[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 65463]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22777]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0110; Notice No. 2016-18]

Hazardous Materials: Damaged, Defective, Recalled Lithium Cells
or Batteries or Portable Electronic Devices

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

ACTION: Safety advisory notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) is issuing a safety advisory notice to inform the public of the
risks associated with transporting damaged, defective, or recalled
lithium cells or batteries or portable electronic devices (PEDs),
including Samsung Galaxy Note 7 smartphone devices recently recalled by
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) [Recall No. 16-
266]. PHMSA is issuing this safety advisory notice in conjunction with
the CPSC recall to advise members of the public who wish to carry
Samsung Galaxy Note 7 subject to CPSC Recall no. 16-266 aboard aircraft
that they must take all of the following precautions:
     Turn off the device;
     Disconnect the device from any charging equipment;
     Disable all applications that could inadvertently activate
the phone (e.g., alarm clock);
     Protect the power switch to prevent its unintentional
activation; and
     Keep the device in carry-on baggage or on your person. (Do
not place in checked baggage.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Leary, Standards and Rulemaking
Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Carriage Aboard Aircraft by Passengers and Crew

    Passengers or crew may only carry portable electronic devices on
aircraft under the conditions of Sec.  175.10(a)(18) of the HMR. Except
as detailed below, electrical devices, such as batteries and battery-
powered devices, which are likely to create sparks or generate a
dangerous evolution of heat must not be transported in passenger or
cargo aircraft, whether as cargo, carry-on, or in checked baggage,
unless packaged in a manner, that would preclude such an occurrence. On
September 2, 2016, Samsung issued a statement to consumers regarding
the Samsung Galaxy Note 7. According to CPSC, ``Samsung has received 92
reports of the batteries overheating in the U.S., including 26 reports
of burns and 55 reports of property damage, including fires in cars and
a garage.'' Consequently, as a safety measure, CPSC has urged consumers
to turn off, stop charging, and stop using these devices, and the FAA
has advised such devices be turned off and not used or charged aboard
aircraft and not be placed in checked baggage.
    Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101-
5128) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to
``prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including
security, of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign
commerce.'' The Secretary delegated this authority to PHMSA in 49 CFR
1.97(b). In accordance with Sec.  173.21(c) of the HMR, electrical
devices such as batteries and battery-powered devices, which are likely
to create sparks or generate a dangerous evolution of heat, are
forbidden for transportation unless packaged in a manner which
precludes such an occurrence. Therefore, passengers or crew may only
transport on board an aircraft a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 subject to CPSC
Recall no. 16-266 under the following conditions:
     Turn off the device;
     Disconnect the device from any charging equipment;
     Disable all Applications that could inadvertently activate
the phone (e.g. alarm clock);
     Protect the power switch to prevent its unintentional
activation; and
     Keep the device in carry-on baggage or on your person. (Do
not place in checked baggage.)

Additional Information

    Additional information pertinent to the traveling public is
available through the DOT Safe Travel Web site (see http://phmsa.dot.gov/safetravel/batteries) and through the FAA Pack Safe Web
site (see http://www.faa.gov/Go/PackSafe). For additional information
on returning your device to the manufacturer, please call 1-800-SAMSUNG
or 1-800-726-7864. For additional information on the recall please
visit the Consumer Product Safety Commission's Web site at
www.cpsc.gov.

Shipments as Cargo

    Lithium cells or batteries or portable electronic devices, that
have been damaged or identified by the manufacturer as being defective
for safety reasons, and have the potential of producing a dangerous
evolution of heat, fire, or short circuit may only be transported by
highway, rail or vessel in accordance with the provisions of 49 CFR
173.185(f) or under the conditions of a Special Permit or Approval
issued by PHMSA's Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials
Safety. See http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/approvals-permits for
additional information on obtaining a Special Permit or Approval. For
additional information please contact Kevin Leary at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
the Hazardous Materials Information Center:
     Tel: 1-800-467-4922 or<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 16, 2016.
Marie Therese Dominguez,
Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2016-22777 Filed 9-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


MEMORANDUM

TO:  Portland Cement Rulemaking Docket

SUBJECT:	Meeting with Portland Cement Association and Cement Industry
Representatives to discuss their concerns on the Final Portland Cement
NESHAP and NSPS

LOCATION:	 Offices of the Portland Cement Association, 500 New Jersey,
Avenue, NW,

                          Washington, DC 20001

DATE OF MEETING:  August 17, 2010

Participants:

Portland Cement Association (PCA)

And Cement Industry

Andy O’Hare, PCA

Hector Ybanez, Holcim

Jason Morin, Holcim

Curtis Lesslie, Ash Grove

Tim Matz, Lehigh

Mike Pelan, Lafarge

Satish Sheth, CEMEX

Bryan Brendle, PCA

Ty Wilson, PCA

Craig Campbell, Lafarge 	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Peter Tsirigotis

Steve Silverman

Keith Barnett (by phone)

Elineth Torres (by phone)

Susan Fairchild (By Phone)

RTI International (contractor to EPA)

Mike Laney

Breda Munoz

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) met with EPA and presented a list
of issues (attached) and concerns on the final NESHAP and NSPS. Each of
the items listed were discussed briefly. PCA also provided additional
information (attached) on the assessment of variability associated with
the standards for mercury.

Some of the specific item discussed were:

Conflicts between standards.  Mainly the issue that wet scrubbers for
HCl control may result in situation where the facility cannot meet the
PM emissions limit due to carryover from the wet scrubber.

The levels of the standards, especially the new source standards for PM.

Concerns about the startup and shutdown limits.

Regulations for open clinker piles.

EPA agreed that we would continue a dialogue on some of these issues.
Four areas EPA specifically agreed to continue to discuss were:

The NSPS modification emissions limits

HCl/PM conflicts noted above

Modification relating to kiln subject to the Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste incinerator (CISWI) rule

The UPL calculation for mercury.

The conversion used to calculate the concentration limits for startup
and shutdown.

The industry also discussed concerns about the overlap of the CISWI and
NESHAP rules.  EPA recommended they start a dialogue specifically on
this issue as soon as possible.

Attachment 1

List of Issues provided by the Portland Cement association

Preliminary List of Issues/Concerns with the Portland Cement NESHAP

Issue	Concern	Recommendation

Emission Standards

CISWI Sources in NESHAP Floor Calculations	Some facilities in NESHAP
floor pools for are CISWI units, Nullifying the floor calculations	Stay
NESHAP Rule until CISWI rule finalized; Exempt portland cement industry
from CISWI rule through tailored definition of solid waste

Mercury Standard	Improper use of Boiler MACT equation to set standard;
Lack of subcategorization	Reconsider application of the Boiler MACT
equation in standard setting; Creation of subcategory for high emitters
is necessary

THC Standard	Compliance with standard will require widespread
application of RTOs	Some type of subcategorization approach is necessary
to avoid this result

HCl Standard	Unachievable for many facilities; Could compel use of
scrubbers where there is no water; Industry did not have an opportunity
to comment on how EPA computed the standard; Improper review of the
finding/implications of PCA’s 112(d)(4) assessment	Risk-based
exemption for HCl still desired; Perceived shortcomings of analysis may
be addressed; Other regulatory tools available to reduce SOx and PM2.5
emissions, if that is the ultimate EPA objective

PM Standards	Existing and new source standards unachievable by many
facilities; Industry did not have an opportunity to comment on how EPA
computed the standards	Reconsider application of Boiler MACT equation;
Data is lognormal; Variability needs to be computed using reflecting
multiple stack tests, not among runs within tests

Dioxin/Furan Standard	Standard lacking “TEQ” in rule language; Most
likely typos	Standard is 0.2 ng TEQ/dscm, not 0.2 ng/dscm (other errors
in some footnotes)

Start-up and Shutdown Standards	No opportunity to comment on these
standards; Difficult to determine whether they are achievable	Need to
assess their efficacy; Will recommend alternatives, as appropriate

Malfunctions	No opportunity to comment on “affirmative defense”
criteria; May be cumbersome	Will review and recommend modifications to
the criteria or another approach

Other Issues

Open Clinker Piles	Requirements as crafted are unworkable; no industry
opportunity to comment on the details	Recommend removal or delay in
implementation to consider a workable alternative

30-Month Frequency for Compliance Testing for D/F, Hg, Organic HAP and
HCl	This is too frequent 	Apply a consistent 5 year interval for
facilities without CEMs

Requirement for PM  and HCl CEMs	Standard based on stack tests;
Compliance based on CEMs	Provide plants with the option of alternative
monitoring approaches

Synthetic Minor HAP Source	New NESHAP considerably different from old
NESHAP; Can sources pursue synthetic minor HAP status before 2013	New
NESHAP with new effective and compliance dates should re-open the
opportunity for facilities to pursue synthetic minor HAP status

Preliminary List of Issues/Concerns with Portland Cement NSPS

Issue 	Concern 	Recommendation

Scope	Apparent inclusion of modifications that don’t result in the
construction of a “new” kiln	Rule should apply only to brand new
kiln lines, whether at existing facilities or greenfield facilities

Emission Standards

NOx Standard	Too low	A subcategorization approach may be necessary if
“modifications” include simple plant upgrades (and not a new kiln
line)

SOx Standard	Too low	Need to review basis of standard; A
subcategorization approach may be necessary if “modifications”
include simple plant upgrades (and not a new kiln line)

PM Standard	Too low	See above under NESHAP

Attachment 2

Mercury Variability Calculations


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 117 (Wednesday, June 18, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34629-34633]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14251]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0673; FRL-9911-08]

Pyroxasulfone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends tolerances for residues of
pyroxasulfone in or on corn, field, forage and corn, field, grain. K-I
Chemical U.S.A. Inc. c/o Landis International, Inc. requested these
amended tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective June 18, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 18, 2014,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0673, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0673 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
August 18, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0673, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.

     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63938) (FRL-
9901-96), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
3F8196) by K-I Chemical U.S.A. Inc. c/o Landis International, Inc.,
P.O. Box 5126, Valdosta, GA 31603-5126. The petition requested that 40
CFR 180.659 be amended by increasing the tolerance for residues of the
herbicide, pyroxasulfone, [3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-
(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-
dimethylisoxazole] and its metabolite 5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-
trifluoromethyl-1 H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid (M3) calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of pyroxasulfone, in or on corn, field, grain
from 0.015 to 0.02 parts per million (ppm); and also increasing the
tolerance for residues of pyroxasulfone, [3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-
methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-
dihydro-5,5-dimethylisoxazole] and its metabolites 5-difluoromethoxy-1-
methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1 H-pyrazol-4-ylmethanesulfonic acid (M1), 5-
difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1 H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic
acid (M3), and 5-difluoromethoxy-3-trifluoromethyl-1 H-pyrazol-4-yl)
methanesulfonic acid (M25) calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent
of pyroxasulfone in or on corn, field, forage from 0.06 to 0.09 ppm.
The amended tolerances were sought to cover residues that may be found
on corn following use of pyroxasulfone with an adjuvant. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by K-I Chemical U.S.A.
Inc. c/o Landis International, Inc., the registrant, which is available
in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments
received in response to the notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for pyroxasulfone, including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyroxasulfone
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    In the Federal Register of July 31, 2013 (78 FR 46274) (FRL-9393-
6), EPA published a final rule (2013 rulemaking) establishing certain
tolerances for residues of the herbicide pyroxasulfone and its
metabolites based on EPA's conclusion that aggregate exposure to
pyroxasulfone is safe for the general population, including infants and
children. Since the 2013 rulemaking, there have been no additional
tolerance actions for pyroxasulfone, nor has the toxicity profile for
pyroxasulfone changed. Specific information on the studies reviewed for
that rulemaking and the nature of the adverse effects caused by
pyroxasulfone, as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL)
and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity
studies are discussed in the 2013 rulemaking which can be found in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0439.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for pyroxasulfone used for human risk assessment is also
discussed in Unit III.B of the final rule published in the Federal
Register of February 29, 2012 (77 FR 12207) (FRL-9334-2).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pyroxasulfone, EPA conducted a new dietary exposure and
risk assessment that considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing pyroxasulfone tolerances in 40 CFR
180.659. EPA assessed dietary exposures from pyroxasulfone in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for pyroxasulfone. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food,
EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) at tolerance-level residues
adjusted upward to account for metabolites which are not in the

tolerance expression from specific use patterns.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA/NHANES/
WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA made the same assumptions
(adjusted tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT) as in the acute dietary
exposure assessment.
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
Cancer risk is quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If
sufficient information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available,
a threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer RfD is
calculated based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic
mode of action data are not available, or if the mode of action data
determines a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope
factor approach is utilized. EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD
approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk to pyroxasulfone.
Cancer risk was assessed using the same exposure estimates as discussed
in Unit III.C.1.ii.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for pyroxasulfone. Adjusted tolerance level residues
and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for pyroxasulfone in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of pyroxasulfone. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
pyroxasulfone for acute exposures are estimated to be 17 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 210 ppb for ground water. EDWCs of
pyroxasulfone for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 3.2 ppb for surface water and 174 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 210 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 174 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Pyroxasulfone is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found
pyroxasulfone to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and pyroxasulfone does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that pyroxasulfone does
not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision,
EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support
the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicity database for pyroxasulfone includes developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits, a DNT study in rats, and a 2-generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats. As discussed in the 2013
rulemaking, evidence of increased susceptibility of fetuses and
offspring was seen in the DNT study and developmental toxicity study in
rabbits following in utero or post-natal exposure to pyroxasulfone. No
increased susceptibility was seen in the rat developmental or
reproduction toxicity studies. In rabbits, developmental toxicity was
only seen at the limit dose of 1,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/
day) as reduced fetal weight and increased fetal resorptions with a
NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day for these effects, compared to no maternal
toxicity at these doses. In a DNT study in rats, offspring toxicity
(decreased brain weight and morphometric changes on PND 21) was seen at
300 mg/kg/day compared to no maternal toxicity at 900 mg/kg/day. The
degree of concern for the increased susceptibility seen in these
studies is low and there are no residual uncertainties based on the
following considerations:
    i. The increased susceptibility is occurring at high doses.
    ii. NOAELs and LOAELs have been identified for all effects of
concern, and thus a clear dose response has been well defined.
    iii. The PODs selected for risk assessment are protective of the
fetal/offspring effects.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for pyroxasulfone is complete.
    ii. Pyroxasulfone is a neurotoxic chemical and there is evidence of
increased susceptibility of offspring with regard to neurotoxic effects
in the rat DNT study. There is also evidence of increased
susceptibility of fetuses/offspring with regard to non-neurotoxic
effects in the rabbit developmental toxicity study. However, concern
for the increased susceptibility is low for the reasons stated in Unit
III.D.2.; therefore, EPA determined that a 10X FQPA SF is not necessary
to protect infants and children.
    iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and adjusted tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface

water modeling used to assess exposure to pyroxasulfone in drinking
water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks
posed by pyroxasulfone.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to pyroxasulfone will occupy 3.6% of the aPAD for all infants (<1 year
old), the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
pyroxasulfone from food and water will utilize 48% of the cPAD for all
infants (<1 year old) the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for pyroxasulfone.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Short- and
intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however,
pyroxasulfone is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Because there is
no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary
exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective
cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-
and intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of short- or
intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term
risk for pyroxasulfone.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has
determined that the quantification of risk using a non-linear (i.e.,
RfD) approach will adequately account for all chronic toxicity,
including carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to
pyroxasulfone. Therefore, based on the results of the chronic risk
assessment discussed in Unit III.E.2., pyroxasulfone is not expected to
pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to pyroxasulfone residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (a liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established a MRL for pyroxasulfone.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
pyroxasulfone, [3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-
1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethylisoxazole],
including its metabolites and degradates, as set forth in the
regulatory text.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require

Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 12, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.659 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the commodity ``Corn, field, grain'' in the table in
paragraph (a)(1) and;
0
b. Revising the commodity ``Corn field, forage'' in the table in
paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.659  Pyroxasulfone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, field, grain......................................            0.02

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, field, forage.....................................            0.09

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-14251 Filed 6-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 241 (Monday, December 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60090-60093]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27152]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82305; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2017-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Exchange Rule 11.8, Order Types

December 12, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 29, 2017, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend paragraph (b) of Exchange
Rule 11.8, Order Types, to restrict the Time-In-Force (``TIF'')
instruction that a Limit Order with both a Display \5\ instruction and
Primary Peg \6\ instruction that also include a Primary Offset Amount
(defined below) may have to Regular Hours Only (``RHO'') \7\ or Day \8\
if entered during Regular Trading Hours.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(e)(1).
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(j)(2).
    \7\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(q)(6) (defining a TIF of RHO as an
instruction a User may attach to an order designating it for
execution only during Regular Trading Hours).
    \8\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(q)(2) (defining a TIF of Day as an
instruction a User may attach to an order stating that an order to
buy or sell which, if not executed, expires at the end of Regular
Trading Hours).
    \9\ Regular Trading Hours is defined as the time between 9:30
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. See Exchange Rule 1.5(y).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The 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 paragraph (b) of Exchange Rule 11.8,
Order Types, to restrict the TIF instruction that a Limit Order with
both a Display instruction and Primary Peg instruction and a Primary
Offset Amount may have to RHO or, if entered during Regular Trading
Hours, a TIF of Day. Exchange Rule 11.8(b)(9) allows for a Limit Order
to include a Primary Peg instruction. Exchange Rule 11.6(j)(2)
describes the Primary Peg instruction as an order with instructions to
peg to the National Best Bid (``NBB''), for a buy order, or the
National Best Offer (``NBO''), for a sell order. A User \10\ may, but
is not required to, elect an offset equal to or greater than one
Minimum Price Variation above or below the NBB or NBO that the order is
pegged to (``Primary Offset Amount''). The Primary Offset Amount for an
order with Primary Peg instruction that is to be displayed on the EDGA
Book must result in the price of such order being inferior to or equal
to the inside quote on the same side of the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(ee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Rule 11.8(b)(2) sets forth the TIF instructions that may
be attached to a Limit Order. Some available TIF instructions enable a
Limit Order to expire at a time past the end of Regular Trading Hours
at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. These TIF instructions are Good-`til
Extended Day (``GTX''), Good-`til Day (``GTD''), Pre-Opening Session
`til Extended Day (``PTX''), and Pre-Opening Session `til Day
(``PTD'').\11\ The System automatically defaults the Limit Order to
include a TIF instruction of Day if the User does not select a
different TIF instruction.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(q) (defining each of these TIF
instructions).
    \12\ See Exchange Rule 11.8(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has observed that Limit Orders with a Primary Peg
instruction displayed on the EDGA Book with non-aggressive Primary
Offset Amounts and similar orders entered on away exchanges that remain
active after the end of Regular Trading Hours may be pegged to and
repriced off of each other during extended hours trading when no other
reference price is available due to orders expiring or being cancelled
at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The following example illustrates this
scenario. Assume the NBBO is $0.00 by $0.00. Market Maker 1 enters an
order on Exchange A to buy 100 shares at $10.00

resulting in a new NBBO of $10.00 by $0.00. Market Maker 2 sends a
Displayed Primary Peg order to Exchange B to buy 100 with a -$0.01
Primary Offset Amount. That order is posted on Exchange B at $9.99.
Market Maker 3 then also sends a Displayed Primary Peg order to
Exchange C to buy 100 with a -$0.01 Primary Offset Amount. That order
is posted on Exchange C at $9.99. The NBBO remains $10.00 by $0.00.
Market Maker 1 cancels their order to buy 100 shares at $10.00. The
NBBO is now $9.99 by $0.00. Exchange B re-prices Market Maker 2's
Displayed Primary Peg order to buy to $9.98, one cent below Market
Maker 3's Displayed Primary Peg order on Exchange C. The NBBO is now
$9.98 by $0.00. Exchange C then re-prices Market Maker 3's Displayed
Primary Peg order to buy to $9.97, one cent below Market Maker 2's
Displayed Primary Peg order on Exchange B. In the absence of new
additional liquidity being entered at the NBB, each order would
continue to be re-priced off each other until each reach $0.00.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ While this behavior may occur in less liquid securities
during Regular Trading Hours, the Exchange has only witnesses [sic]
this occurring after the close of trading, on only one occasion, and
not with the use of any other pegged order type or instruction. The
Exchange intends to monitor the use of Limit Order [sic] with both a
Display instruction and Primary Peg instruction that include a
Primary Offset Amount during Regular Trading Hours to identify when
the situation subject to this proposal may occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To prevent this from occurring, the Exchange proposes to restrict
the TIF instruction that a Limit Order with both a Display instruction
and Primary Peg instruction that include [sic] a Primary Offset Amount
may have to RHO, or, if entered during Regular Trading Hours, a TIF
instruction of Day. Doing so would cause Displayed Primary Peg orders
resting on the EDGA Book to be eligible for execution from 9:30 a.m. to
4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Limiting the TIF instructions to RHO and Day
only for Displayed Primary Peg orders with Primary Offsets Amounts
would ensure that these orders are eligible for execution during
Regular Trading Hours, which is the most liquid portion of the trading
day, thereby significantly decreasing the possibility that such orders
may re-price off similar orders entered on away exchanges in the
absence of additional liquidity at the NBB or NBO. The proposed rule
change would cause Displayed Primary Peg orders with Primary Offset
Amounts to expire at the end of Regular Trading Hours when a vast
majority of orders expire and do not participate in extended hours
trading. As amended, paragraph (b)(9) of the Rule 11.8 would be amended
to state that a Limit Order that includes a both [sic] Displayed
instruction and Primary Peg instruction with a Primary Offset Amount
(as defined in Rule 11.6(j)(2)) shall only include a TIF instruction of
RHO or, if entered during Regular Trading Hours, a TIF instruction of
Day. As is the case today, Users may continue to enter Displayed
Primary Peg orders with Primary Offset Amounts and a TIF instruction of
RHO beginning at 6:00 a.m. Eastern Time. However, those orders would
not be eligible for execution until 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, the start
of Regular Trading Hours.\14\ Displayed Primary Peg orders with Primary
Offset Amounts and a TIF of Day will be rejected if entered prior to
9:30 a.m., the start of Regular Trading Hours. Primary Pegged orders
that do not include a Primary Offset Amount or that are not displayed
on the EDGA Book would have no restrictions on the TIF instructions
that may be attached to the order pursuant to Exchange Rule 11.8(b)(2).
Exchange Rule 11.8(b)(2) currently states that a Limit Order would be
defaulted to a TIF instruction of Day. The Exchange proposes to amend
Exchange Rule 11.8(b)(2) to state that the default behavior would be
subject to the behavior proposed to be added to Exchange Rule
11.8(b)(9). As such, a Limit Order with both a Display instruction and
Primary Peg instruction and a Primary Offset Amount that defaults to a
TIF instruction of Day would be rejected if entered prior to the start
of Regular Trading Hours. That order would need to be reentered with a
TIF instruction of RHO. If entered during Regular Trading Hours, a
Limit Order with both a Display instruction and Primary Peg instruction
and a Primary Offset Amount that defaults to a TIF instruction of Day
would be accepted by the System and handled in accordance with its
order instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Exchange Rule 11.1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the change proposed above, the Exchange also proposes
the following clarifying change to Exchange Rule 11.8(b) to account for
a TIF instruction of RHO or Day being applied to a Displayed Primary
Peg order with a Primary Offset Amount. Exchange Rule 11.8(b) specifies
that the functionality described in paragraphs (9), (10), and (11) of
the rule is available for Limit Orders that include a Post Only or Book
Only instruction or TIF instruction of Day, GTD or GTX. As described
above, paragraph (9) of Rule 11.8(b) explains that a Limit Order may be
accompanied by a Pegged instruction. Paragraph (10) of Rule 11.8(b)
describes the default behavior of order [sic] to comply with Rule 610
of Regulations NMS \15\ and states that a Limit Order to buy (sell)
that would cross the market at the time of entry would not be executed
at a price higher (lower) than the locking price. Lastly, paragraph
(11) of Rule 11.8(b) states that a Limit Order that includes a Short
Sale instruction \16\ that is not marked Short Exempt,\17\ and that
cannot be executed in the System or displayed by the System on the EDGA
Book at its limit price because a Short Sale Circuit Breaker \18\ is in
effect, will be subject to the Re-Pricing Instruction to comply with
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO,\19\ unless the User affirmatively elects to
have the order immediately Cancel Back.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 242.610.
    \16\ Exchange Rule 11.6(o).
    \17\ Exchange Rule 11.6(p).
    \18\ 17 CFR 242.201.
    \19\ 17 CFR 242.201.
    \20\ Exchange Rule 11.8(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The functionality described in each of these paragraphs by design
only applies to orders once they are posted to the EDGA Book. For
instance, an order would only be re-priced in to [sic] comply with Rule
610 or Regulation NMS or Rule 201 of Regulation SHO once posted to the
EDGA Book to ensure it is posted at a price that complies with both
rules. Overtime [sic], this language preceding paragraph (9) of Rule
11.8(b) has become outdated and does not account for TIF instructions
that have been adopted since this provision of the rule was put into
effect.\21\ These include TIF instructions of PRE, PTX and PTD.\22\
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend this provision to make it
more general and simply state that paragraphs (9), (10), and (11) apply
only to orders that are posted to the EDGA Book. This will include
orders with a Post Only or Book Only instruction as well as orders with
a TIF instruction of Day, GTD, GTX, RHO, PRE, PTX, and PTD. Paragraphs
(9), (10), and (11) would not apply to orders that include a TIF of IOC
or FOK as those orders are to be executed or cancelled upon entry and
would never be placed on the EDGA Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ These TIF instructions govern during which trading sessions
an order remains eligible for execution and when that order expires
if posted to the EDGA Book. See Exchange Rule 11.6(q)(7), (8), and
(9). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77537 (April 6,
2016), 81 FR 21620 (April 12, 2016) (SR-EDGA-2016-02).
    \22\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(q) (defining each of these TIF
instructions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)

of the Act \23\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \24\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system by ensuring that Limit Orders with
a Primary Pegged instruction and Primary Offset Amount displayed on the
EDGA Book do not inadvertently re-price off similar orders on away
exchanges in absence of other liquidity creating the illusion of
aberrant prices for the security. The proposed rule change would
restrict the use of the order type to Regular Trading Hours only, the
most liquid part of the trading day, thereby significantly decreasing
the possibility of such orders re-pricing off of each other in the
absence of additional liquidity. The Exchange does not propose to amend
or alter the operation of Limit Orders with a Pegged instruction in any
other manner. The proposed rule change also promotes just and equitable
principles of trade by limiting the times at which such orders are
active so as to ensure that the order pegs to prices that reflect the
true NBBO of the security and not the Primary Offset Amount of a pegged
order in the absence of other liquidity. Lastly, the Exchange believes
the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfect [sic] the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by
updating the rule to account for all scenarios in which a Limit Order
may be placed on the EDGA Book and subject to the functionality covered
in paragraphs (9), (10), and (11) of Rule 11.8(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
proposed rule change is intended to ensure Limit Orders with a Primary
Pegged instruction and Primary Offset Amount displayed on the EDGA Book
do not inadvertently re-price off similar orders on away exchanges in
absence of other liquidity. It is not intended to have a competitive
impact.

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

    No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and paragraph
(f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \27\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule
change will become operative upon filing. The Exchange stated that such
waiver will enable the Exchange to update its functionality during the
operative delay period such that Limit Orders with a Primary Pegged
instruction and Primary Offset Amount displayed on the EDGA Book do not
inadvertently re-price off of similar orders on away exchanges in the
absence of other liquidity. The Commission believes that waiver of the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest because it would enable the Exchange to update
its rule without delay to help prevent these types of pegged orders
from inadvertently re-pricing to aberrant prices. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change operative upon filing.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \28\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGA-2017-002 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-CboeEDGA-2017-002. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact
or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGA-2017-
002 and should be submitted on or before January 8, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27152 Filed 12-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 87)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24799]
[DOCID:fr06my10-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0081]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Chester River,
Chestertown, MD; Correction

ACTION: Temporary final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register published on April 23, 2010, the Coast
Guard established special local regulations during the reenactment
portion of the ``Chestertown Tea Party Festival.'' The Chestertown Tea
Party Festival is a marine event to be held on the waters of the
Chester River, Chestertown, MD on May 29, 2010. The special local
regulation published with an error in the heading, specifically, the
CFR title and part in the heading should have read ``33 CFR Part 100,''
instead of ``33 CFR Part 165.''

DATES: This correction is effective May 6, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this correction,
contact Kevin d'Eustachio, Office of Regulations and Administrative
Law,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information about
the original regulation, contact Mr. Ronald Houck, Sector Baltimore
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR doc 2010-9496 appearing on page 21167
in the issue of Friday, April 23, 2010, the following corrections are
made:
    1. In the document heading on page 21167, correct the CFR citation
to read ``33 CFR Part 100''.

    Dated: April 28, 2010.
S. Venckus,
Office of Regulations and Administrative Law (CG-0943), U.S. Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2010-10606 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 39721-39723]
[DOCID:fr07au09-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60414; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-051]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Use of Multiple Market Participant
Symbols When Quoting or Trading OTC Equity Securities

July 31, 2009.
    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 July 23, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. 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.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt FINRA Rule 6480 on a pilot basis to
address the use of multiple Market Participant Symbols (``MPIDs'') when
quoting or trading OTC Equity Securities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of the proposed rule, the term ``OTC Equity
Security'' is defined in FINRA Rule 6420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    FINRA has two rules governing the use of multiple MPIDs on FINRA
facilities: Rule 6160 (Multiple MPIDs for Trade Reporting Facility
Participants) and Rule 6170 (Primary and Additional MPIDs for
Alternative Display Facility Participants). The proposed rule change
would adopt, on a pilot basis, a rule for the use of multiple MPIDs
when quoting OTC Equity Securities or reporting

trades in such securities to the OTC Reporting Facility. The use of
multiple MPIDs is currently permitted with respect to FINRA Trade
Reporting Facilities and the Alternative Display Facility, and firms
have requested that FINRA extend the use of multiple MPIDs to the OTC
market so that members can use multiple MPIDs for a variety of back-
office purposes that would otherwise not be possible--for example,
establishing separate clearing relationships for different types of
securities (e.g., foreign and domestic securities). As is the case with
respect to the market for exchange-listed securities, FINRA believes
that there are legitimate business reasons for members to maintain
multiple MPIDs in the OTC market and proposes to establish, on a pilot
basis, a system whereby members can request and be granted multiple
MPIDs for use in quoting and trading OTC Equity Securities. The
proposed rule is substantially similar to Rule 6160 and, like that
rule, would expire on January 29, 2010, unless extended.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 6160 was approved by the Commission in 2006 on a pilot
basis. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54715 (November 6,
2006), 71 FR 66354 (November 14, 2006); see also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 54715A (November 14, 2006), 71 FR 67183 (November
20, 2006). The pilot period has been extended several times since
the rule was originally adopted and currently expires on January 29,
2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59183 (December 30,
2008), 74 FR 842 (January 8, 2009); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 57217 (January 28, 2008), 73 FR 6234 (February 1, 2008);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55206 (January 31, 2007), 72 FR
5479 (February 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like Rule 6160, proposed Rule 6480 provides that any member that
wishes to use more than one MPID for purposes of quoting an OTC Equity
Security or reporting trades to the OTC Reporting Facility must submit
a written request to, and obtain approval from, FINRA Operations for
such additional MPIDs. The rule also states that a member that posts a
quotation in an OTC Equity Security and reports to a FINRA system a
trade resulting from such posted quotation must utilize the same MPID
for reporting purposes. In addition, Supplementary Material to the rule
states that FINRA considers the issuance of, and trade reporting with,
multiple MPIDs to be a privilege and not a right. When requesting an
additional MPID(s), a member must identify the purpose(s) and system(s)
for which the multiple MPIDs will be used. If FINRA determines that the
use of multiple MPIDs is detrimental to the marketplace, or that a
member is using one or more additional MPIDs improperly or for purposes
other than the purpose(s) identified by the member, FINRA staff retains
full discretion to limit or withdraw its grant of the additional
MPID(s) to such member.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that
the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the
date of the filing, such that FINRA can implement the proposed rule
change immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\6\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will
create a system that will allow members to use multiple MPIDs when
quoting and trading OTC Equity Securities with sufficient oversight by
FINRA to ensure that the MPIDs are not being used improperly or in a
way that would be detrimental to the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. FINRA has met this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
delay so that it may immediately extend the use of multiple MPIDs to
the OTC market on a pilot basis. The Commission has determined that
waiving the 30-day operative delay of FINRA's proposal is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest because
FINRA's proposed system for extending the use of multiple MPIDs to the
OTC market is comparable to the pilot program currently in place for
exchange-listed securities, which the Commission previously
approved.\9\ Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal
operative upon filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 5.
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-051 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-FINRA-2009-051. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the

submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2009-051 and should be submitted on or before August 28, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18976 Filed 8-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: March 15, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 14116-14117]
[DOCID:fr15mr11-164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0034]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2002 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R Motorcycles Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming
2002 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R motorcycles are eligible for importation.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
2002 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R motorcycles that were not originally
manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States
because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of
being altered to comply with, all such standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    How to Read Comments Submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. The
docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the heading of
this document notice. Please note that even after the comment closing
date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it
becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for
new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS, and has no
substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart, shall be refused
admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the
motor vehicle has safety features that comply with, or are capable of
being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive
test data or such other evidence as NHTSA decides to be adequate.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or

importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592.
As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the Federal
Register of each petition that it receives, and affords interested
persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the close of the
comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the petition and any
comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is eligible for
importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the Federal
Register.
    Skytop Rover, Co. (Skytop) of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(Registered Importer 06-343) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether
nonconforming 2002 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R motorcycles are eligible for
importation into the United States. Skytop contends that these vehicles
are eligible for importation under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) because
they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being
altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS.
    In its petition, Skytop described the nonconforming 2002 Kawasaki
Ninja ZX-6R as the same model as the U.S.-certified 2003 Kawasaki Ninja
ZX-6R. Because the Ninja ZX-6R model was introduced in countries other
than the U.S. as a new model before the introduction of the U.S-
certified version in 2003, the petitioner acknowledged that it could
not base its petition on the substantial similarity of the 2002
Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R to the U.S.-certified 2003 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R
motorcycles due to the model year discrepancy and the petitioning
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), as set forth in 49 CFR part
593. Instead, the petitioner chose to establish import eligibility on
the basis that the vehicles have safety features that comply with, or
are capable of being modified to comply with, the FMVSS based on
destructive test data or such other evidence that NHTSA decides to be
adequate as set forth in 49 U.S.C part 30141(a)(1)(B). The petitioner
contends that the 2002 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R utilizes the same
components as the U.S.-certified 2003 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R motorcycles
in virtually all of the systems subject to the applicable FMVSS.
    Specifically, the petitioner claims that 2002 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R
motorcycles have safety features that comply with Standard Nos. 106
Brake Hoses, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid, 119 New Pneumatic Tires for
Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, 122 Motorcycle Brake Systems, and
205 Glazing Materials.
    The petitioner further contends that the vehicles are capable of
being altered to comply with the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: inspection of all vehicles and replacement of the following
with U.S.-certified components on vehicles not already so equipped: (a)
Headlamps; (b) front and rear side-mounted reflex reflectors; (c) rear-
mounted reflex reflector; (d) tail lamp assembly (including stoplamp,
taillamp, and license plate lamp); and (e) front and rear turn signal
lamps.
    Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: inspection of all vehicles and
installation of U.S.-model rearview mirrors on vehicles not already so
equipped.
    Standard No. 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles other than
Passenger Cars: installation of a tire information placard.
    Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays: (a) installation
of a U.S.-model speedometer, or modification of the speedometer so that
it reads in miles per hour; and (b) installation of an ignition switch
label.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: March 9, 2011.
Claude H. Harris,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011-5977 Filed 3-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 39086-39087]
[DOCID:fr11jy06-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-409-000]

Trunkline LNG Company, LLC; Notice of Filing

July 3, 2006.
    Take notice that on June 30, 2006, Trunkline LNG Company, LLC
(TLNG) submitted a filing pursuant to section 21 of the general terms
and conditions of TLNG's FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1-
A.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.

There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to
a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 12, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-10814 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P