               Data collection                  respondents     responses per       hours per      burden hours
                                                annually (1)    respondent (2)    response (3)   (1) x (2) x (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-583....................................             459                1                2              918
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated cost burden to respondents is $62,835 (918 hours/2080
hours per year times $142,372 per year average per employee = $62,835).
The cost per respondent is $137 (rounded).
    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.

    Dated: August 17, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21498 Filed 8-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38339-38343]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15394]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0015; FRL-8584-01-OCSPP]

Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This submission announces EPA's order for the cancellations,
voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of
the products listed in Table 1 & Table 1A of Unit II, pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This
cancellation order follows a May 11, 2021 Federal Register Notice of
Receipt of Requests from the registrants listed in Table 2 of Unit II
to voluntarily cancel these product registrations. In the May 11, 2021
notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing the
cancellations, unless the Agency received substantive comments within
the 30-day comment period that would merit its further review of these
requests, or unless the registrants withdrew their requests. The Agency
did not receive any comments on the notice. Further, the Agency
received a notice from a registrant to withdraw a certain cancellation
request. Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this submission, a
cancellation order granting the requested cancellations. Any
distribution, sale, or use of the products subject to this cancellation
order is permitted only in accordance with the terms of this order,
including any existing stocks provisions.

DATES: The cancellations are effective July 20, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Green, Registration
Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0015, 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>. Due to the
public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The
staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone,
and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and
docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This submission announces the cancellation, as requested by
registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C.
136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration
number in Table 1 & Table 1A of this unit.

                                         Table 1--Product Cancellations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Registration No.           Company No.             Product name                 Active ingredients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100-886........................             100  Bicep Magnum...................  Atrazine & S-Metolachlor.
239-2661.......................             239  Homedefense Indoor & Outdoor     Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insect Killer 3.
239-2687.......................             239  0.3% Bifenthrin Liquid I&O       Bifenthrin.
                                                  Concentrate.
239-2698.......................             239  Home Defense Max Perimeter       Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insect Killer RTS.
239-2705.......................             239  Ortho Home Defense Max Outdoor   Bifenthrin.
                                                  Perimeter Insect Killer Ready-
                                                  Spray II.
279-3056.......................             279  Talstar 2EC Insecticide/         Bifenthrin.
                                                  Miticide.
279-3086.......................             279  Talstar 9.8 WSB Insecticide/     Bifenthrin.
                                                  Miticide.
279-3087.......................             279  Talstar 9.9 WSB Insecticide/     Bifenthrin.
                                                  Miticide.
279-3121.......................             279  Biflex TCC Insecticide.........  Bifenthrin.
279-3122.......................             279  Biflex FTC Termiticide.........  Bifenthrin.
279-3152.......................             279  Biflex Residential Flowable      Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide/Miticide.
279-3156.......................             279  Talstar GC Flowable Insecticide/ Bifenthrin.
                                                  Miticide.
279-3157.......................             279  Talstar ME Insecticide/Miticide  Bifenthrin.
279-3161.......................             279  Talstar RTU Insecticide/         Bifenthrin.
                                                  Miticide.
279-3162.......................             279  Talstar Lawn & Tree Flowable     Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide/Miticide.
279-3163.......................             279  Talstar 0.2 G Lawn Granular      Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide.
279-3166.......................             279  Talstar Fire Ant Destroyer.....  Bifenthrin.
279-3172.......................             279  Talstar 0.05 Lawn Granular       Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide.
279-3173.......................             279  Talstar 0.1 Lawn Granular        Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide.
279-3193.......................             279  Talstar GH Flowable Insecticide/ Bifenthrin.
                                                  Miticide.
279-3197.......................             279  Talstar 0.073 GU Granular        Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide with Fertilizer.
279-3198.......................             279  Talstar 0.087 GL Granular        Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide with Fertilizer.
279-3199.......................             279  Talstar 0.069 GU Granular        Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide with Fertilizer.
279-3200.......................             279  Talstar 0.083 GU Granular        Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide with Fertilizer.
279-3205.......................             279  Talstar FT Flowable Termiticide/ Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide.
279-3212.......................             279  Talstar 0.069 GCGU Granular      Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide.
279-3213.......................             279  Talstar 0.069 GUPT1 Granular     Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide with 19-0-19
                                                  Fertilizer.
279-3224.......................             279  Talstar 0.073 GCGU Granular      Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide with 19-0-19
                                                  Fertilizer.
279-3225.......................             279  Talstar 0.073 GCGUPT1 Granular   Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide with 19-0-19
                                                  Fertilizer.
279-3226.......................             279  Talstar 0.073 GUPT1 Granular     Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide with 19-0-19
                                                  Fertilizer.
279-3235.......................             279  Talstar 0.057 GURR Granular      Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide with 19-0-19
                                                  Fertilizer.
279-3239.......................             279  Talstar 0.03% Granular           Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide with 18-0-12
                                                  Fertilizer.
279-3252.......................             279  FMC 01-0004 Insecticide........  Bifenthrin.
279-3253.......................             279  FMC 01-0004-2 Insecticide......  Bifenthrin.
279-3264.......................             279  F1785 GH 50 WG Insecticide.....  Flonicamid.
279-3277.......................             279  F1785 N 50 WG Insecticide......  Flonicamid.
279-3311.......................             279  Bifenthrin 8% ME Termiticide/    Bifenthrin.
                                                  Insecticide.
279-3314.......................             279  F5997 ME Insecticide/Miticide..  Pyriproxyfen & Bifenthrin.
279-3335.......................             279  F6320 Granular Insecticide.....  Bifenthrin.
279-3364.......................             279  F8028-1 Aerosol................  Bifenthrin.
279-3367.......................             279  F6288 SC Liquid Insecticide....  Bifenthrin & Imidacloprid.
279-9553.......................             279  Intruder Residual with           Piperonyl butoxide; Pyrethrins
                                                  Cyfluthrin.                      & Cyfluthrin.
279-9604.......................             279  Finesse Grass & Broadleaf        Flucarbazone-sodium &
                                                  Herbicide.                       Chlorsulfuron.
352-778........................             352  Dupont Require Q Herbicide.....  Dicamba & Rimsulfuron.
352-831........................             352  Dupont DPX-B2856 4.5 Herbicide.  Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)-
                                                                                potassium salt & Glyphosate-
                                                                                isopropylammonium.
400-600........................             400  Flupro-EC......................  Flumetralin.
432-1407.......................             432  Allectus G Insecticide.........  Bifenthrin & Imidacloprid.
432-1416.......................             432  Allectus GC Granular             Bifenthrin & Imidacloprid.
                                                  Insecticide.
432-1418.......................             432  Allectus 0.18 G Plus Turf        Bifenthrin & Imidacloprid.
                                                  Fertilizer Insecticide.
432-1419.......................             432  Allectus 0.15 G Plus Turf        Bifenthrin & Imidacloprid.
                                                  Fertilizer Insecticide.
432-1421.......................             432  Allectus GC SC Insecticide.....  Bifenthrin & Imidacloprid.

432-1426.......................             432  Allectus 0.18 GC Plus Turf       Bifenthrin & Imidacloprid.
                                                  Fertilizer Insecticide.
432-1428.......................             432  Allectus 0.15 GC Plus Turf       Bifenthrin & Imidacloprid.
                                                  Fertilizer Insecticide.
499-529........................             499  TC-251A........................  Permethrin.
499-551........................             499  TC 251C........................  Permethrin.
2693-60........................            2693  Fiberglass Bottom Kote 449 Red.  Cuprous oxide.
3862-158.......................            3862  Weedzout.......................  Bromacil, lithium salt.
4959-23........................            4959  Iosan..........................  Nonylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol-
                                                                                -iodine complex & Phosphoric
                                                                                acid.
8329-73........................            8329  ULV Mosquito Master 2+6........  Permethrin & Chlorpyrifos.
8329-115.......................            8329  Phoenix........................  Prallethrin; Phenothrin &
                                                                                Piperonyl butoxide.
9688-227.......................            9688  Chemsico Herbicide Granules AN.  Atrazine.
9688-274.......................            9688  Chemsico Granules LAH..........  lambda-Cyhalothrin & Atrazine.
10324-89.......................           10324  Maquat MC5814-80%..............  Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl
                                                                                ammonium chloride *(58%C14,
                                                                                28%C16, 14%C12).
10324-139......................           10324  Maquat TC76-40%................  Dialkyl* methyl benzyl
                                                                                ammonium chloride *(60% C14,
                                                                                30% C16, 5% C18, 5% C12) &
                                                                                Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl
                                                                                ammonium chloride *(60%C14,
                                                                                30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12).
10324-140......................           10324  Maquat MQ2525M-CPV.............  Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl
                                                                                ammonium chloride *(60%C14,
                                                                                30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12) &
                                                                                Alkyl* dimethyl ethylbenzyl
                                                                                ammonium chloride *(68%C12,
                                                                                32%C14).
10324-149......................           10324  Maquat TC76-80%................  Dialkyl* methyl benzyl
                                                                                ammonium chloride *(60% C14,
                                                                                30% C16, 5% C18, 5% C12) &
                                                                                Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl
                                                                                ammonium chloride *(60%C14,
                                                                                30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12).
10324-187......................           10324  Maquat-1010N-10%...............  1-Decanaminium, N-decyl-N,N-
                                                                                dimethyl-, chloride.
26883-10.......................           26883  High Performance Chem Copp.....  Cuprous oxide.
34704-920......................           34704  Quinclorac 75DF Herbicide......  Quinclorac.
42750-41.......................           42750  Dicambazine....................  Atrazine & Dicamba, potassium
                                                                                salt.
42750-44.......................           42750  Atrazine 4L....................  Atrazine.
42750-45.......................           42750  Weed Pro Atrazine 4L Herbicide.  Atrazine.
42750-50.......................           42750  Brox-AT Herbicide..............  Bromoxynil octanoate &
                                                                                Atrazine.
42750-53.......................           42750  Albaugh Atrazine 90 DF.........  Atrazine.
45168-1........................           45168  VC 17M Antifouling.............  Copper as elemental.
55467-6........................           55467  Volley ATZ Lite Tenkoz           Atrazine & Acetochlor.
                                                  Herbicide.
55467-7........................           55467  Volley ATZ Tenkoz Herbicide....  Atrazine & Acetochlor.
55467-8........................           55467  Volley Tenkoz Herbicide........  Acetochlor.
59639-106......................           59639  Atrazine 90 DF Herbicide.......  Atrazine.
66222-163......................           66222  N-Lock Nitrogen Stabilizer.....  Nitrapyrin.
70506-214......................           70506  Super Tin 80WP.................  Fentin hydroxide.
70506-228......................           70506  Trike..........................  Triclopyr, triethylamine salt.
70506-292......................           70506  UPI Captan 50 WP...............  Captan.
70506-293......................           70506  UPI Captan 80 WDG..............  Captan.
71368-119......................           71368  Nufarm Leopard Herbicide.......  Glufosinate.
84009-33.......................           84009  RM43 RTU.......................  Imazapyr, isopropylamine salt
                                                                                & Glyphosate-
                                                                                isopropylammonium.
85063-1........................           85063  Ethylene Release Canister ERC..  Ethylene.
93923-1........................           93923  Dicamba Technical..............  Dicamba.
93923-2........................           93923  Dicamba Diglycolamine Salt SL..  Dicamba, diglycolamine salt.
93923-3........................           93923  Dicamba Dimethylamine Salt SL..  Dicamba, dimethylamine salt.
DE-120005......................           69969  Avipel (Dry) Corn Seed           Anthraquinone.
                                                  Treatment.
ID-150010......................           70506  Hydrothol 191 Aquatic Algicide   Endothall, mono (N,N,-dimethyl
                                                  and Herbicide.                   alkyl amine) salt.
ID-180008......................           69969  Avipel Hopper Box (Dry) Corn     Anthraquinone.
                                                  Seed Treatment.
MN-120002......................           69969  Avipel (Dry) Corn Seed           Anthraquinone.
                                                  Treatment.
OK-100003......................             279  Transport Termiticide-           Bifenthrin & Acetamiprid.
                                                  Insecticide.
SD-130004......................           69969  Avipel (Dry) Corn Seed           Anthraquinone.
                                                  Treatment.
SD-150007......................           69969  Avipel (Dry) Corn Seed           Anthraquinone.
                                                  Treatment.
WI-130003......................           69969  Avipel (Dry) Corn Seed           Anthraquinone.
                                                  Treatment.
WI-150005......................           69969  Avipel (Dry) Corn Seed           Anthraquinone.
                                                  Treatment.
WY-140002......................           69969  Avipel (Dry) Corn Seed           Anthraquinone.
                                                  Treatment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         Table 1A--Product Cancellations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Registration No.           Company No.             Product name                 Active ingredients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1021-2600......................            1021  Veratran D.....................  Sabadilla alkaloids.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The registrant for the pesticide product registration listed in
Table 1A has requested to the Agency via letter, that the cancellation
becomes effective September 30, 2022.
    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products in Table 1 & Table 1A of this unit, in
sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first
part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1
of this unit.

               Table 2--Registrants of Cancelled Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          EPA Company No.                  Company name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100................................  Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 410
                                      Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300,
                                      Greensboro, NC 27419-8300.
239................................  The Scotts Company, d/b/a The Ortho
                                      Group, 14111 Scottslawn Road,
                                      Marysville, OH 43041.
279................................  FMC Corporation, 2929 Walnut
                                      Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
352................................  E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and
                                      Company, 9330 Zionsville Road,
                                      Indianapolis, IN 46268.
400................................  MacDermid Agricultural Solutions,
                                      Inc., Agent Name: UPL NA, Inc.,
                                      630 Freedom Business Center, Suite
                                      402, King of Prussia, PA 19406.
432................................  Bayer Environmental Science, A
                                      Division of Bayer CropScience, LP,
                                      700 Chesterfield Parkway West,
                                      Chesterfield, MO 63017.
499................................  BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive,
                                      P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle
                                      Park, NC 27709-3528.
1021...............................  McLaughlin Gormley King Company, d/
                                      b/a MGK, 7325 Aspen Lane N,
                                      Minneapolis, MN 55428.
2693...............................  International Paint, LLC, 6001
                                      Antoine Drive, Houston, TX 77091.
3862...............................  ABC Compounding Co., Inc., P.O. Box
                                      16247, Atlanta, GA 30321.
4959...............................  West Agro, Inc., 11100 N Congress
                                      Ave., Kansas City, MO 64153.
8329...............................  Clarke Mosquito Control Products,
                                      Inc., 675 Sidwell Court, St.
                                      Charles, IL 60174.
9688...............................  Chemsico, A Division of United
                                      Industries Corp., P.O. Box 142642,
                                      St. Louis, MO 63114-0642.
10324..............................  Mason Chemical Company, 9075 Centre
                                      Pointe Dr., Suite 400, West
                                      Chester, OH 45069.
26883..............................  American Chemet Corporation, Agent
                                      Name: TSG Consulting, 1150 18th
                                      Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington,
                                      DC 20036.
34704..............................  Loveland Products, Inc., P.O. Box
                                      1286, Greeley, CO 80632-1286.
42750..............................  Albaugh, LLC, 1525 NE 36th Street,
                                      Ankeny, IA 50021.
45168..............................  Extensor AB, Agent Name:
                                      International Paint, LLC, 6001
                                      Antoine Drive, Houston, TX 77091.
55467..............................  Tenkoz, Inc., 1725 Windward
                                      Concourse, Suite 410, Alpharetta,
                                      GA 30005.
59639..............................  Valent U.S.A. LLC, 4600 Norris
                                      Canyon Road, P.O. Box 5075, San
                                      Ramon, CA 94583.
66222..............................  Makhteshim Agan of North America,
                                      Inc., d/b/a Adama, 3120 Highwoods
                                      Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC
                                      27604.
69969..............................  Arkion Life Sciences, LLC, Agent
                                      Name: Landis International, Inc.,
                                      3815 Madison Highway, P.O. Box
                                      5126, Valdosta, GA 31603-5126.
70506..............................  UPL NA, Inc., 630 Freedom Business
                                      Center, Suite 402, King of
                                      Prussia, PA 19406.
71368..............................  NuFarm, Inc., Agent Name: NuFarm
                                      Americas, Inc., 4020 Aerial Center
                                      Pkwy., Suite 101, Morrisville, NC
                                      27560.
84009..............................  Ragan and Massey, Inc., Agent Name:
                                      Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc.,
                                      4110 136th St. Ct. NW, Gig Harbor,
                                      WA 98332.
85063..............................  Balchem Corporation, 52 Sunrise
                                      Park Road, New Hampton, NY 10958.
93923..............................  Hy-Green, LLC, Agent Name: Wagner
                                      Regulatory Associates, Inc., P.O.
                                      Box 640, Hockessin, DE 19707.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to
Comments

    During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments
in response to the May 11, 2021 Federal Register notice announcing the
Agency's receipt of the requests for voluntary cancellations of
products listed in Table 1 & Table 1A of Unit II; however, the
registrant FMC Corporation, withdrew their request for cancellation of
the product registration 279-3333; therefore, this product registration
has been removed from this cancellation order.

IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby
approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in
Table 1 & Table 1A of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders
that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II are
canceled. The effective date of the cancellations that are the subject
of this document is July 20, 2021. Any distribution, sale, or use of
existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 & Table 1A of
Unit II in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for
disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI will be a violation
of FIFRA.

V. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a
registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of
its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or
more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request,
EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal
Register. Thereafter, following the public comment period, the EPA
Administrator may approve such a request. The notice of receipt for
this action was published for comment in the Federal Register of May
11, 2021 (86 FR 25861) (FRL-10023-30). The comment period closed on
June 10, 2021.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products
subject to this order are as follows.

A. For Products 400-600, 10324-89, 10324-139, 10324-140, 10324-149,
10324-187, 34704-920, 70506-214, 70506-292 & 70506-293

    For products 400-600, 10324-89, 10324-139, 10324-140, 10324-149,
10324-187, 34704-920, 70506-214, 70506-292 & 70506-293, the registrants
have requested 18-months to sell existing stocks. Because the Agency
has identified no significant potential risk concerns associated with
these pesticide products, upon cancellation of these product
cancellations, identified in Table 1of Unit II, EPA anticipates
allowing registrants to sell and

distribute existing stocks of these voluntarily canceled products for
18-months after the effective date of the publication of the
Cancellation Order in the Federal Register. Thereafter, registrants
will be prohibited from selling or distributing these products
identified in Table 1 of Unit II, except for export consistent with
FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o) or for proper disposal.

B. For Product 1021-2600

    For product 1021-2600, the registrant has requested that the
cancellation becomes effective September 30, 2022. Because the Agency
has identified no significant potential risk concerns associated with
this pesticide product, upon cancellation of this product cancellation,
identified in Table 1A of Unit II, EPA anticipates allowing registrants
to sell and distribute existing stocks of this voluntarily canceled
product for 1 year after the effective date of the product
cancellation, which will be September 30, 2023. Thereafter, registrants
will be prohibited from selling or distributing this product identified
in Table 1A of Unit II, except for export consistent with FIFRA section
17 (7 U.S.C. 136o) or for proper disposal.
    The registrants may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks
of all other products listed in Table 1 of Unit II until July 20, 2022,
which is 1 year after the publication of the Cancellation Order in the
Federal Register. Thereafter, the registrants are prohibited from
selling or distributing all other products listed in Table 1, except
for export in accordance with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o), or
proper disposal. Persons other than the registrants may sell,
distribute, or use existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 &
Table 1A of Unit II until existing stocks are exhausted, provided that
such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the
previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled
products.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: July 9, 2021.
Marietta Echeverria,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-15394 Filed 7-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 5071]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02718]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL19-42-000]

City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri; Notice of Petition for
Limited Waiver

    Take notice that on February 8, 2019, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(5) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(5) and section 554(e) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 554(e)), City Utilities of
Springfield, Missouri (Petitioner) filed a petition for the Commission
to authorize a limited, one-time waiver of the financial security
requirement set forth in Section 4.0 of the pro forma Sponsored Upgrade
Agreement appearing as Schedule 1 to Attachment J of the Southwest
Power Pool, Inc.'s Open Access Transmission Tariff, all as more fully
explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in the above
proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Petitioner. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 1, 2019.

    Dated: February 12, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02718 Filed 2-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 16535-16537]
[DOCID:fr01ap10-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61780; File No. SR-NYSE-2010-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change To Extend the Pilot Period for a Revised Unit-of-Count
Methodology for NYSE OpenBook

March 25, 2010.
    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 11, 2010, the 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 and
II below, which Items have been prepared substantially by the

Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons and is granting
accelerated approval to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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

    NYSE proposes to extend the expiration date of its pilot program
for a revised unit-of-count methodology for NYSE OpenBook until July
31, 2010. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.sec.gov, at NYSE, 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, NYSE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below. NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On March 9, 2009, the Commission approved a pilot program by which
the Exchange redefines some of the basic ``units of measure'' that
Vendors are required to report to the Exchange and on which the
Exchange bases its fees for its NYSE OpenBook product packages.\3\
Under the proposal, the Exchange no longer defines the Vendor-
Subscriber relationship based on the manner in which a data feed
recipient or subscriber receives data (i.e., through controlled
displays or through data feeds). Instead, the pilot program adopts more
objective billing criteria that requires Vendors to count every
subscriber entitlement, whether it be an individual person or a device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59544 (March 9,
2009), 74 FR 11162 (March 16, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-131).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Vendor includes in the count every person and device that
has access to the data, regardless of the purposes for which the
individual or device uses the data. The pilot program eliminates
current exceptions to the device-reporting obligation in order to
subject the count to a more objective process and simplify the
reporting obligation for Vendors. (For instance, the Exchange
previously has not required Vendors to report certain programmers and
other individuals who receive access to data for certain specific, non-
trading purposes.) These exceptions require the Exchange to monitor the
manner end-users consume data, which in turn adds cost for both the
Exchange and customers.
    The Exchange's experience with the pilot program has been
successful. A number of the Exchange's customers have embraced the
pilot program and the Exchange intends to submit to the Commission a
proposed rule change that would seek permanent approval of the revised
unit-of-count methodology.
    The Exchange established March 31, 2010, as the expiration date for
the pilot program. The Exchange now seeks to extend the expiration date
of the pilot program to July 30, 2010, by which time, the Exchange
intends to have submitted the proposed rule change seeking permanent
approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(4)
\4\ that an exchange have rules that provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members
and other persons using its facilities and the requirements under
Section 6(b)(5) \5\ that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade and not to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the pilot program benefits investors
because it is more closely aligned with current data consumption,
reduces costs for the Exchange's customers, and potentially serves as a
model for additional pricing efficiencies.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from
members or other interested parties.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2010-21 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-2010-21. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions

should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2010-21 and should be submitted on
or before April 22, 2010.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\6\ In particular, it is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of
the Act,\7\ which requires that the rules of a national securities
exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees,
and other charges among its members and issuers and other parties using
its facilities, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\9\ which
requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act. Finally, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS,\10\ adopted under
Section 11A(c)(1) of the Act, which requires an exclusive processor
that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock to do so on terms that are fair and
reasonable and that are not unreasonably discriminatory.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.603(a).
    \11\ NYSE is an exclusive processor of NYSE depth-of-book data
under Section 3(a)(22)(B) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(22)(B), which
defines an exclusive processor as, among other things, an exchange
that distributes information with respect to quotations or
transactions on an exclusive basis on its own behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal would extend the expiration date of the Unit of Count
pilot program to July 30, 2010. The Commission has reviewed the
proposal using the approach set forth in the NYSE Arca Order for non-
core market data fees.\12\ The Commission recently found that NYSE was
subject to significant competitive forces in setting fees for its
depth-of-book order data in the Unit of Count Filing.\13\ There are a
variety of alternative sources of information that impose significant
competitive pressures on the NYSE in setting the terms for distributing
its depth-of-book order data. The Commission believes that the
availability of those alternatives, as well as the NYSE's compelling
need to attract order flow, imposed significant competitive pressure on
the NYSE to act equitably, fairly, and reasonably in setting the terms
of its proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21) (``NYSE
Arca Order''). In the NYSE Arca Order, the Commission describes in
great detail the competitive factors that apply to non-core market
data products. The Commission hereby incorporates by reference the
data and analysis from the NYSE Arca Order into this order.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59544 (March 9,
2009), 74 FR 11162 (March 16, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-131).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the NYSE was subject to significant competitive forces in
setting the terms of the proposal, the Commission will approve the
proposal in the absence of a substantial countervailing basis to find
that its terms nevertheless fail to meet an applicable requirement of
the Act or the rules thereunder. An analysis of the proposal does not
provide such a basis.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before
the 30th day after the publication of notice thereof in the Federal
Register. The Commission believes that accelerating approval of this
proposal is appropriate and would ensure that the Exchange could
continue to offer Unit of Count billing on their market data products
under the existing pilot program.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Commission notes that that the Exchange has also
recently filed a proposed rule change seeking permanent approval of
the pilot program for the Unit of Count billing methodology for NYSE
OpenBook. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61779 (March 25,
2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2010-21), be, and it
hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-7363 Filed 3-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


May 12, 2003 To: Alan Rubin, PhD., U. S. EPA, Office of Water From: Dana Greenwood, RTI Work Assignment Leader Subject: Maximum Soil Concentrations if All Application are Maximum Rate and Duration The soil concentrations calculated in the analysis to determine maximum soil concentration assumes that sewage sludge is applied biennially for 40 years at a rate of 10 metric tons per hectare ( dry weight). A full distribution of sample concentrations is used but the application rate and frequency are assumed to be maximum values in all cases. In addition the reported concentration are the maximum annual concentration ( the last year of sludge addition).. In addition, I have included for comparison the table of TCDD TEQ concentrations in the crop soil using the distribution of application rates and durations.

TCDD TEQ Concentration for Soil in Crop Land and Biosolids Distribution of Maximum Annual Soil Concentrations Percentile Maximum Annual TCDDTEQ in Soil ( ppt) 50th 1.7 75th 2.4 90th 4.0 95th 5.2 99th 35.0 TCDD TEQ Concentration for Soil in Crop Land and Biosolids Variable Application Rate and Duration Percentile Cropland Applied Biosolids 50th 0.4 24 75th 0.7 35 90th 1.3 55 95th 1.8 74 99th 4.2 453