[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 180 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55761-55762]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23342]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0849]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; New Jersey Intracoastal
Waterway, Atlantic City, NJ and Delaware River, Delair, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedules that govern the AMTRAK Bridge over Beach Thorofare,
New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, mile 68.9, at Atlantic City, NJ, and
the AMTRAK Bridge over Delaware River, mile 104.6, at Delair, NJ. This
deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position to facilitate the 2015 Papal Visit to Philadelphia, PA.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 5 a.m. on September 26, 2015,
to 3 a.m. on September 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0849], is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-
6222, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New Jersey Transit, who owns and
operates the AMTRAK Bridge over Beach Thorofare and AMTRAK Bridge over
Delaware River, has requested a temporary deviation from the current
operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.733(d) and 117.716,
respectively, to facilitate movement of trains during the 2015 Papal
Visit to Philadelphia, PA.
    Under the normal operating schedule for the AMTRAK Bridge over
Beach

Thorofare, New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, mile 68.9, at Atlantic
City, NJ; the bridge shall open on signal from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.; from
6 a.m. to 11 p.m., open on signal from 20 minutes to 30 minutes after
each hour and remain open for all waiting vessels; opening of the draw
may be delayed for ten minutes except as provide in 33 CFR 117.31(b);
However, if a train is moving toward the bridge and has crossed the
home signal for the bridge before the signal requesting the opening of
the bridge is given, that train may continue across the bridge and must
clear the bridge interlocks before stopping. Under the normal operating
schedule for the AMTRAK Bridge over Delaware River, mile 104.6, at
Delair, NJ, the bridgeneed not open when there is a train in the bridge
block approaching the bridge with the intention of crossing, or within
five minutes of the known time of the passage of a scheduled passenger
train; the opening of a bridge may not be delayed for more than 10
minutes, after the signal to open is given. The vertical clearances in
the closed-to-navigation position of the AMTRAK Bridge over Beach
Thorofare and AMTRAK Bridge over Delaware River are 5 feet and 49 feet,
respectively, above mean high water.
    Under this temporary deviation, the bridges will not be required to
open on signal or within ten minutes of a signal from 5 a.m. on
September 26, 2015, to 3 a.m. on September 28, 2015. Mariners
requesting an opening shall provide at least one hour notice and may be
required to adjust their voyage plan to transit through the bridge at a
specified time. Beach Thorofare, New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway is
used by a variety of vessels including small commercial fishing
vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Delaware
River is used by a variety of vessels including deep draft ocean-going
vessels, small commercial fishing vessels, recreational vessels and tug
and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the
restrictions with commercial and recreational waterway users.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridges in the closed position may
do so at anytime. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies and
there is no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the
bridges in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the
users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners of the change in operating schedules for these bridges so that
vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by
this temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to
their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the
effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the
operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: September 10, 2015.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-23342 Filed 9-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1758-1759]
[FR Doc No: 2012-316]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66105; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-108]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending its Price
List To Eliminate the Clerk Badge Fee and the e-Broker Hand Held Device
Fee

January 5, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on December 30, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to eliminate the
Clerk Badge fee and the e-Broker Hand Held Device fee (the ``Hand Held
Device fee''). The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange's principal office, at www.nyse.com, at the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and at the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to eliminate the
Clerk Badge fee and the Hand Held Device fee.
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the $1,000 per year Clerk Badge
fee and the $5,000 per year fee for Hand Held Devices because it
believes the transaction fees and the annual trading license fee \3\
adequately cover any costs related to such equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The annual trading license fee is paid by those members who
are members of both the Exchange and New York Stock Exchange LLC and
the fee is charged pursuant to the New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE'') Price List and covers trading on both the NYSE and the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to make the rule change operative on January
1, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\4\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ in
particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes
that the proposal constitutes an equitable allocation of fees, as all
similarly situated member organizations will be subject to the same fee
structure and access to the Exchange's market is offered on fair and
non-discriminatory terms. The elimination of the Clerk Badge fee and
the Hand Held Device fee

is reasonable because the fees are not currently a significant source
of revenue and the Exchange can instead cover any related costs via
transaction fees and the annual trading license fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \6\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \7\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the NYSE Amex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-108 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-108. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-108 and should
be submitted on or before February 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-316 Filed 1-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 58795]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24053]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold a meeting
on Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (ET).

PLACE: The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (ET) and will be open to
the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors
will open at 9:00 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The
meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: On October 24, 2019, the Commission issued
notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10721), indicating that
the meeting is open to the public (except during that portion of the
meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch), and
inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This
Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a quorum of the Commission
may attend the meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes: Welcome remarks; a discussion
regarding whether investors use environmental, social, and governance
(ESG) data in investment/capital allocation decisions; a discussion
regarding the SEC's Concept Release on Harmonization of Securities
Offering Exemptions; subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic
administrative work session during lunch.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed;
please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 29, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-24053 Filed 10-30-19; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 95992]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31445]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677; FRL-9956-88]

Receipt of Information Under the Toxic Substances Control Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing its receipt of information submitted
pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement issued under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by TSCA, this document
identifies each chemical substance and/or mixture for which information
has been received; the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance
and/or mixture; and describes the nature of the information received.
Each chemical substance and/or mixture related to this announcement is
identified in Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
John Schaeffer, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8173; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Chemical Substances and/or Mixtures

    Information received about the following chemical substance and/or
mixture is identified in Unit IV.: 2-Oxiranemethanamine, N-[4-(2-
oxiranylmethoxy)phenyl]-N-(2-oxiranylmethyl)-(CASRN 5026-74-4).

II. Authority

    Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a
notice in the Federal Register reporting the receipt of information
submitted pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement promulgated
under TSCA section 4 (15 U.S.C. 2603).

III. Docket Information

    A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this Federal Register
document, which announces the receipt of the information. Upon EPA's
completion of its quality assurance review, the information received
will be added to the docket identified in Unit IV., which represents
the docket used for the TSCA section 4 rule, order, and/or consent
agreement. In addition, once completed, EPA reviews of the information
received will be added to the same docket. Use the docket ID number
provided in Unit IV. to access the information received and any
available EPA review.
    EPA's dockets are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

IV. Information Received

    As specified by TSCA section 4(d), this unit identifies the
information received by EPA: 2-Oxiranemethanamine, N-[4-(2-
oxiranylmethoxy)phenyl]-N-(2-oxiranylmethyl)-(CASRN 5026-74-4).
    1. Chemical Use: 2-Oxiranemethanamine, N-[4-(2-
oxiranylmethoxy)phenyl]-N-(2-oxiranylmethyl)- is used in resin and
synthetic rubber manufacturing and aerospace and parts manufacturing.
    2. Applicable Rule, Order, or Consent Agreement: Chemical testing
requirements for third group of high production volume chemicals
(HPV3), 40 CFR 799.5089.
    3. Applicable docket ID number: The information received will be
added to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112.
    4. Information Received: EPA received the following information:
    [ssquf] Equivalence Data: Oral (Gavage) Pre-Natal Developmental
Toxicity Study in the Rat.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: December 19, 2016.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2016-31445 Filed 12-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29126-29128]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13345]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80990; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2017-67]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

June 21, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on June 9, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule''). The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule to modify
the criteria for achieving various credits, including by broadening the
qualifying order flow and trading activity, to make the different
qualifications more achievable to a variety of market participants.
    Currently, the Exchange provides a number of incentives for OTP
Holders and OTP Firms (collectively, ``OTPs'') designed to encourage
OTPs to direct additional order flow to the Exchange to achieve more
favorable pricing and higher credits. Among these incentives are
enhanced posted liquidity credits based on achieving certain
percentages of NYSE Arca Equity daily activity, also known as ``cross-
asset pricing.'' In addition, certain of the qualifications for
achieving these incentives are more tailored to specific activity
(i.e., posting in Penny Pilot issues only, or cross-asset pricing based
only on levels of Retail Orders on the NYSE Arca Equity Market).
Similarly, because the Exchange allows Order Flow Providers (``OFP''s)
to aggregate their volume executed on NYSE Arca with affiliated or
Appointed Market Makers, OFPs may encourage an increased level of
activity from these participants to qualify for various incentives,
including higher credits for Customers or Professional Customer orders.
As a result, NYSE Arca becomes a more attractive venue for Customer
(and Professional Customer) orders offering enhanced rebates. To
further incent OFPs to direct order flow to the Exchange, the Exchange
proposes to allow participants to combine their Customer activity with
their Market Maker activity in an effort to achieve certain enhanced
rebates.
    Pursuant to the Customer and Professional Customer Monthly Posting
Credit Tiers and Qualifications for Executions in Penny Pilot Issues
(the ``Penny Credit Tiers''), Customer and Professional Customer orders
that post liquidity and are executed on the Exchange earn a base credit
of $0.25 per contract, with the ability to earn increased credits based
on the participant's activity. There are currently seven Penny Credit
Tiers with associated qualifications. The Exchange is not proposing any
change to Penny Credit Tiers 1 through 5.
    Regarding current Penny Credit Tier 6, an OTP is eligible to
achieve a credit of $0.48 per contract, provided the OTP has (i) at
least 0.35% of Total Industry Customer equity and ETF option ADV
(``TCADV'') from Customer and Professional Customer Posted Orders in
all Issues, and (ii) Executed ADV of 0.80% of U.S. Equity Market Share
Posted and Executed on NYSE Arca Equity Market. The Exchange proposes
to add an alternative qualification basis to Tier 6, which would enable
an OTP to qualify for the $0.48 per contract credit, provided the OTP
has (i) at least 0.50% of TCADV from Customer and Professional Customer
Posted orders in all Issues, and (ii) at least 0.45% of TCADV from
Market Maker Total Electronic Volume.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to rename current Penny Credit
Tier 7 as Tier 8, and to add a new Tier 7 with an associated credit of
$0.49 per contract. As proposed, OTPs may qualify for the new Tier 7 by
achieving a level of at least 0.50% of TCADV from Customer and
Professional Customer Posted orders in all Issues, plus at least 0.60%
of TCADV from Market Maker Total Electronic Volume.
    The Exchange is also proposing a small clarifying change to the
Penny Credit Tiers by replacing ``Total Industry Customer equity and
ETF option average daily volume'' with ``TCADV'' and explaining the
abbreviation with a note at the bottom of the table referenced by an
asterisk in the table header.
    Next, the Exchange proposes to modify the Customer and Professional
Customer Incentive Program (the ``Incentive Program'') by replacing two
of the possible incentives that are based solely on Market Maker Posted
Orders with new incentives that combine a level of Market Maker Total
Electronic Volume and Customer and Professional Customer volume.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to no longer provide an additional
$0.01 per contract credit for OTPs that achieve an ADV from Market
Maker Posted Orders equal to 0.80% of TCADV. Instead, the Exchange
proposes to offer an additional $0.01 per contract credit incentive for
an OTP that

achieves at least 0.50% of TCADV from Customer and Professional
Customer Posted Orders in all Issues, plus an ADV from Market Maker
Posted Orders in Penny Pilot Issues equal to at least 0.30% of Total
Industry Customer equity and ETF option ADV. The Exchange notes that an
OTP that achieves this incentive would be qualified for Penny Credit
Tier 3 (which requires an OTP achieve at least 0.40% of TCADV from
Customer and Professional Customer Posted Orders in all Issues).\4\ The
Exchange also proposes to replace the current additional $0.02 per
contract rebate available under the Incentive Program, earned by
achieving an ADV from Market Maker Posted Orders equal to 1.40% of
TCADV, with a new $0.03 per contract rebate that is earned by achieving
an ADV from Market Maker Total Electronic Volume of at least 0.60% of
TCADV, plus at least 0.10% of TCADV from Customer and Professional
Customer Posted Orders in non-Penny Pilot Issues. By encouraging
additional activity from affiliated or Appointed Market Makers, the
Exchange hopes to encourage a broader spectrum of business and, in
turn, to increase liquidity and opportunities to trade on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange notes that the qualifying OTP would be eligible
to receive both the $0.45 per contract credit available for
achieving Tier 3 as well as the $0.01 per contract credit available
for achieving the proposed threshold in the Incentive Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing modifications to the Customer and
Professional Customer Posting Credit Tiers in Non-Penny Pilot Issues
(``Non-Penny Credit Tiers'') that would enable OTPs to include volume
from an affiliated or Appointed Market Maker to achieve these Tiers.
There are currently four Non-Penny Tiers Credit Tiers. The Exchange is
not proposing any change to Non-Penny Credit Tiers A or B. The Exchange
proposes to rename current Tier C to Tier D and to add a new Tier C. As
proposed, new Tier C will be achieved by meeting at least 0.50% TCADV
from Customer and Professional Customer Posted Order executions in all
Issues, plus an ADV from Market Maker Total Electronic Volume equal to
0.45% of TCADV. OTPs that qualify for proposed Tier C will receive a
credit of $0.94 per contract. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to
designate the current Non-Penny Credit Tier D as Tier F, and introduce
a new Tier E. As proposed, new Tier E will be achieved by meeting at
least 0.50% of TCADV from Customer and Professional Customer posted
orders in all issues, plus an ADV from Market Maker Total Electronic
Volume equal to 0.60% of TCADV. OTPs that qualify for proposed Tier E
will receive a credit of $1.00 per contract.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend endnote 8 of the Fee Schedule
to clarify make clear [sic] that the Exchange is adopting the term
``Market Maker Total Electronic Volume,'' which is calculated on the
same basis as Customer volumes, in that Electronic Complex Order
Executions, QCC Transactions, and executions of orders routed to
another market are not included. By defining long standing practice,
the Exchange believes this adds clarity to the calculation of Market
Maker Total Electronic Volume, and is consistent with the treatment of
Customer volumes. Complex strategies carry no market making obligations
beyond making markets for simple executions in the component legs of
the strategy; for this reason they are not included in Total Electronic
Market Maker Volume. Similarly, QCCs are negotiated transactions that
neither post nor take liquidity, and therefore QCCs do not interact
with Market Makers quotes. Market Maker orders routed to another market
do not contribute to activity on NYSE Arca, and are therefore not
included.
    The Exchange is also correcting two minor typographical errors
within the Fee Schedule, placing a hyphen between ``Non'' and ``Penny''
in the header of ``Customer and Professional Customer Posting Credit
Tiers In Non Penny Pilot Issues'', and removing an underlined space in
``Credit Applied to Posted Electronic Customer and Professional
Customer Executions in Penny Pilot Issues'', which should add clarity
to the Fee Schedule.
    Finally, given the proposed increase in the number of Penny Credit
Tiers from seven to eight, the Exchange proposes to make clear that
OTPs that achieve Tier 6, 7, or 8, (rather than just Tier 6 or 7) will
be capped at $65,000 under the Firm and Broker Dealer Monthly Fee Cap.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\6\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that providing alternative qualifications for
the Penny and Non-Penny Credit Tiers and the Incentive Program is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because, among
other things, it increases the methods of qualifying for greater
credits through the inclusion of affiliated or appointed Market Maker
volume. The proposed changes would also provide additional means (via
the proposed new Tiers) for OTPs to qualify for credits for posting
volume on the Exchange. By providing alternative methods to qualify for
a Tier or an Incentive, the Exchange believes the opportunities to
qualify for rebates is increased, which benefits all participants
through both increased Customer (and Professional Customer) volume and
increased Market Maker activity. The Exchange notes that allowing
participants to aggregate volume is not new or novel.\7\ To the extent
that order flow which adds liquidity is increased by the proposal,
market participants will increasingly compete for the opportunity to
trade on the Exchange, including sending more orders to reach higher
tiers or rebates. The resulting increased volume and liquidity will
benefit all Exchange participants by providing more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See e.g., NASDAQ Options Market--Fees and Rebates, Section
2, available here, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=optionsPricing (providing for qualification of tiers/
rebates on the basis of customer and market maker volume); Bats BZX
Options Fee Schedule, fn 1, Customer Penny Pilot Add Tiers,
available here, https://www.bats.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/ (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed changes would be available
to all similarly-situated market participants on an equal and non-
discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes the proposed modifications
are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they
encourage more participants to qualify for the various incentives,
including encouraging more participants to have affiliated or appointed
order flow directed to the Exchange. Further, encouraging Market Makers
to send higher volumes of orders to the Exchange would also contribute
to the Exchange's depth of book as well as to the top of book
liquidity.
    The credits are also reasonable as they are within the current
range of credits on posted Customer and Professional Customer orders.
    Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed non-substantive changes
to

the Fee Schedule are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would add clarity, transparency and internal
consistency to the Fee Schedule.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\8\ the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed
changes would encourage competition, including by attracting additional
liquidity to the Exchange, which would continue to make the Exchange a
more competitive venue for, among other things, order execution and
price discovery. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change
would impair the ability of any market participants or competing order
execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets. Further, the incentive would be available to all
similarly-situated participants, and, as such, the proposed change
would not impose a disparate burden on competition either among or
between classes of market participants and may, in fact, encourage
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \10\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \11\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-67 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-NYSEArca-2017-67. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-67, and should
be submitted on or before July 18, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13345 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 66522-66523]
[DOCID:fr15no06-56]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0743; FRL-8101-8]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petition for Establishment of
Regulations for Residues of Cymoxanil in or on Caneberry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide petition
proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of cymoxanil in
or on caneberry.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 15, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0743 and pesticide petition number (PP)
6E7100, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0743. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of a pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment of regulations in 40 CFR part
180.503 for residues of cymoxanil in or on caneberry. EPA has
determined that this pesticide petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however,
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at
this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide
petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on this
pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of
cymoxanil residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at http://www.regulations.gov/.
 To locate this information on the home page of

EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the OPP
docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking on
the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the docket
for the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerance

    PP 6E7100. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500
College Road East, Suite 201 West, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes to
establish a tolerance for residues of the fungicide, cymoxanil, 2-
cyano-N-[(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2-(methoxyimino) acetamide in or on
caneberry at 4.0 parts per million (ppm).
    An analytical enforcement method is available for determining these
plant residues by high performance level chromatography (HPLC) with
ultraviolet (UV) detection. The limit of quantitation allows monitoring
of crops with cymoxanil residues at or above the levels proposed in
these tolerances.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: November 6, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-19270 Filed 11-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


Appendix A  Page 1 of 6 APPENDIX A STANDARD METHODS USED FOR CALCULATING OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES TO MCPB Appendix A  Page 2 of 6 A. Introduction This document is a summary of the methods used to calculate occupational exposures to MCPB. These methods and a basic description of how they are used were taken from References A and B. These references also contain more detailed information on the rationale behind these methods. Only those methods that are pertinent to MCPB exposures are discussed in this document.

B. Occupational Handler/ Applicator Exposures Exposure Data Sources The occupational handler/ applicator exposures are calculated using unit exposure data from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database ( PHED). PHED was designed by a task force of representatives from the US EPA, Health Canada, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and member companies of the American Crop Protection Association. PHED is a software system consisting of two parts B a database of measured exposure values for workers involved in the handling of pesticides under actual field conditions and a set of computer algorithms used to subset and statistically summarize the selected data. Currently, the database contains values for over 1,700 monitored individuals ( i. e., replicates). The distribution of exposure values for each body part ( e. g., chest, upper arm) is categorized as normal, lognormal, or " other" ( i. e., neither normal nor lognormal). A central tendency value is then selected from the distribution of the exposure values for each body part. These values are the arithmetic mean for normal distributions, the geometric mean for lognormal distributions, and the median for all " other" distributions. Once selected, the central tendency values for each body part are composited into a " best fit" exposure value representing the entire body.

The unit exposure values calculated by PHED generally range from the geometric mean to the median of the selected data set. To add consistency and quality control to the values produced from this system, the PHED Task Force has evaluated all data within the system and has developed a set of grading criteria to characterize the quality of the original study data. The assessment of data quality is based upon the number of observations and the available quality control data. While data from PHED provide the best available information on handler exposures, it should be noted that some aspects of the included studies ( e. g., duration, acres treated, pounds of active ingredient handled) may not accurately represent labeled uses in all cases. HED has developed a series of tables of standard unit exposures for many occupational scenarios that can be used to ensure consistency in exposure assessments.

The unit exposure values that were used for MCPB are listed in Table 1. Appendix A  Page 3 of 6 Handler Exposure Algorithms The basic rationale for the handler exposure algorithms is that the daily exposure is the product of the amount of active ingredient ( a. i.) handled per day times a unit exposure value. The amount of ai handled per day is the product of the application rate times the area treated. For example, if 0.5 lb/ acre of MCPB were applied to 200 acres in one day, the amount of MCPB handled that day would be 100 lbs. The unit exposure value is the amount of exposure that results from handling a given amount of active ingredient by a certain method while using certain PPE. For example, the dermal unit exposure value for open mixing and loading of liquids with only minimal PPE is 2.9 mg per pound of ai handled. In this example, the daily exposure would be 100 lbs ai handled times 2.9 mg unit exposure per pound of ai handled which equals 290 mg per day.

Daily dermal exposure is calculated:

Daily dermal exposure = Unit exposure x Application rate x Area Treated ( mg/ day) ( mg/ lb ai) ( lb ai/ acre) ( acres/ day)

Where:

Unit exposure = normalized exposure value ( mg exposure per pound ai handled) derived from chemical specific study data or from the PHED Surrogate Exposure Table in Reference A. Application rate = normalized application rate based on a logical unit treatment such as acres, a maximum value is generally used ( lb ai/ acre); and Area treated = normalized application area such as acres/ day.

Inhalation exposures are calculated in a similar manner using inhalation unit exposure values. The inhalation unit exposure values ( ug/ lb ai) as presented in the PHED surrogate exposure tables were based on a human inhalation rate of 29 L/ minute and an 8 hour working day.

Daily inhalation exposure is calculated:

Daily inhalation exposure = [ Unit exposure x Application rate x Area Treated] X ( 1000 ug/ 1 mg)

( mg/ day)

Where: Unit exposure = normalized exposure value (

g/ lb ai handled) derived from study data or PHED; Application rate = same as for dermal exposure ( lb ai/ acre); and Area treated = same as for dermal exposure ( acres/ day). Appendix A  Page 4 of 6 The daily absorbed dermal dose ( mg/ kg BW) is calculated from the dermal exposure by dividing the result by the body weight ( 70 kg). In the example above, the daily dermal dose would be ( 290 mg/ day)/ 70 kg which would equal 4.1 mg/ kg/ day. The same algorithim is used for calculating inhalation doses and the standard adsorption factor of 1.0 is used. A body weight of 70 kg ( average adult body weight) is used for both dermal and inhalation exposures because the effects observed in the toxicology studies were not gender specific. It should also be noted that a dermal absorption factor of 1.0 is used for MCPB because the dermal endpoint is from a dermal toxicity study.

Absorbed Daily Dose is calculated:

Absorbed daily dermal or inhalation dose = ( Daily dermal or inhalation exposure x absorption factor) / body weight ( mg/ kg/ day) ( mg/ day) ( unitless) ( kg)

[ Note: an absorption factor of 1.0 was used for dermal exposures and 1.0 for inhalation exposures.]

Because MCPB exposures from the dermal and inhalation routes do not have the same toxicological effects, the dermal and inhalation Margin of Exposure ( MOEs) were calculated separately.

Margin of Exposure is calculated:

MOE ( unitless) = NOAEL ( mg/ kg/ day) / Dose ( mg/ kg/ day)

The target MOEs are 100 for both dermal and inhalation exposures for occupational handlers. Scenarios with MOEs greater than the target MOEs do not exceed the Agency's level of concern for the occupational population.

C. Post Application Occupational Exposures The algorithms used to estimate daily dermal dose and the MOE for the dermal postapplication scenarios are similar to those described above for the handler/ applicator scenarios. The only major difference is that the daily dermal exposure is calculated by multiplying the dislodgeable foliar residue level ( ug/ cm2 of leaf area) times a transfer coefficient ( amount of leaf area contacted per hour for a given activity). Inhalation exposures are not calculated for the postapplication scenarios because inhalation exposures have been shown to account for a negligible percentage of the overall body burden. This is particularly true for MCPB which has a very low vapor pressure.

The following equation taken from Reference B is used to calculate dermal doses for MCPB on each post application exposure day after application. Appendix A  Page 5 of 6 Post Application Dermal Exposure is calculated:

Dermal exposure ( mg/ day) = ( DFR at day t) x CF1 x TC x # hours/ day )

Where:

DFR = dislodgeable foliar residue ( ug/ cm2) at day ( t) after application CF1 = conversion factor to convert DFR value in ug/ cm2 to mg/ cm2 TC = transfer coefficient ( cm2/ hour) Hours/ day = standard assumption is 8 hours exposure per day Once the post application dermal exposures are calculated, the dermal doses and MOEs are calculated in the similar manner as described for handlers. The single difference is that only the dermal route of exposure is considered. The target MOE is 100 for occupational exposures.

Absorbed Daily Dose is calculated:

Absorbed daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = ( daily dermal exposure ( mg/ day) x dermal absorption factor) / BW ( kg)

[ Note: a dermal absorption factor of 1.0 was used for MCPB]

Margin of Exposure is calculated:

MOE ( unitless) = NOAEL ( mg/ kg/ day) / Absorbed Daily Dose ( mg/ kg/ day)

References ( A) PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide, V1.1. Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Program. August, 1998.

( B) Series 875  Occupational and Residential Exposure Test Guidelines, Group B  Post Application Exposure Monitoring Test Guidelines. U. S. EPA. February 10, 1998. Appendix A  Page 6 of 6 Table 1: PHED Exposure Data Used for MCPB Exposure Scenario Baseline1 Dermal ( mg/ lb ai) Baseline1 Inhalation ( ug/ lb ai) Single Layer1 Dermal ( mg/ lb ai) Comments2 Mix/ Load Liquid Formulations 2.9 1.2 0.023 Baseline: Hands, dermal, and inhalation = acceptable grades. Bare Hands = 53 replicates; Dermal = 72 to 122 replicates; and Inhalation = 85 replicates. High confidence in hand, dermal, and inhalation data. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposures.

PPE: The same dermal data are used as for baseline. Gloved hands = acceptable grades. Gloved Hands = 59 replicates. High confidence in hand data.

Aerial Application 0.005 0.068 N/ A Baseline ( Closed Cockpit): Hands = ABC grade, dermal and inhalation = ABC grade. Bare Hands= 34 replicates, dermal = 24 to 48 replicates, and inhalation = 23 replicates. Medium Groundboom Application 0.014 0.74 0.014 Baseline: Hand, dermal, and inhalation = acceptable grades. Hands = 29 replicates, dermal = 23 to 42 replicates, and inhalation = 22 replicates. High confidence in hand, dermal, and inhalation data. No protection factors were needed to define the unit exposure values.

PPE: The same dermal data are used as for baseline. Gloved Hands = ABC grades with 21 replicates. Medium confidence in hand data.

Flag Aerial Spray Applications 0.011 0.35 0.012 Baseline: Hands, dermal, and inhalation = acceptable grades. Dermal = 18 to 28 replicates; hands = 30 replicates; and inhalation = 28 replicates. High confidence in dermal, hand, and inhalation data. No protection factor was required to calculate unit exposures.

PPE: The same dermal data are used as for baseline. Gloved Hand = acceptable grades with 6 replicates. Low confidence in hand data due to small number ( 6) of replicates.

Notes 1. PPE Descriptions: Baseline Inhalation  does not include respiratory protection. Baseline Dermal  includes long sleeve shirts, long pants, shoes and socks. Single Layer Dermal  includes water resistant gloves over Baseline PPE 2. All handler exposure assessments in this document are based on the " Best Available" data as defined by the PHED SOP for meeting Subdivision U Guidelines ( i. e., completing exposure assessments). Best available grades are assigned to data as follows: matrices with A and B grade data ( i. e., Acceptable Grade Data) and a minimum of 15 replicates; if not available, then grades A, B and C data and a minimum of 15 replicates; if not available, then all data regardless of the quality ( i. e., All Grade Data) and number of replicates. High quality data with a protection factor take precedence over low quality data with no protection factor. Generic data confidence categories are assigned as follows: High = grades A and B and 15 or more replicates per body part Medium = grades A, B, and C and 15 or more replicates per body part Low = grades A, B, C, D and E or any combination of grades with less than 15 replicates.

PHED grading criteria do not reflect overall quality of the reliability of the assessment. Sources of the exposure factors should also be considered in the risk management decision.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78261-78263]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26854]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0092]

Pipeline Safety: Underground Natural Gas Storage Facility User
Fee

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of agency action and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise all underground natural gas storage
facility operators of a proposed PHMSA pipeline user fee assessment and
rate structure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Little by telephone at 202-366-
4569, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
mail at U.S. Department of Transportation, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., PHP-2, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Comments: PHMSA invites interested persons to comment on the
underground natural gas storage facility user fee assessment procedures
described in this notice by January 6, 2017. Comments should reference
Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0092. Comments may be submitted in the following
ways:
     E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation

(DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System, Room W12-140, on the
ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,
except federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the docket number (PHMSA-2016-0092) at the
beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit
two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA has received
your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet
users may submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Note: Comments will be posted without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act Statement below for additional
information.

Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received for
any of our dockets. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19476), or visit http://dms.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (COBRA)
(Pub. L. 99-272, sec. 7005), codified at Section 60301 of Title 49,
United States Code, authorizes the assessment and collection of user
fees to fund the pipeline safety activities conducted under Chapter 601
of Title 49. COBRA requires that the Secretary of Transportation
establish a schedule of fees for pipeline usage, bearing a reasonable
relationship to miles of pipeline, volume-miles, revenues, or an
appropriate combination thereof. In particular, the Secretary must take
into account the allocation of departmental resources in establishing
the schedule.\1\ In accordance with COBRA, PHMSA also assesses user
fees on operators of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities as defined
in 49 CFR part 193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pipeline user fee assessments under COBRA were upheld by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Co., 490 U.S.
212 (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Protecting
our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 (Pub.
L. 114-183) (PIPES Act of 2016). Section 12 of the PIPES Act of 2016
mandates PHMSA to issue regulations for underground natural gas storage
facilities, impose user fees on operators of these facilities, and
prescribe procedures to collect those fees. Section 2 of the PIPES Act
of 2016 authorizes $8 million per year to be appropriated from those
fees for each of fiscal years 2017-2019 for the newly established
Underground Natural Gas Storage Facility Safety Account in the Pipeline
Safety Fund. PHMSA is prohibited from collecting a user fee unless the
expenditure of such fee is provided in advance in an appropriations
act. If Congress appropriates funds to this account for fiscal years
2017-2019, PHMSA will collect these fees from the operators of the
facilities.
    According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA), there are 400
interstate and intrastate underground natural gas storage facilities
currently in operation in the United States, with more than four
trillion cubic feet of natural gas working capacity. EIA data is
collected on form EIA-191, Field Level Storage Data (Annual), and can
be accessed from the Related Links section on http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/storagecapacity/. Three hundred twenty-six of those
facilities store natural gas in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs, while
31 facilities store natural gas in salt caverns and 43 store it in
depleted aquifers. Of the 400 underground natural gas storage
facilities in the U.S., approximately half (197) are interstate
facilities.
    PHMSA is currently developing an Interim Final Rule (IFR) that will
fulfill the requirement in Section 12 of the PIPES Act of 2016 to
establish minimum Federal safety standards for underground natural gas
storage facilities. The Agency expects this IFR will be issued later
this year, but PHMSA has already been preparing to assume regulatory
oversight of these facilities. PHMSA is designing a training program
for both Federal and State inspectors to enable thorough and effective
oversight of all underground storage facilities. Inspection protocols
are being developed and will be made publicly available. The protocols
will inform all stakeholders of PHMSA's expectations for demonstrating
compliance with the minimum safety regulations. PHMSA also plans to
deploy Web sites with frequently asked questions and additional
guidance on the safe operation of underground natural gas storage
facilities.
    Once new regulations are in place, PHMSA will directly regulate
interstate facilities and will provide grants to State agencies that
are or become certified to regulate intrastate facilities. If no State
agency is certified in a given state, PHMSA will also directly regulate
any intrastate facilities. While the surface piping at underground gas
storage facilities is currently subject to the 49 CFR part 192
regulations, extending Federal regulation to the wells and well bore
tubing connecting the surface with the underground reservoirs is a
regulatory activity not previously conducted by PHMSA that will involve
substantial employment of agency resources. This will include, among
other things, conducting field inspections of facility operations
including reviewing operating, maintenance, integrity and emergency
plans and procedures, making compliance determinations and conducting
enforcement actions, and accident investigations. PHMSA estimates $2
million of the potential appropriation would fund the preparations
mentioned above and direct PHMSA inspection and enforcement. The
remaining $6 million of the proposed appropriation would fund grants to
State agencies certified by PHMSA to regulate intrastate facilities.
    PHMSA invites comments on the following proposed approach to
determining the user fee assessment for underground natural gas storage
facility operators. This is a tiered approach that is similar to the
liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant user fee rate structure, which was
modified for FY 2015 billing. The LNG user fee rate structure uses the
storage capacity, in barrels of LNG, as the basis for the rate
structure. The storage capacity for each operator is determined and
operators are placed in tiers. Each tier represents a greater storage
capacity and a higher user fee obligation. The storage capacity of an
underground natural gas storage facility is referred to as the working
gas capacity. PHMSA proposes to use the working gas capacity, in
million standard cubic feet, for each operator, and a tiered approach
to establish the underground natural gas storage facility user fee
structure. The tiered approach places a larger portion of the user fee
assessment on operators of larger facilities. PHMSA also considered
using the number of active wells per facility as the basis for the
tiers as it would also be a reasonable indicator of the expected
regulatory efforts needed. PHMSA has not found a publicly available
data source for the number of active wells at each facility, but may
reassess the user fee rate structure in the future if this or other
methods become feasible and are shown to appropriately reflect the
allocation of departmental resources to these regulatory activities.
    In the spring of 2017, PHMSA will use calendar year 2015 data from
the

EIA Web site to develop the underground natural gas storage facility
user fee rate structure. When PHMSA promulgates regulations for
operators of underground natural gas storage facilities, we plan to
include the collection of annual reports to incorporate both the
capacity and number of wells per facility in the annual report. If
PHMSA were to collect data directly from the operators, PHMSA would
discontinue the use of EIA data.
    PHMSA proposes the following steps for developing the user fee rate
structure. PHMSA will sum the working gas capacity for active fields
for each operator. The operator working gas capacity values will be
parsed into 10 tiers. The lowest values will be in tier 1 and the
highest values in tier 10. The minimum and maximum Working Gas
Capacities for each tier will be selected to place an equal number of
operators in each tier. Each tier will have a user fee assessment to be
paid by each operator in the tier. Based on a preliminary analysis of
the EIA data, the tiers and assessment per tier to collect $8,000,000
would be:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Tier                         Assessment per operator     Working gas capacity (Mcf) range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................................                      $12,308  Less than 1,550,000.
2..............................................                       24,615  More than 1,550,000 and less than
                                                                               3,500,000.
3..............................................                       30,769  More than 3,500,000 and less than
                                                                               6,500,000.
4..............................................                       36,923  More than 6,500,000 and less than
                                                                               11,500,000.
5..............................................                       49,231  More than 11,500,000 and less than
                                                                               15,500,000.
6..............................................                       61,538  More than 15,500,000 and less than
                                                                               22,000,000.
7..............................................                       73,846  More than 22,000,000 and less than
                                                                               30,000,000.
8..............................................                       80,000  More than 30,000,000 and less than
                                                                               50,000,000.
9..............................................                       92,308  More than 50,000,000 and less than
                                                                               85,000,000.
10.............................................                      142,857  More than 85,000,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If less than $8 million is appropriated to the Underground Natural
Gas Storage Facility Safety Account, PHMSA will proportionally reduce
the assessment for each tier to collect the appropriated amount.
Regardless of the appropriated amount, PHMSA expects that 25% would
fund PHMSA actions and 75% would fund grants to certified State
agencies. PHMSA would continue this user fee assessment in each year
funds are provided in advance in an appropriations act and these
regulatory activities are carried out.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 2, 2016, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2016-26854 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26460-26461]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11833]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85996; File No. 013-00113]

Initial Form ATS-N Filing; Notice of Extension of Commission
Review Period

May 31, 2019.
    On February 8, 2019, Dealerweb filed an initial Form ATS-N (``Form
ATS-N'') with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').
Pursuant to Rule 304 under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''), the Commission may, after notice and an opportunity for
hearing, declare an initial Form ATS-N ineffective no later than 120
days from the date of filing with the Commission, or, if applicable,
the extended review period. June 8, 2019 is 120 calendar days from the
date of filing. Pursuant to Rule 304(a)(1)(iv)(B), the Commission may
extend the initial Form ATS-N review period for up to an additional 120
calendar days if the initial Form ATS-N is unusually lengthy or raises
novel or complex issues that require additional time for review.
    Dealerweb was operating pursuant to an initial operation report on
Form ATS on file with the Commission as of January 7, 2019.\1\
Dealerweb filed an initial Form ATS-N on February 8, 2019. During the
initial 120 calendar day review period, the Commission staff has been
reviewing the disclosures on Dealerweb's initial Form ATS-N. In
addition, the staff has been engaged in ongoing discussions with
Dealerweb about its disclosures and manner of operations, as well as
the requirements of Form ATS-N, to facilitate complete and
comprehensible disclosures that reflect the complexities of those
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An NMS Stock ATS (as defined in Rule 300(k) of Regulation
ATS) that was operating pursuant to an initial operation report on
Form ATS on file with the Commission as of January 7, 2019 is a
``Legacy NMS Stock ATS.'' 17 CFR 242.301(b)(2)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Form ATS-N requires NMS Stock ATSs to file with the Commission, and
disclose to the public for the first time, certain information,
including descriptions by the NMS Stock ATSs of their fees, the trading
activities by their broker-dealer operators and their affiliates in the
NMS Stock ATSs, their use of market data, their written standards for
granting access to trading on the NMS Stock ATSs, and their written
safeguards and procedures for protecting their subscribers'
confidential trading information required by revised Rule 301(b)(10) of
Regulation ATS. The initial Form ATS-N disclosures and discussions with
Commission staff have revealed complexities about the operations of
Legacy NMS Stock ATSs including, among other things, matching
functionalities, means of order entry, order interaction and execution
procedures, conditional order processes, segmentation of orders, and
counterparty selection protocols. The Commission staff needs additional
time to review novel and complex issues such as these, which Commission
staff has discussed with Dealerweb. Extending the initial Form ATS-N
Commission review period for an additional 120 calendar days will
provide Commission staff an opportunity to continue its review of the
initial Form ATS-N disclosures and discussions with Dealerweb.
    In the conversations between Dealerweb and Commission staff about
the initial Form ATS-N disclosures and the ATS operations, Commission
staff and Dealerweb have discussed a potential amendment to update
Dealerweb's disclosures regarding the complexities of its operations.
Extending the review period will enable the NMS Stock ATS to amend its
disclosures, if appropriate, and allow Commission staff to conduct a
thorough review of amendments to the initial disclosures provided on
the initial Form ATS-N.
    For the reasons given above, the Commission is extending the review

period of the initial Form ATS-N submitted by Dealerweb. Accordingly,
pursuant to Rule 304(a)(1)(iv)(B), October 6, 2019 is the date by which
the Commission may declare the initial Form ATS-N submitted by
Dealerweb ineffective.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11833 Filed 6-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Steam Electric Data Request Follow-Up Questions

Project Name:  Steam Electric Detailed Study

	Project No.:  0<IP_ADDRESS>

Company Name:  Georgia Power

	Contact Name:  William R. Evans

Plant Name:  Plant Branch	Contact Phone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>

or Email Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS> ERG Staff (or ERG Rep) Name: Sarah Holman

Company Affiliation: ERG	Date: 11/26/07

This document contains CBI:   ___  Yes    x       No

	Type of  Contact:     x      Email           Telephone

General Subject:  Data Request Assistance / Follow-Up

Follow-Up Question Number	CBI =

Yes (Y)

No (N)	Data Request Question Number	Data Request Page Number

Question/Answer

1	N	16	B-10	Q: “Type of Fly Ash Handling System” is listed as both wet and dry for Units 3 and 4.  What is the approximate percentage of the time that the fly ash from these units is handled in a dry fashion?

A:

2	N	18	B-12	Q: “Source of Sluice Water” is listed as 100% “IN-Makeup” for each of the four units.  According to the directions in Question 18, the code, “IN” should be used if raw intake water is used, whereas “IN-Makeup” should be used if raw intake water is only used as makeup.  Please confirm that raw intake water is used for bottom ash sluice water (and not as makeup).

A:

3	N	30	B-20	Q: The plant responded that it is currently constructing/installing a wastewater treatment system to treat the wastewater from the new FGD system; however, from the plant’s description of the treatment system, it seems that what is under construction is settling pond for dewatering gypsum sluice (and treatment of recycle bleed-off, defined in the data request as “scrubber purge”, will occur in the existing ash pond).  Please confirm that this is the case.

Additionally, the plant’s response to “Will the wastewater treatment system treat FGD wastewater that is commingled with ash wastewater prior to treatment” is no; however, from the plant’s explanation of the wastewater treatment system, it seems that FGD wastewater and ash wastewater will be commingled prior to treatment in the ash pond.  Please explain the response to this question.

A:

4	N	35	B-24	Q: Please explain the operation of the plant’s once-through cooling system.  It appears from Diagram 5-1 and the plant’s Form 2C that the wastewater generated from cooling Units 1 and 2 is handled separately from the wastewater generated from Units 3 and 4; however, the plant responded with only one wastewater flow rate in Table 12 and Table 16.

Please provide the flow rates and frequency (hpd and dpy) of wastewater generated from cooling each of the two sets of steam electric units.  Please confirm that the cooling water wastewater flow rate for Units 3 and 4 is 430,000 gpm (“430,00 gpm” provided in Diagram 5-1).

A:

5	N	37	B-25	Q: The plant responded with “N/A”.  Does this mean that the plant has no requirements for the water used for cooling water?

A:

6	N	43	B-26	Q: Outfalls 01B – 01F, 02B – 02D, 03C, and 04 - 29 are not listed in Table 14 or the process diagrams.  Did they discharge in 2006?

A:

7	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-1 (Diagram 5-1), please confirm that pH adjustment occurs within (as part of) the ash pond and not within a separate tank/pond as indicated in the diagram.

A:

8	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-1 (Diagram 5-1), please confirm that the flow rate for “RECYC-FAS” is approximately 6,900 gpm (6,970 gpm minus 1% makeup intake water).  Is the flow rate continuous (24 hpd and 365 dpy)?

A:

9	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-2, please confirm that pH adjustment and chemical precipitation typically occur within the settling pond and not within separate vessels as shown on the diagram.

A:

10	N	47	B-28	Q: Please confirm that the WWT-2 settling pond is dredged upon occasion, but was not dredged in 2006 (the plant responded that the settling pond is not dredged in Table 17, but potential sludge generation is shown in Diagram 5-2 and Table 19).

A:

11	N	49	B-31	Q: For the WWT-2 settling pond, the plant provided a residence time of 8.760 hours; however, in the Comments page, the plant stated that the residence time is indefinite.  Please confirm the residence time provided.

A:

12	N	51	B-33	Q: For WWT-2, the “Average Dose Concentration” of Pozzalime is listed as 0.4 g/L for one dpy.  Is 0.4 g/L the target concentration of Pozzalime in the settling pond for the entire year or is it the initial target concentration at the time the Pozzalime is added?  Please confirm that chemical was added to the WWT-2 settling pond in 2006 despite the fact that it did not receive or discharge wastewater.

A:

13	N	52	B-34	Q: For WWT-3, the plant listed an effluent flow rate of 210,000 gpd and 75 dpy; however Diagram 5-3 shows an effluent flow rate of 30 gpm.  Please confirm that the effluent flow rate from the WWT-3 settling pond is continuous at 30 gpm (24 hpd, and 365 dpy).

A:


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 202 (Monday, October 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62701-62702]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24748]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2014-0092]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with Part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that
by a document dated August 26, 2014, the Union Pacific Railroad Company
(UP) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking
approval for the discontinuance or modification of a signal system. FRA
assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2014-0092.
    Applicant: Union Pacific Railroad Company, Mr. Neal Hathaway, AVP
Engineering-Signal, 1400 Douglas Street, MS 0910, Omaha, NE 68179.
    UP seeks approval of the modification of the Morley Bridge
interlocking at Milepost (MP) 95, in association with the reduction of
the approach locking limits at MP 92.9, on the Livonia Subdivision,
Grosse Tete, Louisiana. The purpose of the modification is for
installation of advanced electronic-coded track circuits to provide
improved four-aspect signaling.
    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 December 4, 2014 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 October 14, 2014.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Technical Oversight.
[FR Doc. 2014-24748 Filed 10-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: May 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 102)]
[Notices]
[Page 30403-30404]
[DOCID:fr26my06-76]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0298; FRL-8066-8]

Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of an application 524-EUP-OT
from Monsanto Company requesting an experimental use permit (EUP) for
the plant-incorporated protectants Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1A.105
protein and the genetic material necessary (vector PV-ZMIR245) for its
production in MON 89034 corn, Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein
and the genetic material necessary (vector PV-ZMIR245) for its
production in MON 89034 corn, and Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1
protein and the genetic material necessary (vector PV-ZMIR39) for its
production in MON 88017 corn. The Agency has determined that the
application may be of regional and national significance. Therefore, in
accordance with 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency is soliciting comments on
this application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 26, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0298, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building); 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0298. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

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

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those persons interested in agricultural
biotechnology or those who are or may be required to conduct testing of
chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has
not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    The 524-EUP-OT application is for 4,897 acres of MON 89034, 1,727
acres of MON 89034 x MON 88017, 1,661 acres of MON 88017, and 992 non-
plant-incorporated protectant border acres. MON 89034 contains the
lepidopteran protecting Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1A.105 protein and
the genetic material necessary (vector PV-ZMIR245) for its production
in MON 89034 corn and Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein and the
genetic material necessary (vector PV-ZMIR245) for its production in
MON 89034 corn. MON 88017 contains the corn rootworm protecting
Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1 protein and the genetic material
necessary (vector PV-ZMIR39) for its production in MON 88017 corn.
Proposed shipment/use dates are July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2008.
Five trial protocols will be conducted, including:
     Breeding and observation nursery.
     Inbred seed increase production.
     Line per se hybrid yield and herbicide tolerance trials.
     Insect efficacy trials.
     Product characterization and performance trials.
     Insect resistance management trials, benefit trials, and
seed treatment trials.
    States and Commonwealth involved include: Alabama, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Washington, and Wisconsin.

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Following the review of the Monsanto Company application and any
comments and data received in response to this notice, EPA will decide
whether to issue or deny the EUP request for this EUP program, and if
issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance
of an EUP will be announced in the Federal Register.

IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    The Agency's authority for taking this action is under FIFRA
section 5.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

    Dated: May 18, 2006.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-8042 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S