[Federal Register: August 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 40640-40642]
[DOCID:fr12au09-114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions

involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

City of Pendleton, Oregon (Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2008-0120)

    The City of Pendleton, Oregon (City), seeks a permanent waiver of
compliance from a certain provision of the Use of Locomotive Horns at
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, 49 CFR part 222. The City is seeking a
waiver from the rule that requires a train-automobile collision that
occurred on June 12, 2006, be counted as a ``relevant collision'' for
the purpose of determining whether there has been a ``relevant
collision'' pursuant to 49 CFR 222.41(a)(1)(iii). Specifically, the
City is seeking a waiver from the provisions of 49 CFR 222.9, wherein
``relevant collision'' is defined. The waiver petition requests that
FRA stay any action to revoke the City's quiet zone until 120 days
after the final decision on this waiver to allow the City to address
supplemental safety measures that could be installed if the waiver is
denied.
    49 CFR 222.9 defines a relevant collision as follows: Relevant
collision means a collision at a highway-rail grade crossing between a
train and a motor vehicle, excluding the following: a collision
resulting from an activation failure of an active grade crossing
warning system; a collision in which there is no driver in the motor
vehicle; or a collision in which the highway vehicle struck the side of
the train beyond the fourth locomotive unit or rail car. With respect
to the Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones, a relevant collision shall not
include collisions that occur during the time period within which the
locomotive horn is routinely sounded.
    The City received a letter from FRA dated August 15, 2008,
informing that the annual risk review required under 49 CFR
222.51(b)(1) for its quiet zone had revealed that the Quiet Zone Risk
Index (QZRI) was 20,454.05 and that the current value of the National
Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT) was 17,610. Since the QZRI was less
than twice the NSRT (35,220) and there had been a relevant collision on
June 12, 2006, at the S.W. Frazier Avenue and 9th Street S.W. crossing
(DOT Number 809 011 C), the quiet zone was no longer qualified per 49
CFR 222.51(b)(2)(iii) and that the quiet zone would terminate in 6
months unless the City took the steps required in 49 CFR 222.51(b)(4).
In order to retain its quiet zone, the City would be required to
provide FRA within 6 months a written commitment to lower the risk in
the quiet zone and detail the specific steps that would be taken. The
City would have to implement the steps to reduce the risk no later than
August 15, 2011, or the quiet zone would be terminated. The quiet zone
would have remained qualified if the collision of June 12, 2006, had
not been deemed a relevant collision.
    The City claims that due to the unusual circumstances of this
collision, it should not be classified as a relevant collision. If this
was the case, then the quiet zone would still be in compliance and the
City would not have to take the actions required in 49 CFR
222.51(b)(4).
    The collision in question occurred at the S.W. Frazier Avenue and
9th Street S.W. crossing. S.W. Frazier Avenue is a one-way street with
traffic traveling east that has flashing lights and gates that
completely block the street when the gates are lowered. The flashing
lights and gates are located immediately west of the track. 9th Street
S.W. is a two-way street that runs north and south and has flashing
lights and a gate for northbound traffic only. The Union Pacific
Railroad's (UP) track runs diagonally through the intersection of the
two streets from the southeast to the northwest with a slight curve
towards the north. The crossing is within the City's quiet zone.
    The vehicle that was involved in the collision was backing out of a
driveway located on the north side of S.W. Frazier Avenue immediately
east of the UP's tracks. According to a citizen witness, the conductor
and engineer, the vehicle backed out of the driveway and stopped on the
crossing immediately before the locomotive entered the crossing. The
engineer and conductor stated that the train was traveling between 23
and 25 miles per hour. The locomotive was approximately 20 feet from
the crossing when the vehicle began to back out and the vehicle was
traveling at a high rate of speed before stopping on the crossing. The
engineer then sounded the locomotive's horn and initiated an emergency
application of the train's brakes. The driver indicated that she had
backed out farther than anticipated due to her foot slipping off the
clutch. She stated that she tried to put the car into a forward gear
and ``missed it.'' The vehicle was struck by the lead locomotive while
the vehicle was stopped on the crossing. The automatic warning devices
(flashing lights and gates) that were located on the west side of the
tracks operated as intended.
    The City argues the presence or absence of additional safety
measures on this, or any other crossing in the quiet zone, would not
have affected this collision. According to the police report, the train
horn did sound but the driver did not respond. The City feels that the
presence of train horns at this or other crossings in the vicinity
would not likely have changed the incident. The City states that where
the collision is independent of the train horn or supplement safety
measures, the collision should not be considered a ``relevant
collision.''
    The City states that it made several efforts to obtain UP's support
for the waiver but failed to reach an agreement and thus was not able
to file a joint waiver. The City sent an e-mail on October 2, 2008, to
UP's Manager of Industry and Public Projects that has responsibility in
Oregon, to notify the railroad of its intent to file a waiver and
asking for help in identifying the appropriate contact on the railroad
to whom discussions could be directed. The request was resent on
October 8, 2008, via fax along with a draft copy of the waiver. On
October 9, 2008, the City had a conversation with the manager who
stated that he could not state at that time whether the railroad would
join in the application. The City tried to contact him again on October
14, 2008, without success.
    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 (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2008-0120) 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 within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the

above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available
for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    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 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 6, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E9-19277 Filed 8-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73329-73332]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25267]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90386; File No. SR-FICC-2020-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
to Amend the Government Securities Division Rulebook To Add a Pre-
Payment Assessment and Certain Credits in Connection With a New
Service, Which Has Not Yet Been Proposed for and Would Be Subject to
Regulatory Approval

November 10, 2020.
    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 October 28, 2020, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') 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 clearing agency. FICC filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.\4\ 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)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of modifications to the FICC
Government Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (``Rules'') \5\ in
order to add a $250,000 pre-payment assessment (the ``Sponsored GC Pre-
Payment Assessment'') in connection with a new service offering, which
has not yet been proposed for and would be subject to regulatory
approval, that would allow Sponsoring Members to transact cleared tri-
party Repo Transactions with their Sponsored Members on a general
collateral basis (the ``Sponsored GC Service''). The proposal would
include certain credits in connection with the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment
Assessment, as further described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the
Rules, available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Rules to
add the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment in connection with the
Sponsored GC Service. The proposal would include certain credits in
connection with the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment, as further
described below.
Proposal
    FICC is proposing to add the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment to
the Rules to ensure Sponsoring Members' support of and readiness to
participate in the Sponsored GC Service in order to justify FICC's
investment in building the new technology infrastructure that would be
necessary to implement the Sponsored GC Service, and also to ensure
equitable treatment of Sponsoring Members irrespective of when they
elect to onboard into the Sponsored GC Service. It is important to note
that FICC's proposed use of the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment
relates to the Sponsored GC Service being a new service for FICC, which
as described above requires an investment by FICC in new technology
infrastructure. As such, FICC does not anticipate using similar payment
mechanisms for its existing services.
    As described in detail below, satisfaction of the Sponsored GC Pre-
Payment Assessment would be required at or before the time a Sponsoring
Member onboards into the Sponsored GC Service. Because a Sponsoring
Member would be required to obtain appropriate internal approvals prior
to satisfying the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment, FICC believes
that the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment would ensure that the
Sponsoring Member is supportive of and ready to utilize the Sponsored
GC Service, and would similarly reduce the likelihood that the
Sponsoring Member

later withdraws from the Sponsored GC Service.
    The Sponsored GC Service, which as described above has not yet been
proposed for and would be subject to regulatory approval, would be a
voluntary service offering, which would allow (but not require)
Sponsoring Members and their Sponsored Members to transact cleared tri-
party Repo Transactions on a general collateral basis.
    Any Sponsoring Member that chooses to participate in the Sponsored
GC Service would be charged the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment at
the time such Sponsoring Member onboards into the Sponsored GC Service.
The Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment would be credited against the
Sponsoring Member's use of the Sponsored GC Service such that the
Sponsoring Member would not make any payment to FICC for its use of the
Sponsored GC Service until after the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment
Assessment is completely depleted.
    In addition, any Sponsoring Member that elects to be charged the
Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment between November 2020 and February
2021 would receive an additional $25,000 credit toward its use of the
Sponsored GC Service (the ``Additional Sponsored GC Credit'') such that
FICC's books and records would reflect that such Sponsoring Member has
a total of $275,000 of credit towards its use of the Sponsored GC
Service.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Sponsored GC Service would be priced using the existing
delivery-versus-payment (``DVP'') service fees for transaction
processing, and intraday and end-of-day position management. See Fee
Structure, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of current market conditions depressing cleared repo
volumes generally, FICC believes that requiring the Sponsored GC Pre-
Payment Assessment is necessary for FICC to be assured that Sponsoring
Members are supportive of the Sponsored GC Service and also ready to
utilize it in order to justify FICC's investment in the new technology
infrastructure that would be necessary to implement the Sponsored GC
Service. The $250,000 amount for the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment
Assessment was selected as a result of dialogue between FICC and its
Sponsoring Members. FICC believes this amount represents a sufficiently
substantial outlay of funds by the Sponsoring Member to require it to
obtain the appropriate internal approvals in order for the Sponsoring
Member to satisfy such amount, and thereby ensures the Sponsoring
Member's support of and readiness to utilize the Sponsored GC Service.
In addition, although the amount was not specifically selected to
ensure total coverage of the cost of the new technology infrastructure
required in order for FICC to implement the Sponsored GC Service, FICC
believes that the $250,000 amount for the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment
Assessment would ensure coverage of a reasonable amount of FICC's costs
associated with implementing the Sponsored GC Service.
    Similarly, the $25,000 amount for the Additional Sponsored GC
Credit was chosen by FICC to reflect reasonable compensation for
Sponsoring Members who elect to be charged the Sponsoring GC Pre-
Payment Assessment at least several months prior to implementation of
the Sponsored GC Service (i.e., between November 2020 and February
2021).
    Sponsoring Members that elect to participate in the Sponsored GC
Service would have 36 months after their onboarding into the Sponsored
GC Service to deplete their Sponsored GC Assessment and Additional
Sponsored GC Credit, if applicable, before the credits would expire.
    To the extent that FICC, in consultation with its Board of
Directors, decides at a later date, for any reason, not to implement
the Sponsored GC Service, all previously collected Sponsored GC Pre-
Payment Assessments would be returned to the contributing Sponsoring
Members in full at such time.
    In addition, if a Sponsoring Member elects to withdraw from the
Sponsored GC Service before expiration of its Sponsored GC Pre-payment
Assessment, it would be entitled to a return of any unused portion of
its Sponsored GC Pre-payment Assessment from FICC. However, to the
extent such Sponsoring Member should ever elect to participate in the
Sponsored GC Service at a later time, it would be obligated to pay the
entire Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment again at such time.
Proposed Rule Changes
    In order to effectuate the proposal described above, FICC would
amend Rule 1 (Definitions) to add two new definitions, ``Sponsored GC
Pre-Payment Assessment'' and ``Sponsored GC Service.''
    The ``Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment'' would be defined as a
$250,000 assessment that shall be charged to a Sponsoring Member at the
time the Sponsoring Member onboards into the Sponsored GC Service. Such
assessment shall be credited by the Corporation against the Sponsoring
Member's fees for use of the Sponsored GC Service until the earlier of
(i) the assessment being completely depleted and (ii) thirty-six (36)
months after the Sponsoring Member onboards into the Sponsored GC
Service.
    The ``Sponsored GC Service'' would be defined as the service to be
offered by FICC, which has not yet been proposed for and would be
subject to regulatory approval, to clear tri-party repurchase agreement
transactions between Sponsoring Members and Sponsored Members, as shall
be described in Rule 3A. FICC would also add a footnote to this
proposed definition stating that the Sponsored GC Service shall be the
subject of a subsequent rule filing with the Commission, and the
proposed definition shall be revised upon approval of the subsequent
rule filing, and the footnote shall sunset at that time.
    In addition, FICC would amend Section VII (Sponsoring Members) of
the Fee Structure to provide that a Sponsoring Member shall also be
liable to FICC for the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment to the
extent it participates in the Sponsored GC Service, and that FICC's
books and records shall reflect the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment
as a credit to such Sponsoring Member until expiration.
    Moreover, FICC would amend Section VII of the Fee Structure to
provide that any Sponsoring Member that elects to be charged the
Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment between November 2020 and February
2021 shall receive the Additional Sponsored GC Credit, which shall be
credited by FICC against the Sponsoring Member's fees for use of the
Sponsored GC Service until the earlier of (i) the Additional Sponsored
GC Assessment being completely depleted and (ii) thirty-six (36) months
after the Sponsoring Member onboards into the Sponsored GC Service, and
that FICC's books and records shall reflect the Additional Sponsored GC
Credit as a credit to such Sponsoring Member until expiration.
    Furthermore, FICC would amend Section VII of the Fee Structure to
provide that to the extent FICC, in consultation with its Board of
Directors, does not implement the Sponsored GC Service, all previously
collected Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessments shall be returned to the
contributing Sponsoring Members in full. FICC would also add a footnote
stating that the Sponsored GC Service shall be the subject of a
subsequent rule filing with the Commission, and the referenced sentence
shall be removed upon approval of the subsequent rule

filing, and the footnote shall sunset at that time.
    Additionally, FICC would amend Section VII of the Fee Structure to
provide that to the extent a Sponsoring Member elects to withdraw from
the Sponsored GC Service prior to the expiration of its Sponsored GC
Pre-Payment Assessment, it shall be entitled to a return of any unused
portion of such Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment from FICC; provided
that, for the avoidance of doubt, such Sponsoring Member shall be
liable for the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment to the extent that
it ever elects to participate in the Sponsored GC Service in the
future.
2. Statutory Basis
    FICC believes this proposal is consistent with the requirements of
the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
registered clearing agency. FICC believes this proposal is consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act,\7\ for the reasons described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires that the Rules provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its participants.\8\ FICC believes the proposed rule changes to
add the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment and to provide for certain
credits as described above would provide for the equitable allocation
of reasonable charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes the proposed rule changes are equitable because the
Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment would represent for every
Sponsoring Member that elects to participate in the Sponsored GC
Service a sufficiently substantial outlay of funds to require it to
obtain appropriate internal approvals in order to satisfy it, thereby
ensuring such Sponsoring Member's support of and readiness to utilize
the Sponsored GC Service.
    In addition, FICC believes the proposed rule changes are equitable
because the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment would apply uniformly
to all Sponsoring Members that choose to use the Sponsored GC Service,
regardless of when the Sponsoring Member elects to onboard into this
service, and every Sponsoring Member would have the same amount of
time, i.e., 36 months from their firm's onboarding into the Sponsored
GC Service, to deplete their Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment and
Additional Sponsored GC Credit, if applicable, before the credits would
expire. Based on volume estimates provided by Sponsoring Members that
have expressed interest in participating in the Sponsored GC Service,
FICC believes that 36 months represents ample time for every Sponsoring
Member to utilize the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment and
Additional Sponsored GC Credit, if applicable, before the credits would
expire.
    Moreover, FICC believes the proposed Additional Sponsored GC Credit
is reasonable as between the Sponsoring Members that would elect to be
charged the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment during the period from
November 2020 to February 2021, and those Sponsoring Members that would
not, because the former Sponsoring Members would be contributing their
capital to FICC at least several months prior to the implementation of
the Sponsored GC Service, and therefore, would not have use of that
capital during that time period. In consideration of this early
contribution of capital, FICC believes it would be reasonable for such
Sponsoring Members to receive the Additional Sponsored GC Credit, and
for those Sponsoring Members that elect to hold onto their capital and
not pay their Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessments until the time they
onboard into the Sponsored GC Service after its implementation, not to
receive the Additional Sponsored GC Credit.
    Furthermore, FICC believes the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment
would represent a reasonable charge to assess on the Sponsoring Members
that elect to participate in the Sponsored GC Service because, as
described above, the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment would be
credited against a Sponsoring Member's use of the Sponsored GC Service
such that the Sponsoring Member would not make any payment to FICC for
its use of the Sponsored GC Service until after the Sponsored GC Pre-
Payment Assessment is completely depleted or has expired. In addition,
as described above, to the extent a Sponsoring Member elects to
withdraw from the Sponsored GC Service prior to the expiration of its
Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment, FICC would be obligated to return
any unused portion of such Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment to the
Sponsoring Member. However, to the extent such Sponsoring Member should
ever elect to participate in the Sponsored GC Service at a later time,
it would be obligated to pay again the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment
Assessment at such time.

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. First, as described
above, participation in the proposed Sponsored GC Service would be
entirely voluntary on the part of Sponsoring Members, and those
Sponsoring Members who elect not to participate in the Sponsored GC
Service would not be required to satisfy the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment
Assessment. In addition, the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment would
not have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition because, as
described above, it would be applied uniformly to all Sponsoring
Members who elect to participate in the Sponsored GC Service regardless
of when the Sponsoring Member elects to onboard into the Sponsored GC
Service, and every Sponsoring Member would have the same amount of
time, i.e., 36 months from their firm's onboarding into the proposed
Sponsored GC Service, to deplete it. Moreover, applying the Additional
Sponsored GC Credit to Sponsoring Members who elect to be charged the
Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment between November 2020 and February
2021, and not applying the Additional Sponsored GC Credit to those
Sponsoring Members that do not elect to make such early contribution of
capital, would not have any impact, or impose any burden, on
competition because the former Sponsoring Members would have
contributed their capital at least several months prior to the
implementation of the Sponsored GC Service, and the latter Sponsoring
Members would be able to hold onto their capital until the time they
onboard into the Sponsored GC Service after its implementation.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    FICC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received by FICC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and paragraph (f) \10\ of Rule 19b-4
thereunder. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-FICC-2020-013 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2020-013. 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 FICC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-FICC-2020-013 and should be submitted on
or before December 8, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25267 Filed 11-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23036-23037]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10527]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the ARAC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 21, 2018, starting at 2:00 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time. Arrange oral presentations by June 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Mayflower Hotel, 1127
Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lakisha Pearson, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of a
meeting of the ARAC taking place on June 21, 2018, at the Mayflower
Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036.

    The Draft Agenda includes:

1. Status Report From the FAA
2. Status Updates:
    a. Active Working Groups
    b. Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE) Subcommittee
3. Recommendation Reports
4. Any Other Business

    The Agenda will be published on the FAA Meeting webpage (https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/npm/) once it is finalized.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the
space available. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than June 4,
2018. Please provide the following information: full legal name,
country of citizenship, and name of your industry association, or
applicable affiliation. If you are attending as a public citizen,
please indicate so.
    For persons participating by telephone, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by email or phone
for the teleconference call-in number and passcode. Callers are
responsible for paying long-distance charges.
    The public must arrange by June 4, 2018, to present oral statements
at the meeting. The public may present written statements to the
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee by providing 25 copies to the
Designated Federal Officer, or by bringing the copies to the meeting.
    If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable
accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Sign and oral
interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2018-10527 Filed 5-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 55 (Thursday, March 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10562-10563]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05352]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2019-7]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Airbus
S.A.S.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before April 10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-1055
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Forseth, AIR-673, Federal
Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198,
phone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Alphonso

Pendergrass, ARM-200, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, phone
202-267-4713, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington.
Victor Wicklund,
Manager,Transport Standards Branch.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2019-0057.
    Petitioner: Airbus S.A.S.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Appendix K, Sec.  K25.1.4(a)(3).
    Description of Relief Sought: Airbus S.A.S seeks an exemption
related to the ETOPS low-fuel alert requirement, particularly the
saliency and persistence of this ETOPS low-fuel alert, for Airbus Model
A380 airplanes.

[FR Doc. 2019-05352 Filed 3-20-19; 8:45 a.m.]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 19354]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8257]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3213-000]

XO Energy MA, LP; Supplemental Notice that Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
XO Energy MA, LP's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 19, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the 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>.

    Dated: March 30, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8257 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 162 (Friday, August 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50785-50789]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20527]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0537; FRL-9932-55-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements for
the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the District of Columbia State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision addresses the infrastructure
requirements for interstate transport pollution with respect to the
2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving this revision
in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on October 20, 2015 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 21,
2015. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2015-0537 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0537, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2015-0537. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at 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 www.regulations.gov or email.
The www.regulations.gov Web site 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 email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public 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 electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the District of Columbia Department of the
Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th Floor,
Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emlyn V[eacute]lez-Rosa, (215) 814-
2038, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 16, 2015, the District of Columbia (the District), through
the District Department of the Environment (DDOE), submitted a formal
revision to its SIP. The SIP revision addresses the infrastructure
requirements for interstate transport of pollution under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA with respect to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.

A. General

    Whenever new or revised NAAQS are promulgated, the CAA requires
states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic
program elements, including, but not limited to, regulatory structure,
monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary
to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements
are referred to as infrastructure requirements.
    On September 21, 2006, EPA promulgated a new 24-hour
PM2.5 standard of 35 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on December 18, 2006. See 40
CFR 50.13.
    This rulemaking action pertains to the District's July 16, 2015
infrastructure SIP revision addressing the interstate transport
pollution requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA with
respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has taken
previous rulemaking actions on the District's SIP revision addressing
infrastructure elements in section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) with respect to the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 20237 (April 12, 2011)
(final approval of the District's September 21, 2009 SIP revision
addressing several section 110(a)(2) requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS) and 77 FR 5191 (February 2, 2012) (final
approval of the District's SIP revision addressing section
110(a)(2)(i)(II) for visibility protection).

B. EPA's Infrastructure Requirements

    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make infrastructure SIP
submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof).''
Infrastructure SIP submissions should provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements. EPA most
recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013
(2013 Infrastructure Guidance).\1\ EPA developed this document to
provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any
new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of
states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural
SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions. The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2).\2\ EPA

interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such that infrastructure SIP
submissions need to address certain issues and need not address others.
Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for
compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section
110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013. This guidance
is available online at http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf.
    \2\ On September 25, 2009, EPA issued ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Sections 110(a)(l) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS),'' Memorandum from William T. Hartnet, Director, Air Quality
Policy Division. This guidance provided that each state's SIP
submission for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS must discuss
whether emissions from the state significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the NAAQS or interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other state and must address any such impact. This
guidance is available online at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, EPA has provided in previous rulemaking actions a
detailed discussion of the Agency's approach in reviewing
infrastructure SIPs, including the Agency's longstanding interpretation
of requirements for section 110(a)(1) and (2), the interpretation that
the CAA allows states to make multiple SIP submissions separately
addressing infrastructure SIP elements in section 110(a)(2) for a
specific NAAQS, and the interpretation that EPA has the ability to act
on separate elements of 110(a)(2) for a NAAQS in separate rulemaking
actions. For example, see EPA's proposed rulemaking action approving
portions of the District's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008
ozone NAAQS and the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. See 80 FR 2865 (January 21, 2015).
    In particular, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires state SIPs to
address any emissions activity in one state that contributes
significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in any downwind state. EPA sometimes refers to these requirements
as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2
(interference with maintenance), or conjointly, the interstate
pollution transport requirements. EPA also commonly refers to these
provisions conjointly as the ``good neighbor'' provision of the CAA.
Specifically, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires the
elimination of upwind state emissions that significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state.
    A combination of local emissions and emissions from upwind sources
impacts air quality in any given location. Emissions of SO2
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) can react in the atmosphere to
form PM2.5 pollution. Similarly, NOX emissions
can react in the atmosphere to create ground-level ozone pollution.
These pollutants can travel great distances affecting air quality and
public health locally and regionally. The transport of these pollutants
across state borders makes it difficult for downwind states to meet
health-based air quality standards for PM2.5 and ozone. EPA
has taken actions to facilitate implementing the ``good neighbor''
provision, including the promulgation and administration of various
rules, such as the NOX Budget Trading Program, the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), and most recently, the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR).

C. Background on CSAPR Rule

    On August 8, 2011, EPA promulgated CSAPR to address SO2
and NOX emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) in
several states in the Eastern United States that significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in one or
more downwind states with respect to one or more of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially issued a decision in 2012 vacating
CSAPR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir.
2012); however, on April 29, 2014, the United States Supreme Court
reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision and remanded the matter,
including CSAPR, to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings in
accordance with its ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.,
134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit lifted
the stay on CSAPR, and EPA began implementation of CSAPR on January
1, 2015. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C.
Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. See also 79 FR 71663 (December 3,
2014) (interim final rulemaking clarifying how EPA will implement
CSAPR to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect the 1997 annual PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS). On July 28, 2015, in a subsequent
decision on certain ``as applied'' challenges to CSAPR, the D.C.
Circuit remanded to EPA for reconsideration specific emission
allowances for ozone season NOX and SO2 for
specific states, not including the District. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13039 (D.C. Cir. July
28, 2015). Because the District has no emission sources subject to
CSAPR and is not one of the states whose ozone season NOX
or SO2 allowances were remanded by the D.C. Circuit's
July 28, 2015 decision, EPA asserts this recent July 28, 2015
decision in EME Homer City by the D.C. Circuit has no impact on our
conclusion in this rulemaking that the District has satisfied its
obligation for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS as explained in detail in the CSAPR
rulemaking. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In CSAPR, EPA defined what portion of an upwind state's emissions
``significantly contributed'' to ozone or PM2.5
nonattainment or interference with maintenance areas in downwind states
with respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR requires states to eliminate
their ``significant contribution'' emissions by setting a pollution
limit (or budget). EPA used a state-specific methodology to identify
necessary emission reductions required by CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and used a detailed air quality analysis to
determine whether a state's contribution to downwind air quality
problems was at or above specific thresholds. EPA defined ``significant
contribution'' using a multi-factor analysis that took into account
both air quality and cost considerations.
    In promulgating CSAPR, EPA concluded that the District's SIP
satisfied the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect
to the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and
concluded no emission sources in the District were subject to CSAPR. As
discussed in the preamble of the CSAPR rulemaking, EPA had combined
emission contributions projected in the air quality modeling from the
State of Maryland and the District to determine whether those
jurisdictions collectively contribute to any downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor in amounts equal to or greater than the one
percent thresholds which EPA used to identify ``significant
contribution'' for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's modeling confirmed that the combined
contributions exceeded the air quality threshold at downwind receptors
for the 1997 ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However,
the District was not included in CSAPR because in the second step of
EPA's significant contribution analysis, EPA concluded that there are
no emission reductions available from EGUs in the District of Columbia
at the cost thresholds deemed sufficient to eliminate significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS considered at the linked receptors. See 76 FR 48208.
    In 2011, EPA found only one facility, Benning Road Generating
Station, with units meeting CSAPR applicability requirements in the
District, and EPA's projections did not show any generation from this
facility to be economic under any scenario analyzed and the facility
had also announced plans to retire its units in early 2012.
Subsequently, Benning Road permanently retired as an air pollution
source in 2012. Because EPA projected Benning Road to have zero
emissions in 2012, EPA also projected zero emissions of SO2
and NOX in the District for EGUs that would

meet the CSAPR applicability requirements. Therefore, EPA did not
identify any emission reductions available at any of the cost
thresholds considered in CSAPR's multi-factor analysis to identify
significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with
maintenance. For that reason, EPA concluded that no additional limits
or reductions were necessary, at that time, in the District to satisfy
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997
ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Id.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA's determination that the District's SIP satisfied
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and its determination that
no emission sources in the District were subject to CSAPR are not
affected by the recent decision of the D.C. Circuit to remand
specific portions of CSAPR to EPA for further consideration. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13039 (D.C.
Cir. July 28, 2015) (remanding portions of CSAPR to EPA to
reconsider specific state emission allowances for ozone season
NOX and SO2 for specific states, not including
the District).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA's Evaluation

    The July 16, 2015 SIP revision consists of a letter from the DDOE
affirming that the District has already satisfied the transport
requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained in this letter, the
District's determination is based on two aspects: (1) EPA's conclusion
in the preamble for CSAPR that the District had no emission reductions
at cost thresholds determined by EPA as necessary to address the
District's transport requirements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 and 1997 ozone NAAQS; and (2) the District's
declaration provided in the SIP submittal that it currently has no EGUs
within the District and the District's prior EGU, the Benning Road
Generating Station, permanently shut down in 2012.
    As discussed in the preamble of the final CSAPR rulemaking and
explained in the District's July 16, 2015 SIP submittal, EPA had
concluded that there are no emission reductions available from EGUs in
the District at the cost thresholds deemed sufficient to eliminate
significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with
maintenance of the NAAQS considered at the linked receptors. Therefore,
EPA had concluded that the District satisfied the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 78 FR at 48262.
    The District's July 16, 2015 SIP submission also certifies that the
District currently has no EGUs that could significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The District confirms that Benning Road
Generating Station, an EGU which was operational at the time of the
promulgation of CSAPR in 2011, permanently retired as expected in 2012.
The District's negative declaration further supports EPA's
determination in the CSAPR preamble that the District's SIP needs no
further measures or revisions to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the District's SIP revision submitted on July 16,
2015 addressing the requirements for the District under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding interstate transport pollution for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA concurs with the District's
determination that it has no EGUs and no emissions reductions are
needed for the SIP to address significant contribution to nonattainment
or interference with maintenance for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the
CAA for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is publishing this
rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However,
in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will
be effective on October 20, 2015 without further notice unless EPA
receives adverse comment by September 21, 2015. If EPA receives adverse
comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action
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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 20, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking action. This rulemaking action, addressing the interstate
pollution transport requirements for the District of Columbia with
respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.

    Dated: August 7, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart J--District of Columbia

0
2. In Sec.  52.470, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS'' to the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable           State                                Additional
             revision                geographic area    submittal date   EPA approval date       explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure   District of                07/16/15  8/21/2015 [Insert    This action
 Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5    Columbia.                            Federal Register     addresses the
 NAAQS.                                                                  citation].           following CAA
                                                                                elements, or
                                                                                portions thereof:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-20527 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20295]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0228]

Safety Zone, Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including
Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, and
Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone;
Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River,
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee
Channel on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal from Mile
Marker 295.7 to Mile Marker 297.0 at various times from May 1, 2012
until June 6, 2012. This action is necessary to protect the waterways,
waterway users, and vessels from hazards associated with the Army Corp
of Engineers' barrier testing operations. During these tests, the Army
Corp of Engineers' will conduct various safety tests to include barge
effects and field strength at depth measurement.
    During any of the below listed enforcement periods, entry into,
transiting, mooring, laying-up or anchoring within the enforced area of
this safety zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or
her designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.930 will be enforced from 7 a.m.
to 11 a.m. and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on May 1-4, 2012, and again on
June 5-6, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email CWO Jon Grob, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector
Lake Michigan, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of
the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including
Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River,
Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, listed in 33 CFR 165.930.
Specifically, the Coast Guard will enforce this safety zone between
Mile Marker 295.7 to Mile Marker 297.0 on all waters of the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal. Enforcement will occur from 7 a.m. until 11
a.m. and 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. on:
    (1) On May 1-4, 2012.
    (2) On June 5-6, 2012.
    This enforcement action is necessary because the Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan has determined that the Army Corp of
Engineers' fish suppression operations to clear all fish between
barrier IIA and IIB, in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers scheduled maintenance shutdown of Barrier IIB, poses risks to
life and property. The combination of vessel traffic and the fish
removal operations in the water makes the controlling of vessels
through the impacted portion of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
necessary to prevent injury and property loss.
    In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of this
part, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying up or anchoring within
the enforced area of this safety zone by any person or vessel is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, or his or her designated representative.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.930 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will also provide notice
through other means, which may include, but are not limited to,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, local news
media, distribution in leaflet form, and on-scene oral notice.
Additionally, the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, may notify
representatives from the maritime industry through telephonic and email
notifications.

    Dated: March 14 2012.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2012-8100 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 249 (Thursday, December 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80256-80257]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28336]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Safety Advisory 2022-02; Addressing Unintended Train Brake
Release

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Safety Advisory.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing Safety Advisory 2022-02 to make the rail
industry aware of a recent issue encountered by a train crew that
experienced an unintended brake release of a train's automatic air
brakes while stopped at a signal, and to recommend steps addressing the
unintended release of train air brakes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Fairbanks, Staff Director, Motive
Power & Equipment Division, Office of Railroad Infrastructure and
Mechanical, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected].
    Disclaimer: This Safety Advisory is considered guidance pursuant to
DOT Order 2100.6A (June 7, 2021). Except when referencing laws,
regulations, policies, or orders, the information in this Safety
Advisory does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to
bind the public in any way. This document does not revise or replace
any previously issued guidance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 22, 2022, during a significant thunderstorm, a crew
consisting of a locomotive engineer and conductor operated a
conventionally powered, intermodal train with 3 head-end locomotives,
47 loaded cars, and 6 empty cars, totaling 9,204 feet in length and
7,392 tons in weight. The engineer stopped the train on a downhill
grade of 0.9-1.18% near the signal governing the train's movement, set
the train's air brakes at approximately 12 pounds, and

fully set the locomotive consist's independent brakes. After being
stopped for approximately 3 hours, the engineer and conductor, located
in the lead locomotive cab, observed the train roll towards the signal
interlocking displaying a stop indication. This train experienced an
unintended automatic brake release. The locomotive consist's
independent brakes remained fully applied but due to the grade, tonnage
and wet rail could not solely hold the train without the automatic air
brakes also being applied.
    At that time, an opposing train on the same track was preparing to
cross through the interlocking in front of the rolling train. The
locomotive engineer of the rolling train applied full-service airbrakes
and full dynamic braking but was not satisfied that the brakes were
working effectively or fast enough. The conductor operated the
emergency brake valve and stopped the train short of the signal and the
train that was preparing to cross through the interlocking.
    The crew then contacted the dispatcher and railroad management to
report the unintended brake release and the conductor set a sufficient
number of car handbrakes to hold the train on the grade.
    FRA's investigation of the rolling train's event recorder, positive
train control (PTC) system, and engine data logs, revealed: the PTC
system had operated properly and would have initiated an emergency
brake application upon reaching the signal; the Trip Optimizer was off;
and the lead locomotive and consist did not cause the unintended brake
release. Instead, FRA determined that, after approximately three hours
with the air brakes set, the air pressure slowly bled down from some of
the cars' auxiliary reservoirs, likely causing localized brake
releases.\1\ The initiation of the brake release would enable the
accelerated release functionality by taking some air from the emergency
brake reservoirs and directing it back into the brake pipe resulting in
a substantial number of adjacent car brakes releasing. Potentially
contributing factors causing the train's unintended movement included
the downhill grade, wet rail, and the train's tonnage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FRA notes this type of prolonged pressure release would
likely not be identified during a periodic single car air brake
test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the potential for air brake system leaks, FRA prohibits
unattended trains from depending solely on air brakes to hold
equipment.\2\ While the aforementioned rolling train was attended, it
nevertheless engaged in an unintended movement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 49 CFR 232.103(n)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on FRA's review of this incident, and its awareness of other
train incidents involving an unintended air brake release under similar
circumstances, FRA believes operating guidance is warranted to help
reduce the likelihood of similar unintended air brake releases, and
therefore makes the following recommendations.

Recommendations

    1. Train crews should not expect a service rate or emergency brake
application to indefinitely maintain application of a train's air
brakes.
    2. If a train is stopped with air brakes set, and the train begins
moving, the crew should immediately apply the emergency brake. After
the train is stopped, the crew should set a sufficient number of
handbrakes to secure the train from further unintended movement before
releasing the brakes and recharging the train's air brake system.
    3. Each railroad should adopt and implement an air brake procedure
consistent with Recommendations 1 and 2 that addresses unintended brake
releases.
    4. Each railroad should have an operating supervisor conduct a
face-to-face meeting with each locomotive engineer and conductor to
explain and reinforce the contents of this advisory.
    FRA may modify Safety Advisory 2022-02, issue additional safety
advisories, or take other appropriate necessary action to ensure the
highest level of safety on the Nation's railroads.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-28336 Filed 12-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES PC Code: 118601 DP Barcode: D313382 Date: February 15, 2005 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Response to Comments on the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment of Chlorsulfuron TO: Susan Jennings, Chemical Review Manager Special Review and Reregistration Division FROM: Brian D. Kiernan, Biologist Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507c)

Kevin Costello, Risk Assessment Process Leader Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507c)

APPROVED BY: Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division The Environmental Fate and Effects Division has completed its response to public comment on the re registration eligibility decision risk assessment for chlorsulfuron.

Comments regarding Environmental Fate Page 11: DuPont provided risk assessments for several products which compete with chlorsulfuron in the cereal and fallow herbicide market. DuPont concluded that the theoretical soil concentrations the estimated show that products containing chlorsulfuron deliver less overall chemical load to the environment than older generation products.

Response: The purpose of the risk assessment performed by OPP for the chlorsulfuron RED is not to compare the environmental fate properties of chlorsulfuron to its alternatives, but to assess potential risks from the use of chlorsulfuron. A comparative risk assessment was not provided.  2

Pages 18, 24: DuPont asserts that data published between 1983 and 1999should be used in addition to DuPont studies and others summarized in the USDA ARS Pesticide Properties Database should be used in the risk assessment.

Response: The environmental fate parameters used as input in the surface and ground water models were derived from data submitted to the Agency by DuPont. These data were generated under the rules of Good Laboratory Practices, as required. The dataset provided by DuPont in its comments is useful for further characterization of the degradation of chlorsulfuron in aerobic soils, but cannot be used as provided as a substitute for the data submitted under GLP.

A majority of these studies should not directly be used in this chlorsulfuron risk assessment for several reasons, including that soils were used in the study which are not representative of soil conditions where chlorsulfuron might be used in the United States. One such study used tropical soils from Brazil ( DuPont reference 13); another study used high organic matter volcanic soils from New Zealand ( DuPont reference 8). Other studies, which were either performed by DuPont ( DuPont references 2, 9, 15 and 18) or were funded by grants from DuPont ( DuPont references 7), had not previously been submitted, presumably because they had not been conducted under GLP. One literature study was published in Italian, and could not be evaluated.

Raw data from these studies were not submitted, limiting our ability to evaluate the halflives DuPont derived from these studies. Further, in its review of a 1991 submission by DuPont ( Priester, 1991), a " summary abstracted from summaries of Du Pont Agricultural Products Reports," EFED wrote that " the author ( of Brown, 1983) concluded that these study parameters should be limited to initial degradation rates and should not be extrapolated to predict chlorsulfuron field behavior as the degradation becomes distinctly non first order at very long times." Therefore, the validity of the assumption that the DT 50 is an appropriate substitute for the aerobic soil metabolism half life is uncertain, and the estimate of the DT 90 with the assumption of actual first order kinetics is even more uncertain.

Finally, the weight of evidence from these studies does suggest that the degradation of chlorsulfuron in soils is dependant on pH and temperature. These trends are noted in the EFED review of a 1991 submission by DuPont, and in the chlorsulfuron RED. The 1991 EFED review states that "( t) he additional studies provided information indicating that chlorsulfuron degradation in the soil is dependent on temperature ( degradation was more rapid at higher temperatures than at lower temperatures), pH ( chlorsulfuron degradation was always more rapid in soils with a lower pH and clay content) and moisture content ( an increase in moisture levels resulted in lower 14CO 2 yields)."

Such information could be useful for region specific refinement of the risk to non target  3

plants exposed to chlorsulfuron via runoff. However, these data do not affect calculations of risk to plants exposed via drift of chlorsulfuron.

Comments regarding ecological effects:

1) Page 33. DuPont comment that the low use rates relative to other herbicide classes results in proportionally lower off target exposure.

Response: While the use rates of chlorsulfuron and other sulfonylureas are lower than many classes of herbicides, it does not necessarily follow that potentially adverse effects to non target species are less. The toxicity of chlorsulfuron and other sulfonylureas to plants is greater than that of most other herbicide classes, allowing them to be efficacious at lower application rates. While uncertainties exist, there is enough evidence that tiny amounts of chlorsulfuron affect plant function to warrant cautionary statements.

2) Page 34. DuPont indicates that rates of application for cereals range from 0.0078 to 0.023 lbs ai/ A.

Response: While this is correct, the maximum rate for other uses is higher. Chlorsulfuron can be applied to pasture/ rangeland at a rate of up to 0.0625 lbs ai/ A, and this rate was also used in the risk assessment. Based on current registered uses, rates as high as 0.5 lbs ai/ A/ yr are permitted.

3) Page 35. DuPont asserts that newer plant studies submitted should supersede previously submitted studies, because a NOEC was established. They note that previously submitted studies required an extrapolated EC 05, which greatly over estimates potential risks. Additionally, DuPont ( Page 40) suggests recalculation of RQs based on recently submitted studies.

Response: The endpoints from the new terrestrial studies were used and recalculated RQs were incorporated into the risk assessment. The aquatic plant studies, while adding valuable data to the risk characterization, did not supercede previous studies because they were not performed in a manner more consistent with Agency guidelines than previous studies.

4) Pages 39 and 40. DuPont comments on the conservative nature of EFED's four terrestrial plant exposure scenarios and suggests a number of variables be incorporated into the models ( such as wind direction at application and structure of border vegetation).

Response: The screening level risk assessment for chlorsulfuron is conservative, and used standard scenarios and methods. Since the screening level assessment indicated that chlorsulfuron poses risk to non target plants, a refined spray drift assessment has been performed and incorporated into the assessment.  4

This refined spray drift assessment considered both application to turf at a rate of 0.0625 lbs ai/ A, and aerial and ground application to wheat at a mid range application rate of 0.012 lbs ai/ A. The dose response data for all of the test species from the guideline plant studies were used in this assessment, not just that for the most sensitive species. Bar graphs show the level of effect ( based on vegetative vigor study data) that was calculated with the AgDrift model for each species at distances of up to 1000 feet from the treated field. The droplet size spectrum simulated was based on a survey of likely spray set ups among applicators in Washington and Oregon conducted by the Spray Drift Task Force. An analysis of typical wind speeds in wheat growing areas of the United States is also presented.

The results of the refined spray drift assessment provide further insight into the potential for plant risk from exposure to chlorsulfuron. The scenarios show that even with less than conservative assumptions, there are likely to be effects to many plant species from chlorsulfuron spray drift exposure alone. The multiple scenarios modeled show potential reductions in risk that might be expected from changes in application method or spray release height. This refined assessment does not consider the additional risk that would be posed by runoff in addition to the spray drift.

The assessment does not explicitly consider the structure of border vegetation or other variables. The Spray Drift Task Force identifies spray quality ( droplet size), release height, and wind speed as the most important factors affecting drift from aerial and ground applications and these factors are considered.

5) Pages 44 46 DuPont comments that the chlorsulfuron research included in the risk assessment are only " a subset of the relevant literature" available on the subject. Additionally, DuPont questions the relevance of the studies to actual " drift exposure and field growth conditions."

Response: While it is true that the literature highlighted is a subset of available literature, it was included in this risk assessment due to the sensitivity to chlorsulfuron of the species studied. The inclusion of these studies is intended to illustrate the uncertainties surrounding sub lethal effects of chlorsulfuron. There are questions regarding the applicability of these studies to actual field conditions, but they present sound data regarding the potential of chlorsulfuron to affect non target plant reproduction at rates as low as 1.6 x 10 10 lbs ai/ A, while exhibiting no sustained visible damage ( Fletcher et al., 1996). This rate is far lower than the 9.8 x 10 6 lbs ai/ A ( 0.011 g ai/ ha) DuPont asserts as the most sensitive endpoint found in the literature ( p 46).

To better illustrate the range of sensitivity to chlorsulfuron exhibited by plants, a review of endpoints available from the Agency's ECOTOX database has been incorporated into the risk assessment. Because of the uncertainties involved, these endpoints are considered  5

only qualitatively in the risk assessment; however, they may be representative of potential effects in the environment.

6) DuPont states that " regulatory studies on foliar effects are protective of reproductive effects." Additionally, DuPont suggests that reproductive effects do not occur in the absence of foliar effects. The comments present a series of studies that " demonstrate that exposure levels of chlorsulfuron applied at sensitive reproductive stages of plants can reduce yields, however only at or above rates" that produce foliar effects. Table 16 of the comments ( page 45) then compares the lowest rate which caused reproductive effects in each study to the EC 25 for peas and soybeans, and to the most sensitive EC 25 from lab studies ( rape) for the other studies. Since the EC 25 is lower for each comparison, except for soybeans, DuPont claims that the regulatory EC 25 endpoint is " protective" for reproductive effects.

Response: The product labels, which warn of reduced seed production on target plants if applied improperly, suggest reproductive effects in the absence of foliar damage. Studies such as Fletcher et al. ( 1996) support this possibility, and in the absence of definitive evidence to the contrary, it is discussed in the risk assessment.

The discussion presented by DuPont does not refute potential reproductive effects from exposure to chlorsulfuron ( or other sulfonylurea herbicides). First, the vegetative vigor study is not intended to directly measure reproductive effects, and is not conducted for a period long enough to measure them. Neither is it designed to include application at the most reproductively sensitive growth stage for each plant tested. It is uncertain how the application rate which resulted in reduced shoot weight for 25% of the tested plants would compare to the rate that would result in eventual reductions in yield.

Therefore, the EC 25 for rape is not directly comparable to the application rate which caused yield reductions in cherries, sunflower, smartweed, foxtail, alfalfa or bindweed. It is not clear if the most sensitive EC 25 shown for other sulfonylureas corresponds to plants tested in reproduction/ yield studies. As DuPont points out in other comments, the EC 25 for rape is the most sensitive among those tested in the lab. However, EFED's revised spray drift shows that there is a range of sensitivities among tested species.

The range of plants used in testing is limited to annuals despite the fact that woody plants and other perennials are commonly found in agricultural areas. Cherries were the most sensitive to yield reduction among the plants tested in the cited studies. The degree to which other woody plants are sensitive to yield reduction effects from chlorsulfuron exposure is uncertain; further data on reproductive response of plant species exposed to chlorsulfuron would help to better assess the possible risk.

7) Page 48 DuPont suggests that use of the EC 25 for dry shoot weight is transient and is not likely to result in season long injury." Additionally, DuPont comments on the suitability of  6

current regulatory test species.

Response: It is possible that the contention that the effect of chlorsulfuron on shoot dry weight is transient, but current guideline studies do not address this possibility and thus cannot be directly determined to be true. However, because the actual distribution of plant responses cannot be assessed, conservative assumptions are used in the risk assessment. EFED agrees that the saturation of foliage with varying concentrations at a constant volume is probably not representative of actual drift conditions. However, the refined spray drift assessment indicates that based on the laboratory dose response relationships in the submitted plant studies, the estimated amount of chlorsulfuron exposure through drift would exceed the rate which equates to EC 70 effects in greater than 50% of plants hundreds of feet from the treated field. This finding of potential risk does not take runoff exposure into account.

EFED agrees that there are uncertainties connected with translating laboratory data to potential effects in the field. The study cited by DuPont for comparison of laboratory and field data for pyridyloxy compounds indicated less sensitivity in the field, although the conditions under which the studies were conducted were not described. EFED has detailed uncertainties in its risk assessment.

8) The Weed Science Society of America wrote that their " primary concern is the apparent discrepancy between the calculated RQ's and the performance record for chlorsulfuron that has been established through twenty years of use on as much as five million acres per year. If the non target impacts under field conditions were comparable to the calculated RQs, we would expect a much more robust body of scientific ( and anecdotal) evidence documenting severe non target impacts. We are not certain of the reasons for the discrepancies between the apparent and assessed risks, but we are certain careful analysis and refinement are warranted." They go on to state " in today's competitive economy significant impacts on crop yield and quality are seldom ignored so it is unlikely that widespread non target impacts have been systematically overlooked."

Response: Chlorsulfuron effects, at least until recently, have been almost impossible to confirm in the field, even for experts. The potentially more subtle effects on plant populations in a given ecosystem are less likely to be reported. Given the potential for effects at distances greater than 1000 feet from the application area, cause and effect relationships may not be suspected. Therefore, the lack of numerous reported incidents should not be interpreted as lack of adverse effects to the environment. Data on the impact of chlorsulfuron on plant yield would address the appreciable uncertainty in estimates of chronic risk to plants.

9) The WSSA states that they " are also concerned that several statements in the risk assessment indicate that non target impacts of chlorsulfuron are difficult to recognize in the field and that they cannot be verified because they occur below the conventional level of  7

detection for chlorsulfuron." The WSSA suggests that this was true only when the chemical first came out, but that methods are now adequately sensitive.

Response: Several researchers have experimentally determined adverse effects of chlorsulfuron at nominal rates as low as 7.1 x 10 6 lbs ai/ A. EFED is not aware of advances in technology allowing detection of chlorsulfuron at this concentration.

10) The WSSA recommends " that timing of applications, frequency of applications, method of application and percent area treated also be considered, especially when assessing range and pasture uses."

Response: The risk assessment for pasture and rangeland uses is based on instructions on the chlorsulfuron product label. Because this use is recently registered, actual use data are not available.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31956-31957]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13679]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP09-487-003]

High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.; Notice of Compliance Filing

    Take notice that on May 16, 2011, High Island Offshore System,
L.L.C. (HIOS) filed to comply with the Commission's ``Order Approving,
as Modified, Uncontested Settlement'' issued on April 29, 2011. (135
FERC ] 61,105 (2011)). HIOS states it is submitting a revised
Stipulation and Agreement as directed, as more fully described in the
petition.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line 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>.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 2, 2011.

    Dated: May 26, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-13679 Filed 6-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P