[Federal Register: February 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 25)]
[Notices]
[Page 7021-7022]
[DOCID:fr06fe08-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57239; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-98]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto,
To Reduce From Six Months to Three Months the Period for Which a
Company's Average Global Market Capitalization Must Exceed the Levels
Established by the Exchange's Pure Valuation/Revenue Test

January 30, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On October 29, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or

``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to reduce from six months to three months the
period for which the average global market capitalization of companies
seeking to list on the Exchange must exceed the levels established by
the Exchange's ``pure valuation/revenue'' test contained in Section
102.01C of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual (the ``Manual''). On
December 14, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change. The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
was published for comment in the Federal Registeron December 26,
2007.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This
order approves the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56976 (December 17,
2007), 72 FR 73055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Section 102.01C of the Exchange's Manual requires companies listing
under the Exchange's ``pure valuation/revenue'' test to have a global
market capitalization of $750 million. In the case of companies listing
other than in connection with an initial public offering or a spin-off
or upon emergence from bankruptcy, Section 102.01C provides that the
market capitalization valuation will be determined on the basis of a
six-month average.
    The Exchange now proposes to reduce from six months to three months
the period over which prospective companies seeking to list on the
Exchange must have had an average global market capitalization that
meets the required level of $750 million. In addition, the Exchange
proposes to amend the rule to specify that in considering the
suitability for listing of a company pursuant to this standard, the
Exchange will consider whether the company's business prospects and
operating results indicate that the company's market capitalization
value is likely to be sustained or increase over time.

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\4\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, 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.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission notes that the proposed rule change does not change
the quantitative global market capitalization requirement under the
Exchange's ``pure valuation/revenue'' test. This requirement will
remain at $750 million global market capitalization. Rather, the
Exchange is shortening the time period over which the average global
market capitalization of a prospective listed company must meet this
level. The Commission notes that the proposed rule change requires the
Exchange to look not only at the average three month market
capitalization of the company but to also consider whether the
company's market capitalization is likely to be sustained or increase
over time based on the company's business prospects and operation
results. The Commission therefore believes that the proposed rule
change may allow the earlier listing of companies, but at the same
time, it is designed to ensure that the Exchange does not list
companies on the basis of a market capitalization valuation that is
unlikely to be sustained. In this regard, the Commission expects that
the Exchange will scrutinize companies to ensure that it will only list
companies that should be able to continue to meet the market
capitalization standard.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2007-98), as modified by
Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-2073 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 44846]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14986]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 88 FR 43639, July
10, 2023.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Thursday, July 13,
2023 at 2:00 p.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The following additional matter will also be
considered during the Closed Meeting:
     Consideration of amici participation.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: July 11, 2023.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-14986 Filed 7-11-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 56484]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19874]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Release of Land Affecting Federal Grant Assurance
Obligations at Paso Robles Municipal Airport, Paso Robles, San Luis
Obispo County, California

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport land.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a
proposal and invites public comment to change a portion of the airport
from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use at Paso Robles Municipal
Airport (PRB), San Luis Obispo County, California. The proposal
consists of one parcel containing 22.07 acres of airport land located
southwest corner of the airport facility North of Airport Road and West
of Satellite Drive.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the request may be mailed or delivered to the
FAA at the following address: Ms. Laurie J. Suttmeier, Manager, San
Francisco Airports District Office, Federal Aviation Administration,
1000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 220, Brisbane, California, 94005-1835. In
addition, one copy of the comment submitted to the FAA must be mailed
or delivered to Mr. Mark Scandalis, Airport Manager, Paso Robles
Municipal Airport, 4912 Wing Way, Paso Robles, California 93446.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The land was originally acquired from the
federal government as surplus land, via quitclaim deed issued by the
War Assets Administration on August 5, 1948. Subsequently, the County
of San Luis Obispo transferred Paso Robles Municipal Airport to the
City of Paso Robles which accepted the airport via Resolution on
December 28, 1972. The land will be leased for non-aeronautical revenue
generation. Such use of the land represents a compatible land use that
will not interfere with the airport or its operation, thereby
protecting the interests of civil aviation. The airport will be
compensated for the fair market value of the use of the land.
    In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5,
2000; 114 Stat. 75), this notice must be published in the Federal
Register 30 days before the DOT Secretary may waive any condition
imposed on a federally obligated airport by surplus property conveyance
deeds or grant agreements.

    Issued in El Segundo, California, on September 9, 2022.
Brian Q. Armstrong,
Manager, Safety and Standards Branch, Airports Division, Western-
Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-19874 Filed 9-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 14876]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05321]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2013-0012]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated December 10, 2012, the Temple and Central Texas Railway (TC) has
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal hours of service laws
contained at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4). FRA assigned the petition Docket
Number FRA-2013-0012.
    In its petition, TC seeks relief from 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4), which,
in part, requires a train employee to receive 48 hours off duty after
initiating an on-duty period for 6 consecutive days. Specifically, TC
seeks a waiver to allow a train employee to initiate an on-duty period
for 6 consecutive days followed by 24 hours off duty. In support of its
request, TC submitted documents demonstrating employee support for the
waiver and a description of its employee work schedules. Additionally,
TC states that the total time on duty per month for its train service
employees would be well below the 276 hours maximum time on duty that
is permitted by law.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received by April 22, 2013 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 4, 2013.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-05321 Filed 3-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: September 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 173)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51744-51747]
[DOCID:fr05se08-12]

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

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM04-7-005]

Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy,
Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities; Order Requesting
Supplemental Comments

Issued August 29, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Order Requesting Supplemental Comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), in
response to requests for rehearing of Order No. 697-A, intends to
revise the definition of the term ``affiliate'' adopted in Order No.
697-A and codified in the Commission's regulations, and seeks
supplemental comments on this issue.

DATES: Comments are due October 20, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle Barnaby (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Paul Silverman (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Paige Bullard (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff.

Order Requesting Supplemental Comments

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) intends to
revise the definition of the term ``affiliate'' adopted in Order No.
697-A and codified in Sec.  35.36(a)(9) of the Commission's
regulations,\1\ in response to issues raised in requests for rehearing
of Order No. 697-A.\2\ To ensure a complete record and full opportunity
of all parties to comment on a revised definition of ``affiliate'' in
this docket, the Commission is seeking supplemental comments on this
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 35.36(a)(9).
    \2\ Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy,
Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 697,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252, clarified, 121 FERC ] 61,260 (2007),
order on reh'g, Order No. 697-A, 73 FR 25832 (May 7, 2008), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,268, clarified, 124 FERC ] 61,055 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. In Order No. 697-A, the Commission clarified that it would
define the term ``affiliate'' for purposes of Order No. 697 and the
affiliate restrictions adopted in Sec.  35.39 of its regulations as
that term is used in the regulations adopted in the Affiliate
Transactions Final Rule.\3\ The Commission stated that it was taking
this action in light of its goal to have a more consistent definition
of affiliate for purposes of both exempt wholesale generators (EWGs)
and non-EWGs to the extent possible, as well as to strengthen the
Commission's ability to ensure that customers are protected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Cross-Subsidization Restrictions on Affiliate Transactions,
Order No. 707, 73 FR 11013 (Feb. 29, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,264 (Feb. 21, 2008) (Affiliate Transactions Final Rule), order on
rehearing, Order No. 707-A, 73 FR 43072 (July 24, 2008), FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 31,272 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Commission explained that in the Affiliate Transactions
Final Rule, it considered the use of the term affiliate in the context
of the Affiliate Transactions Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the
Commission's Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, and other
precedent.\4\ In particular, the Commission considered its order in the
1995 Morgan Stanley case, in which it adopted distinct definitions of
affiliate for EWGs and non-EWGs. The Commission noted there that
section 214 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) required use of the Public
Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA 1935) definition of
affiliate to determine whether an electric utility is an affiliate of
an EWG for purposes of evaluating EWG rates for wholesale sales of
electric energy. The Commission thus stated in Morgan Stanley that the
PUHCA 1935 definition of affiliate would apply to EWGs for matters
arising under Part II of the FPA.\5\ For all other public utilities,
the Commission adopted a definition that in essence treats all
companies under the common control of another company, as well as that
controlling company, as affiliates. The Commission also stated in
Morgan Stanley that a ten percent or greater voting interest creates a
rebuttable presumption of control.\6\ After reviewing the precedent
established in Morgan Stanley, the Commission in the Affiliate
Transactions Final Rule also reviewed FPA section 214 as revised by
EPAct 2005 as well as the affiliate definitions contained in both PUHCA
1935 \7\ and the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 (PUHCA
2005).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Order No. 697-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,268 at P 182
(citing Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc., 72 FERC ] 61,082, at
61,436-37 (1995) (Morgan Stanley)).
    \5\ Morgan Stanley, 72 FERC ] 61,082 at 61,436-37.
    \6\ Id. The Commission did this by adopting the definition of an
affiliate found in its Standards of Conduct for Interstate
Pipelines.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 79a et seq. PUHCA 1935 defines an affiliate as:
    (a) Any person that directly or indirectly owns, controls or
holds with the power to vote, 5 per centum or more of the
outstanding voting securities of such specified company;
    (b) Any company 5 per centum or more of whose outstanding voting
securities are owned, controlled, or held with the power to vote,
directly or indirectly, by such specified company;
    (c) Any individual who is an officer or director of such
specified company, or of any company which is an affiliate thereof
under clause (a) of this paragraph; and
    (d) Any person or class of persons that the [Securities and
Exchange Commission] determines, after appropriate notice and
opportunity for hearing, to stand in such relation to such specified
company that there is liable to be such an absence of arm's-length
bargaining in transactions between them as to make it necessary or
appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of
investors or consumers that such person be subject to the
obligation, duties, and liabilities imposed in this title upon
affiliates of a company.
    \8\ EPAct 2005 at 1261 et seq. Prior to its amendment by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, section 214 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 824m,
read as follows:
    No rate or charge received by an exempt wholesale generator for
the sale of electric energy shall be lawful under section 824d of
this title if, after notice and opportunity for hearing, the
Commission finds that such rate or charge results from the receipt
of any undue preference or advantage from an electric utility which
is an associate company or an affiliate of the exempt wholesale
generator. For purposes of this section, the terms ``associate
company'' and ``affiliate'' shall have the same meaning as provided
in section 2(a) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.
    EPAct 2005 amended section 214 of the FPA by substituting the
reference to the PUHCA 1935 definition of affiliate with a reference
to the PUHCA 2005 definition. PUHCA 2005 defines an affiliate of a
specified company as any company in which the specified company has
a five percent or greater voting interest. Thus, as revised by EPAct
2005, the only EWG affiliate sales that are subject to FPA section
214 are sales by an EWG to a company in which it owns a five percent
or greater voting interest.

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

    4. In Order No. 697-A, the Commission explained that after taking
into account these differing definitions, and recognizing the need to
provide greater clarity and consistency in its rules, the Commission
found in the Affiliate Transactions Final Rule that it was important to
try to adopt a more consistent definition in its various rules and also
one that is sufficiently broad to allow the Commission to protect
customers adequately.\9\ The Commission further explained that on this
basis, the definition of affiliate as adopted in the Affiliate
Transactions Final Rule explicitly incorporated the PUHCA 1935
definition of an affiliate for EWGs, which uses a five percent voting
interest threshold, rather than incorporate it by reference, as
previously had been done. The definition in the Affiliate Transactions
Final Rule also adopted a parallel definition of affiliate for non-
EWGs, but with adjustments to reflect the ten percent voting interest
threshold for non-EWGs that was utilized up to that time and to
eliminate certain language not applicable or necessary in the context
of the FPA. The Commission in Order No. 697-A then adopted in this rule
the same definition of ``affiliate'' that it had adopted in the
Affiliate Transactions Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Order No. 697-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,268 at P 182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Requests for Rehearing

    5. The Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA), the Mirant
Entities (Mirant) \10\ and Reliant Energy, Inc. (Reliant) (together,
petitioners) submitted requests for rehearing of the Commission's
determination in Order No. 697-A to codify in its market-based rate
regulations a definition of affiliate that distinguishes between EWGs
and non-EWGs.\11\ They argue that the Commission erred in adopting a
separate definition for EWGs.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Mirant Entities are Mirant California, LLC, Mirant
Delta, LLC, Mirant Potrero, LLC, Mirant Canal, LLC, Mirant Kendal,
LLC, Mirant Bowline, LLC, Mirant Lovett, LLC, Mirant Chalk Point,
LLC, Mirant Mid-Atlantic, LLC, Mirant Potomac River, LLC, and Mirant
Energy Trading, LLC.
    \11\ Other issues have been raised on rehearing of Order No.
697-A and will be addressed in a subsequent order.
    \12\ EPSA Rehearing Request at 5 (citing Order No. 697-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,268 at P 182-83); Mirant Rehearing Request at 6-
7; Reliant Rehearing Request at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. EPSA states that a five percent ownership threshold for EWGs
imposes substantially greater burdens on EWGs and achieves no useful
regulatory purpose. EPSA contends that the Commission has provided no
reasoned explanation for using a definition derived from PUHCA 1935
that imposes greater burdens, including change in status reporting
obligations, on EWGs than those imposed on other market-based rate
sellers. EPSA maintains that if the Commission is going to promulgate a
definition of affiliate for market-based rate purposes, it should apply
to EWGs the definition adopted in Order No. 697-A for non-EWGs, which
uses a ten percent ownership threshold.\13\ EPSA also argues that the
Commission's promulgation of a separate definition of affiliate for
EWGs was a violation of the notice requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act because the Commission did not signal any intent to do so
either in the market-based rate notice of proposed rulemaking or in
Order No. 697 and did not afford interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the regulatory text.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EPSA Rehearing Request at 19.
    \14\ Id. at 5-6, 13-15 (citing 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Reliant similarly argues that placing disparate burdens on
companies simply because they do or do not hold EWG status is arbitrary
and capricious and not in the public interest. According to Reliant,
the Commission has provided no reasonable basis to maintain two
different definitions for determining affiliates of EWGs and non-EWGs.
Reliant asserts that the only reason that the Commission previously had
adopted a narrower affiliate definition under the market-based rate
program for EWG utilities was its prior belief that FPA section 214 did
not provide sufficient discretion to the Commission to use a different
definition.\15\ However, Reliant states that the Commission effectively
recognized in Order No. 697-A that it is not required by statute to use
the FPA section 214 definition of affiliate for purposes beyond the
narrow scope of section 214 and that, for purposes outside of section
214, it has discretion to adopt an affiliate definition for EWGs that
is different from that contained in section 214.\16\ Reliant argues
that the Commission must not be arbitrary and capricious in the
exercise of that discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Reliant Rehearing Request at 13.
    \16\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Reliant states that it supports the Commission's goal of using
consistent affiliate definitions for all FPA public utilities, but it
asserts that the use of different standards for EWGs and non-EWGs for
FPA purposes (other than the narrow situations that might arise under
section 214 of the FPA) does not achieve that consistency.\17\ Reliant
submits that the Commission has consistently recognized in
administering its market-based rate program that the relevant inquiry
with respect to affiliate relations pertains to control, i.e., whether
a market-based rate seller is controlled by another entity or whether a
market-based rate seller and other sellers are under common control of
the same entity. It notes that the Commission has consistently
concluded that the starting point for assessing control is based on a
standard that begins with the ownership of ten percent or more of a
company's voting securities.\18\ According to Reliant, a lower five
percent standard for EWGs casts too broad a net, with the result being
that EWG public utilities and their owners may be required to impute
affiliation at thresholds significantly below the ten percent standard
applicable to non-EWG utilities. Reliant submits that the Commission
has not explained how this disparate treatment of EWGs is necessary or
appropriate for assessing market power or other purposes under its
market-based rate program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 11.
    \18\ Id. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Reliant therefore argues that the Commission should grant
rehearing and eliminate the PUHCA 1935 definition for EWG affiliates
and use the same definition of affiliate for EWGs that it has adopted
in Order No. 697-A for non-EWG utilities, which Reliant describes as
based on a control standard.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Mirant raises similar arguments. It maintains that the
Commission provided no basis for adopting a five percent voting
interest affiliate test for EWGs when the test for non-EWGs is ten
percent. Mirant argues that the five percent voting interest standard
that has its origin in FPA section 214 applies only to evaluation of
EWG rates and has no relevance to an analysis of control over
generation or the events that should trigger a change in status filing.
Mirant contends that this rulemaking

concerns both the measure of a seller's ability to exercise market
power and the facts that warrant reporting of ``changes in status'' in
a seller's market-based rate docket.\20\ It states that the requirement
that market-based rate sellers report changes in status is based not on
the Commission's concern for the rates and charges of the EWG, but on
the Commission's need to be informed of the potential exercise of
market power through the ownership or control of generation or
transmission. Mirant therefore requests that the Commission analyze the
issue in light of the purposes behind change in status filings and find
that there is no basis for distinguishing between EWGs and non-EWGs in
this context.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Mirant Rehearing Request at 9.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    11. We have carefully considered the legal and policy arguments
petitioners have raised on rehearing in opposition to a separate
definition of affiliate for EWGs. Mirant and Reliant argue that,
although section 214 of the FPA requires the Commission to apply a five
percent standard to certain transactions involving EWGs, the Commission
is not required to use a five percent standard in a definition of
affiliate developed for the general task of assessing market
concentration and market power.\22\ Petitioners argue instead that the
Commission should apply the same standard in its market-based rate
regulations to EWGs and non-EWGs for purposes of determining
affiliation. Having again analyzed FPA section 214, and irrespective of
any Commission precedent to the contrary, we agree that a reasonable
interpretation of FPA section 214 is that it does not require the
Commission to use a five percent threshold affiliate test for EWGs for
all purposes under Part II of the FPA, and in particular for purposes
of analyzing market concentration and market power.\23\ We also find
the arguments in support of a single definition of affiliate,
applicable to both EWGs and non-EWGs, to be persuasive. Upon
reconsideration, therefore, we believe that using the same definition
for EWGs as for non-EWGs is appropriate and that the definition the
Commission adopted in Order No. 697-A for non-EWG utilities would not
affect the substance of the Commission's analysis of market power
issues. This definition is based on the structure of the PUHCA 1935
definition, but modified in several ways, including use of a ten
percent threshold instead of five percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id. at 8-9; Reliant Rehearing Request at 9, 11.
    \23\ Section 214 uses a five percent affiliate threshold with
respect to determining whether the jurisdictional rates of an EWG
are the result of a preference or advantage of an affiliate of the
EWG. While an analysis of market power relates to an EWG's rates, it
does not involve the specific issue of whether an EWG has received
an undue preference or advantage with respect to a particular
wholesale sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Accordingly, the Commission intends to revise the definition of
affiliate in Sec.  35.36(a)(9) of its regulations to delete the
separate definition for EWGs and to revise the non-EWG part of the
definition to delete the phrase ``other than an exempt wholesale
generator.'' Specifically, the revised definition of affiliate in Sec.
35.36(a)(9) would provide that an affiliate of a specified company
means: (a) Any person that directly or indirectly owns, controls, or
holds with power to vote, 10 percent or more of the outstanding voting
securities of the specified company; (b) Any company 10 percent or more
of whose outstanding voting securities are owned, controlled, or held
with power to vote, directly or indirectly, by the specified company;
(c) Any person or class of persons that the Commission determines,
after appropriate notice and opportunity for hearing, to stand in such
relation to the specified company that there is liable to be an absence
of arm's-length bargaining in transactions between them as to make it
necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection
of investors or consumers that the person be treated as an affiliate;
and (d) Any person that is under common control with the specified
company. For purposes of paragraph (a)(9)(i), owning, controlling or
holding with power to vote, less than 10 percent of the outstanding
voting securities of a specified company creates a rebuttable
presumption of lack of control.
    13. We believe this revision will result in fair and consistent
treatment of jurisdictional sellers. Before taking final action in
response to the rehearing comments, however, we seek supplemental
comments on the proposed revised definition of affiliate in Sec.
35.36(a)(9) as discussed above.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    14. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (information
collections) imposed by an agency.\24\ Order No. 697's revisions to the
information collection requirements for market-based rate sellers were
approved under OMB Control Nos. 1902-0234. Order No. 697-A clarified
aspects of the existing information collection requirements for the
market-based rate program, but did not add to those requirements. While
this order requests comments on the Commission's proposal to revise the
definition of affiliate in Sec.  35.36(a)(9) of the Commission's
regulations, it does not add to the existing information collection
requirements for the market-based rate program. Accordingly, a copy of
this order will be sent to OMB for informational purposes only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 5 CFR 1320.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    15. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 \25\ generally requires
either a description and analysis of a rule that will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
or a certification that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.\26\ In this order,
the Commission seeks comment on a revised definition of affiliate in
Sec.  35.36(a)(9) of its regulations, which would apply to EWGs the
definition based on a ten percent voting interest adopted in Order No.
697-A for non-EWGs, rather than using the definition adopted in Order
No. 697-A for EWGs, which is based on a five percent voting interest.
Public utilities seeking and currently possessing market-based rate
authority are currently required to comply with the Commission's
regulations with regard to the definition of affiliate at Sec.
36.36(a)(9) and the revised definition would decrease the number of
entities considered to be affiliates of EWG public utilities. The
Commission therefore concludes that a revised definition of affiliate
in Sec.  35.36(a)(9) should not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \26\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3), citing to section 3 of the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. Section 3 of the Small Business Act defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. The
Small Business Size Standards component of the North American
Industry Classification System defines a small electric utility as
one that, including its affiliates, is primarily engaged in the
generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for
sale and whose total electric output for the preceding fiscal year
did not exceed four million MWh. 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Document Availability

    16. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room

during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888
First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.
    17. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    18. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20546 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58765-58767]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23055]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0593; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-238-AD;
Amendment 39-17200; AD 2012-19-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This AD
was prompted by reports of burned contacts in a certain production
break plug and its corresponding receptacle. This AD requires modifying
galley power supply wiring by disconnecting it from the affected plug/
receptacle and reconnecting the power supply wiring through splices. We
are issuing this AD to prevent a high electrical load, which might lead
to overheating of the galley power supply wiring and/or the electrical
connector and consequent smoke or fire in the galley area, which could
result in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 29, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 29,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax (425)<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2012 (77 FR
34872). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Reports have been received about burned contacts in production
break plug P 4259B and corresponding receptacle J 4259A. After
investigation, it was concluded that the high

electrical load on the contacts M, L and X, in combination with the
electrical loads on the adjacent connections, may have resulted in
these occurrences.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, can lead to
overheating of the galley power supply wiring and/or the electrical
connector and consequent smoke or fire in the galley area, possibly
resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
    For the reasons described above, this [European Aviation Safety
Agency] AD requires modification of the galley power supply wiring
by disconnecting it from the affected plug/receptacle and
reconnecting the power supply wiring through splices.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 34872, June 12,
2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed--except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 34872, June 12, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 34872, June 12, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 4 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $210 per product.
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge
for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators
to be $2,200, or $550 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 34872, June 12, 2012),
the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-19-05 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-17200. Docket No. FAA-
2012-0593; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-238-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 29,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and
0100 airplanes, certificated in any category; serial numbers (S/N)
11340 through 11343 inclusive, 11347, 11348, 11350 through 11356
inclusive, 11359, 11360, 11361, 11367 through 11371 inclusive, 11374
through 11378 inclusive, 11382 through 11385 inclusive, 11387
through 11390 inclusive, 11394 through 11397 inclusive, 11400
through 11423 inclusive, 11425 through 11432 inclusive, 11434
through 11439 inclusive, 11441 through 11453 inclusive, and 11456
through 11585 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical
Power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of burned contacts in a certain
production break plug and its corresponding receptacle. We are
issuing this AD to prevent a high electrical load, which might lead
to overheating of the galley power supply wiring and/or the
electrical connector and consequent smoke or fire in the galley
area, which could result in damage to the airplane and injury to
occupants.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Modification

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the
galley power supply wiring, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-24-044, dated July
14, 2011, including Fokker Manual Change Notification--Maintenance
Documentation MCNM-F100-148, dated July 14, 2011.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2011-0183, dated September 23, 2011; and Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF100-24-044, dated July 14, 2011, including Fokker Manual
Change Notification--Maintenance Documentation MCNM-F100-148, dated
July 14, 2011; for related information.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-24-044, dated July 14, 2011,
including Fokker Manual Change Notification--Maintenance
Documentation MCNM-F100-148, dated July 14, 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150
AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-627-350; fax
+31 (0)252-627-211; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 11, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-23055 Filed 9-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Lata Venkateshwara<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

PP No: 8E8703

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP No: 8E8703) from Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.378

       	1. by establishing (a) general tolerances for the combined residues of the insecticide

cis- and trans-permethrin isomers [cis-(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylate] and [trans-(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylate] in or on the raw agricultural commodities Tea, plucked leaves at 20 parts per million (ppm); Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.05 ppm; Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 5.0 ppm; Celtuce at 5.0 ppm; Fennel, Florence at 5.0 ppm; Cherry subgroup 12-12A at 4.0 ppm; and Peach, subgroup 12-12B at 2.0 ppm.

The petitioner requests the establishment of a (c) tolerance with regional registration, as defined in §180.1(l) for the combined residues of the insecticide cis- and trans-permethrin isomers [cis-(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylate] and [trans-(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylate] in/on Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 2.0 ppm.

Remove established tolerances for the combined residues of the insecticide cis- and trans-permethrin isomers [cis-(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylate] and [trans-(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylate] in/on the following food commodities: Cherry, sweet at 4.0 ppm; Cherry, tart at 4.0 ppm; Leaf petioles subgroup 4B at 5.0 ppm; Peach at 1.0 ppm and Potato at 0.05 ppm.

EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. [The qualitive nature of permethrin residues in plants is adequately understood based on the adequate soybean, cabbage, and sweet corn metabolism studies. These studies, conducted to delineate the metabolism of radiolabelled permethrin, all showed similar results. The parent compound (both cis- and trans-permethrin isomers) is the only residue of concern for both tolerance expression and risk assessment.]

	2. Analytical method. [Adequate gas chromatography (GC) electron capture detection (GC/ECD) methods are available for enforcing tolerances of permethrin per se and are listed in PAM Vol. II (Section 180.378).  Method I is a GC/ECD method for determining permethrin in plant matrices and has a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm for each isomer.  Method II is a GC/ECD method for determining permethrin in animal matrices that has a LOQ of 0.01 ppm for each isomer.  In addition, permethrin is completely recovered using FDA Multiresidue Methods (PAM Vol. I Sections 302 and 304).]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [Field residue trials meeting EPA study requirements have been conducted at the maximum label rate on the representative crops of potatoes, celery, cherries, peaches, and grapes, and the residue of permethrin on tea was evaluated from studies conducted in China and Japan.  Results from the studies demonstrate that the highest permethrin residues found will not exceed the proposed tolerances for Tea, plucked leaves at 20 ppm; Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.05 ppm; Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 5.0 ppm; Celtuce at 5.0 ppm; Fennel, Florence at 5.0 ppm; Cherry subgroup 12-12A at 4.0 ppm; Peach subgroup 12-12B at 2.0 ppm; and Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 2.0 ppm when permethrin is applied following the proposed use directions.]

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  [Permethrin is classified as having low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes.  It was found to be a slight eye and dermal irritant, but is not a skin sensitizer.  Acute oral rat LD50: 3,580 mg/kg (male) and 2,280 mg/kg (female).  Acute dermal rabbit LD50: >2,000 mg/kg.  Acute inhalation rat LC50 >2.08 mg/L.  Primary eye irritation: irritation 24 to 48 hours all cleared by 72 hours.  Acute dermal irritation rabbit: all irritation cleared by 48 hours.  Dermal sensitization guinea pig: non-sensitizer. Acute neurotoxicity: no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL): 25 mg/kg/day.]

	2. Genotoxicty. [Ames assay: negative.  Micronucleus assay: negative.  Unscheduled DNA synthesis: negative.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [Permethrin has been evaluated for potential developmental effects in the rat and rabbit.  No evidence of increased quantitative and/or qualitative susceptibility was seen in these studies.  Maternal toxicity included neurological effects such as tremors in the rat and decreased body weights in the rat and rabbit.  Increased post-implantation loss, decreased offspring size, and decreased ossification were observed in developmental studies in the rat and rabbit.  All effects occurred at maternally toxic doses or above.  The potential reproductive toxicity of permethrin was examined in a two-generation reproduction study in the rat.  No evidence of increased quantitative and/or qualitative susceptibility was seen in the study.  All of the findings in pups were seen at the same doses that caused clinical signs of toxicity and mortality in dams, and the severity of treatment-related effects did not increase in offspring relative to parental animals.  The only effect noted in pups was decreased size, occurring at the same dose as tremors in maternal animals.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [Permethrin has been evaluated for toxicological effects in guideline subchronic toxicity studies.  Behavioral changes such as muscle tremors, hyperthermia, aggression, and hypersensitivity, were seen in the toxicological studies which included a subchronic neurotoxicity study in the rat (NOEL 100 mg/kg/day) and subchronic studies in the rat and dog (NOEL of 110 and 100 mg/kg/day, respectively).  Tremors were the most common indication of neurotoxicity; however, decreased motor activity from the acute oral study in the rat (Wolansky, et al., 2006) provides the most sensitive endpoint (BMDL1SD = 44.0 mg/kg/day).]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [A chronic endpoint has not been selected for permethrin because repeated exposure does not result in a point of departure lower than that resulting from acute exposure; therefore, the acute dietary risk assessment is protective of chronic dietary risk.]

	6. Animal metabolism. [Based on adequate metabolism studies conducted in ruminants and poultry, the metabolism of permethrin in animals is adequately understood.  The residues of concern in animals include cis- and trans-permethrin for purposes of both tolerance expression and risk assessments.]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [The Agency has previously determined that the metabolites of permethrin are not of toxicological concern and need not be included in the tolerance expression.]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [Tier 1 studies investigating potential estrogenic or other endocrine effects of permethrin have been conducted.  No evidence of such effects was reported in these or in the standard battery of required toxicology studies, which have been completed and found acceptable.  Based on these studies, there is no evidence to suggest that permethrin has an adverse effect on the endocrine system.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [Tolerances have been established for the residues of permethrin, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities.  Tolerances, in support of registrations, currently exist for residues of permethrin on the following crops:  alfalfa (forage and hay), almond, almond hulls, artichoke (globe), asparagus, avocado, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, cherry (sweet and tart), corn (field, including forage, grain, and stover), corn (pop, including grain and stover), corn (sweet, including forage, kernel, and stover), eggplant, pome fruit (crop group 11), garlic (bulb), grain aspirated fractions, hazelnut, horseradish, kiwifruit, leaf petioles (crop subgroup 4B), leafy greens (crop subgroup 4A), lettuce (head), mushroom, onion (bulb), peach, pepper (bell), pistachio, potato, soybean (seed), spinach, tomato, vegetables (cucurbit crop group 9), walnut, and watercress.  Permethrin tolerances with regional registrations have been established for collards, papaya, and turnips (tops and roots). Also, tolerances exist for the livestock commodities of grass (forage and hay) as well as cattle (fat, meat, and meat byproducts), goat (fat, meat, and meat byproducts), hog (fat, meat, and meat byproducts), horse (fat, meat, and meat byproducts), poultry (fat, meat, and meat byproducts), sheep (fat, meat, and meat byproducts), egg, and milk (fat).  In June 2017, to support Registration Review of permethrin, EPA conducted acute, chronic, and cancer dietary (food and drinking water) exposure and risk assessments using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.18, which uses 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA).]

	i. Food. [a. Acute Exposure.  A highly-refined probabilistic (Monte-Carlo) acute dietary exposure and risk assessment was conducted on permethrin for all current food uses and drinking water. An acute reference dose (aRfD) of 0.44 mg/kg/day was established based on the lower 95% confidence limit of the benchmark dose value (BMDL1SD) of 44 mg/kg/day from a motor activity acute study in rats and an uncertainty factor (UF) of 100 to account for inter-species and intra-species variation. EPA has determined that the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF) of 1X is applicable for general U.S. population and children >= 6 and FQPA SF of 3X for children < 6 years old.  Therefore, the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) for general population and children >= 6 years old is equivalent to the aRfD of 0.44 mg/kg/day and aPAD for children < 6 years old is 0.147 mg/kg/day. Permethrin residue estimates used in this assessment include cis- and trans-permethrin, reported by the Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) of U.S. EPA.  The residue estimates are based primarily on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data.  Both empirical and default processing values were used in the assessment.  the acute dietary exposure and risk estimates do not exceed HED's level of concern (less than 100% of the acute population-adjusted dose (aPAD)) at the 99.9[th] exposure percentile for the general U.S. population (2.6% of the aPAD) and all population subgroups.  The most highly exposed population subgroup is children 3-5 years old at 20% of the aPAD.  FMC concludes that based on adequate % aPAD for all population subgroups there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the proposed additional uses of permethrin on grapes and tea (plucked leaves).

b. Chronic Exposure.  [A chronic dietary endpoint has not been selected for permethrin because repeated exposure does not result in a point of departure lower than that resulting from acute exposure; therefore, the acute dietary risk assessment is protective of chronic dietary risk.]

	ii. Drinking water. [Modeled surface water estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) were included in the assessments.  The EDWCs used in the acute, chronic, and cancer dietary assessments were previously provided by EPA Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) in the following memorandum: "Second Revision Tier II Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations of Permethrin (PC Code # 109701; DP Barcode D324197)" (J. Melendez, D324197, 17-JAN-2006).  The Tier II EDWCs of permethrin were calculated using the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS: surface water) and the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW; ground water) models.  The EDWAs were calculated based on a maximum application rate of 2.0 lb ai/A and were calculated using the "Georgia onion" scenario.  The groundwater screening concentrations were lower than the surface water concentrations; therefore, the acute, chronic, and cancer dietary assessments used the surface water EDWCs of 0.00479 ppm, 0.000901 ppm, and 0.000751 ppm, respectively.  Water residues were incorporated into the DEEM-FCID food categories of "water, direct, all sources" and "water, indirect, all sources."]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [The aggregate residential exposure analyses were based on conservative screening-level assumptions.  The residential risk assessments resulted in acceptable MOEs and a clear indication of reasonable certainty of no harm.  The short-term analyses, all of the route- and product-specific MOEs were greater than 100 and the aggregate MOEs were greater than 100 for all population subgroups.  Based on the above information, FMC concludes that permethrin does not pose a risk due to short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure.]

D. Cumulative Effects 	[The Health Effects Division of US EPA performed a cumulative risk assessment for the pyrethroids and pyrethrins as a class (D394576, 10/4/2011, K. Whitby).  This risk assessment included a dietary exposure analysis in which it was concluded that there were no dietary risks of concern for the pyrethroids and pyrethrins.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [The Tier 3 acute dietary exposure analyses at the 99.9[th] percentile for the general U.S. Population is 0.011495 mg/kg/day and utilizes 2.6% of the aPAD of 0.44 mg/kg/day.  In addition, the acute exposure estimates for population subgroups of concern (infants and children) indicate that the maximum %aPAD or %cPAD utilized is 20% (aPAD).  A chronic dietary endpoint has not been selected for permethrin because repeated exposure does not result in a point of departure lower than that resulting from acute exposure. Based on this information FMC concludes that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute and chronic exposure to permethrin.]

	 	2. Infants and children. [ i. General.  In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of permethrin, FMC considered data from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit, a developmental neurotoxicity study, and a two-generation reproduction study in the rat.  The developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism resulting from pesticide exposure during prenatal development to pregnant animals.  Reproduction studies provide information relating to effects from exposure on reproductive organs or reproduction.  FFDCA Section 408 provides that the EPA may apply an additional margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and completeness of the database.

ii.  Developmental toxicity studies.  In the rabbit developmental study, the maternal LOAEL was 600 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gain while no maternal NOAEL was observed. The developmental NOAEL was 600 mg/kg/day based on increased post-implantation loss, greater numbers of early and late resorptions, and decreased ossification at LOAEL of 1200 mg/kg/day. In the rat developmental study, the maternal NOAEL was 50 mg/kg/day, based on clinical signs of toxicity receiving the LOAEL of 150 mg/kg/day. The developmental NOAEL was 600 mg/kg/day based on decrease in fetal body weights and an increase in the incidence rate of short length extra ribs receiving LOAEL of 1200 mg/kg/day.

iii.  Developmental neurotoxicity study.  The developmental neurotoxicity study has been waived for the pyrethroids as a class, including permethrin (TXR# 0055306, E. Scollon, 20-JAN-2010).

iv.  Reproductive toxicity study.  In the rat reproduction study, parental NOAEL was 50 mg/kg/day based on tremors at the LOAEL of 125 mg/kg/day.  There were no developmental (pup) or reproductive effects up to 125 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested).

v. Conclusion.  Children 1 to 2 years old had the highest acute dietary (food and drinking water) exposure estimate; therefore, an acute aggregate assessment was conducted for children 1 to <2 years old as well as the general US population.  No chronic aggregate assessment was conducted because the acute dietary risk assessment is protective of chronic dietary risk.  Using the estimated drinking water and food exposure described above, and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the acute aggregate exposure assessments utilized no more than 2.6% of the aPAD for the entire U.S. population and no more than 20% of the aPAD for the most highly exposed population subgroup of children 3-5 years old.  Since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the cRfD or aRfD, it may be concluded that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general U.S. population and infants and children from the acute aggregate exposure to permethrin residues.]

F. International Tolerances

	[The Codex has established MRLs for permethrin on Tea, plucked leaves at 20 ppm, Potato at 0.05 ppm, Celery at 2.0 ppm, Apple, Crabapple, Loquat, Mayhaw, Pear, Asian pear, and Quince at 2.0 ppm, Cherry, sweet and tart at 2.0 ppm, Peach and Nectarine at 2.0 ppm, and Grape at 2.0 ppm.


[Federal Register: December 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 247)]
[Notices]
[Page 78862-78864]
[DOCID:fr23de08-124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59104; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-117]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Amend
Exchange Rule 4.21 Relating to Third Party Deposits

December 15, 2008.
    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 December 2, 2008, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or
``Exchange'') proposes to amend CBOE Rule 4.21--Third Party Deposits
Prohibited, to add an interpretation that includes certain permissive
deposits. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/Legal), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The proposed amendment to Exchange Rule 4.21 would expand the
permissive deposits to checks or funds transfers for deposit to a
broker-dealer's account (i) that constitute an award or settlement paid
as the result of the resolution of litigation or arbitration which
arose in connection with the broker-dealer's securities or futures
business; (ii) that are drawn on an account of the government of the
United States; or (iii) are drawn on the account of another broker-
dealer for satisfaction of the resolution of transaction disputes. This
rule filing has been undertaken as a result of recommendations by the
Exchange's Member Firm community.
    The rule was intended to prohibit member organizations that are
engaged in the business of clearing and carrying the accounts of
options market-makers (``Clearing Firm'') from accepting for deposit
into an account cleared or carried by the Clearing Firm a check or
funds transfer drawn on the account of a third party. Pursuant to
Exchange Rule 4.21, Clearing Firms are prohibited (with certain
exceptions) from accepting a check or funds transfer if the name on the
account from which the funds are drawn is different (i.e., ``third
party'') from the name on the account cleared or carried by the
Clearing Firm. In addition to checks or funds transfers from third
parties, the rule also prohibits (with certain exceptions) Clearing
Firms from accepting deposits or transfers of securities in the name of
third parties.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed exceptions do not present
any concerns or business risks to the clearing firm that the original
rule was intended to address. While Clearing Firms make a reasonable
effort to confirm that funds deposited via a third party's check are
the property of the market-maker or market-making entity, and the
transaction exhibits no obvious improprieties, repercussions can arise
later. However, the exceptions set forth in the proposed Interpretation
and Policy .03, are such that demonstrate a legal entitlement to a
broker-dealer to receive the check or fund transfer. For example, a
floor broker that is registered as a broker-dealer may be required to
reimburse another broker-dealer as a result of a trading error. This
proposed rule amendment would enable a broker-dealer to deposit these
funds directly into the broker-dealer's account at the clearing firm.
    Finally, while each Clearing Firm could make a business decision to
refuse to accept third party checks, funds transfers and securities,
the Exchange continues to believe that this rule establishes a uniform,
safe practice.
2. Statutory Basis
    Exchange Rule 4.21 is intended to promote a greater level of
financial safety and soundness across Clearing Firms. The proposed
amendment will allow clearing firms some flexibility in complying with
these requirements to facilitate routine business transactions. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes will strengthen its
ability to carry out its oversight responsibilities as a self-
regulatory organization and reinforce its surveillance and enforcement
functions. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\3\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that
it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, facilitate
transactions in securities, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2008-117 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-117. 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 inspection and
copying 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 will also be available for inspection and copying
at the principal office of the self-regulatory organization. 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-CBOE-2008-117 and should be
submitted on or January 13, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-30408 Filed 12-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28616]
[FR Doc No: E9-14240]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R05-OAR-2008-0031; FRL-8919-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the EPA is
withdrawing the May 5, 2009 (74 FR 20599), direct final rule approving
a rule revision to extend Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit
renewal terms from five years to ten years. The State of Indiana
submitted this revision as a modification to the State Implementation
Plan on December 19, 2007. In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if
adverse comments were submitted by June 4, 2009, the rule would be
withdrawn and not take effect. On May 19, 2009, EPA received a comment.
EPA believes this comment is adverse and, therefore, EPA is withdrawing
the direct final rule. EPA will address the comment in a subsequent
final action based upon the proposed action also published on May 5,
2009 (74 FR 20665). EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 74 FR 20599 on May 5, 2009,
is withdrawn as of June 17, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam Portanova, Environmental Engineer,
Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), USEPA, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 4, 2009.
Walter W. Kovalick Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 52.770 published in the Federal
Register on May 5, 2009 (74 FR 20599) on page 20601 is withdrawn as of
June 17, 2009.

[FR Doc. E9-14240 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 20838-20839]
[DOCID:fr21ap10-57]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0380; FRL-FRL-9140-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations, EPA ICR Number 1716.06, OMB Control Number
2060-0324

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0380, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Marshall, Jr., Office of
Compliance, Mail Code: 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-7021; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 8, 2009 (74 FR 34583), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0380, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations
(Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1716.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0324.

    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2010. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A and any changes, or
additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ.
Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit a one-time-
only report of any physical or operational changes, initial performance
tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also
required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required semiannually.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 45
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Wood furniture manufacturing
operations.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 750.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, quarterly,
semiannually and annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 47,189.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $4,456,012, which includes $4,438,012
in labor costs, $0 in capital/startup costs, and $18,000 in operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There are no changes in the respondent
labor hours in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to
two considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the past
three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three
years; and (2) the growth rate for the respondents is very low,
negative or non-existent. Therefore, the labor hours in the previous
ICR reflect the current burden to the respondents and are reiterated
(with a correction for rounding) in this ICR. It should be noted that
there is an apparent decrease of one hour in the total labor hours for
this ICR. Total labor hours for this ICR are 47,189 rather than 47,190
as in the previous ICR. This is due to rounding of the various cost
figures.
    There is an increase in both respondent and Agency labor costs
resulting from labor rate increases from 2003 to 2009.

    Dated: April 15, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-9168 Filed 4-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32105-32106]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 139

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0247; Notice No. 11-01]
RIN 2120-AJ70

Safety Enhancements Part 139, Certification of Airports;
Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); Reopening of comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA published a proposed rule on February 1, 2011, to
establish minimum standards for training of personnel who access the
airport non-movement area (ramp and apron) to help prevent accidents
and incidents in that area. This proposal would require a certificate
holder to conduct pavement surface evaluations to ensure reliability of
runway surfaces in wet weather conditions. This proposed action would
also require a Surface Movement Guidance Control System (SMGCS) plan if
the certificate holder conducts low visibility operations, facilitating
the safe movement of aircraft and vehicles in low visibility
conditions. Finally, this proposal would clarify the applicability of
part 139 and explicitly prohibit fraudulent or intentionally false
statements in a certificate application or record required to be
maintained. After the comment period closed, the FAA became aware that
the initial regulatory evaluation had not been posted to the rulemaking
docket. This action reopens the comment period to allow the public to
review and comment on that document, which is now in the docket.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published on February 1, 2011
(76 FR 5510), closed on April 4, 2011, and was reopened (76 FR 20570)
April 13, 2011, until May 13, 2011. This document reopens the comment
period until July 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0247 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room
W12-140, West

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA dockets, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Langert, AAS-300, Office of
Airports Safety and Standards, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 493-
4529; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the ``Additional Information'' section
for information on how to comment on this proposal and how the FAA will
handle comments received. The ``Additional Information'' section also
contains related information about the docket, privacy, the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. In addition, there is
information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.

Background

    On February 1, 2011, the FAA issued Notice No. 11-01, entitled
``Safety Enhancements Part 139, Certification of Airports'' (76 FR
5510). The comment period closed on April 4, 2011. On April 13, 2011,
the FAA reopened the comment period for 30 days to allow additional
opportunity to comment on the NPRM (76 FR 20570). The comment period
then closed on May 13, 2011.
    During the comment period, several commenters stated the FAA's
economic evaluation for this proposed rule was not available for review
and comment. That document is now in the rulemaking docket. The FAA
recognizes additional time is necessary to review and comment on the
initial regulatory evaluation.

Reopening of Comment Period

    In accordance with Sec.  11.47(c) of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, the FAA has determined that re-opening of the comment
period is consistent with the public interest, and that good cause
exists for taking this action. To accomplish the strategies for
providing additional information to the public, the FAA has determined
that re-opening the comment period is consistent with the public
interest, and that good cause exists for this action. Absent unusual
circumstances, the FAA does not anticipate any further extension of the
comment period for this rulemaking.
    Accordingly, the comment period for Notice No. 11-01 is reopened
until July 5, 2011.

Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
Notice No. 11-01. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change,
and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on Notice
11-1, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the
closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after
the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.
    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Do not file
proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such
information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document, and
marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting information on a
disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM, and identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this Notice 11-01,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 25, 2011.
Michael J. O'Donnell,
Director of Airport Safety and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2011-13824 Filed 6-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P