[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36020-36022]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14630]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 30102; 812-13859-01]

Notice of Application; Hirtle Callaghan & Co., LLC and HC Capital
Trust

June 11, 2012.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.

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

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order that would permit
them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements without
shareholder approval.

Applicants: Hirtle Callaghan & Co., LLC (the ``Adviser'') and HC
Capital Trust (the ``Trust'').

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on January 19, 2011, and
amended on May 5, 2011, and April 27, 2012.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on July 9, 2012, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants:
Hirtle Callaghan & Co., LLC; Five Tower Bridge, 300 Barr Harbor Drive,
Suite 500, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Jennifer L. Sawin, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-
6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust, a Delaware statutory trust, is registered under the
Act as an open-end management investment company and offers series of
shares (each a ``Series''), each of which has its own distinct
investment objectives, policies and restrictions.\1\ The Adviser,

a Delaware limited liability company, is registered as an investment
adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act'')
and serves as the investment adviser to the Trust pursuant to two
separate investment advisory agreements currently in effect, one of
which applies to each Series (each an ``Investment Advisory Agreement''
and together the ``Investment Advisory Agreements''). Each Investment
Advisory Agreement was initially approved by the board of trustees of
the Trust (the ``Board''),\2\ including a majority of the trustees who
are not ``interested persons,'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the
Act, of the Trust or the Adviser (``Independent Trustees'') and by the
shareholders of the applicable Subadvised Fund in accordance with
sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act and rule 18f-2 thereunder.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants also request relief with respect to future Series
and any other existing or future registered open-end management
investment company or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by the
Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common
control with the Adviser or its successors (each such entity
included in the term ``Adviser''); (b) uses the multi-manager
structure described in the application; and (c) complies with the
terms and conditions of the application (together with any Series
that currently uses one or more Sub-Advisers, as defined below, each
a ``Subadvised Fund'' and collectively, the ``Subadvised Funds'').
The only existing registered open-end management investment company
that currently intends to rely on the requested order is named as an
Applicant. For purposes of the requested order, ``successor'' is
limited to an entity that results from a reorganization into another
jurisdiction or a change in the type of business organization. If
the name of any Subadvised Fund contains the name of a Sub-Adviser,
the name of the Adviser that serves as the primary adviser to the
Subadvised Fund, or a trademark or trade name that is owned by that
Adviser, will precede the name of the Sub-Adviser.
    \2\ The term ``Board'' also includes the board of trustees or
directors of a future Subadvised Fund.
    \3\ Each other Subadvised Fund will enter into an investment
advisory agreement with its Adviser (included in the term
``Investment Advisory Agreement''). Each Investment Advisory
Agreement will be approved by the applicable Board, including a
majority of the Independent Trustees and the shareholders of that
Subadvised Fund. Each other Adviser will be registered with the
Commission as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Under the terms of each Investment Advisory Agreement, the
Adviser, subject to the oversight of the Board, furnishes a continuous
investment program for each Subadvised Fund. The Adviser periodically
reviews each Subadvised Fund's investment policies and strategies and
based on the need of a particular Subadvised Fund may recommend changes
to the investment policies and strategies of the Subadvised Fund for
consideration by its Board. For its services to each Subadvised Fund,
the Adviser receives an investment advisory fee from that Subadvised
Fund as specified in the applicable Investment Advisory Agreement. The
investment advisory fees for the current Series of the Trust are
calculated based on the ``Average Daily Net Assets'' of the particular
Series.\4\ The terms of each Investment Advisory Agreement also permit
the Adviser, subject to the approval of the Board, including a majority
of the Independent Trustees, and the shareholders of the applicable
Subadvised Fund, to delegate portfolio management responsibilities of
all or a portion of the assets of the Subadvised Fund to one or more
sub-advisers (``Sub-Advisers''). The Trust has entered into investment
subadvisory agreements with various Sub-Advisers (``Sub-Advisory
Agreements'') to provide investment advisory services to certain
Subadvised Funds.\5\ The Adviser may also enter into Sub-Advisory
Agreements on behalf of other Subadvised Funds. Each Sub-Adviser is,
and any future Sub-Adviser will be, an investment adviser as defined in
section 2(a)(20) of the Act as well as registered as an investment
adviser under the Advisers Act. The Adviser evaluates, allocates assets
to and oversees the Sub-Advisers, and makes recommendations about their
hiring, termination and replacement to the Board, at all times subject
to the authority of the Board. For its services to a Subadvised Fund,
each Sub-Adviser will receive from the Subadvised Fund, a monthly fee,
computed and accrued daily, on the same basis (but not necessarily the
same rate) as the Adviser's investment advisory fees are calculated for
the particular Subadvised Fund managed by that Sub-Adviser. The Adviser
is not responsible for paying sub-advisory fees to the Sub-Adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The amounts of the investment advisory fees paid for the
current Series of the Trust are calculated based on the ``Average
Daily Net Assets'' of the particular Series, which means the average
daily value of the total assets of the Series, less all accrued
liabilities of the Series, (other than the aggregate amount of any
outstanding borrowings constituting financial leverage).
    \5\ The Trust has not entered into a Sub-Advisory Agreement with
an affiliate of the Adviser. The requested relief will not extend to
Affiliated Sub-Advisers, as defined below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to
Board approval, including a majority of Independent Trustees, to select
certain Sub-Advisers to manage all or a portion of the assets of a
Subadvised Fund pursuant to a Sub-Advisory Agreement and materially
amend Sub-Advisory Agreements without obtaining shareholder approval.
The requested relief will not extend to any Sub-Adviser that is an
affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of a
Subadvised Fund, or the Adviser other than by reason of serving as a
Sub-Adviser to a Subadvised Fund (``Affiliated Sub-Adviser''). Because
the Sub-Advisers are paid directly by the Subadvised Funds, Applicants
acknowledge that, after the requested order is issued, shareholder
approval will still be sought for any amendment to a Sub-Advisory
Agreement that would increase the total management and advisory fees
payable by a Subadvised Fund.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is
unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company except pursuant to a written contract that has been
approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting
securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of securities in a series investment company affected by a matter must
approve that matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act. Applicants state that the requested relief meets this standard for
the reasons discussed below.
    3. Applicants assert that the shareholders expect the Adviser,
subject to the review and approval of the Board, to select the Sub-
Advisers who are best suited to achieve the Subadvised Fund's
investment objective. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of
the shareholder, the role of the Sub-Adviser is substantially
equivalent to the role of the individual portfolio managers employed by
an investment adviser to a traditional investment company. Applicants
state that requiring shareholder approval of each Sub-Advisory
Agreement would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on the
Subadvised Funds, and may preclude the Adviser from acting promptly in
a manner considered advisable by the Board. Applicants note that the
Investment Advisory Agreement and Sub-Advisory Agreement with an
Affiliated Sub-Adviser (if any) will continue to be subject to the
shareholder approval requirement of section 15(a) of the Act and rule
18f-2 under the Act.
    4. If new Sub-Advisers are hired, the Subadvised Funds will inform
shareholders of the hiring of a new Sub-Adviser pursuant to the
following procedures (``Modified Notice and Access Procedures''): (a)
Within 90 days after a new Sub-Adviser is hired for any Subadvised
Fund, that Subadvised Fund will send its shareholders either a Multi-
manager Notice or a Multi-manager Notice and Multi-manager Information
Statement; \6\ and (b) the

Subadvised Fund will make the Multi-manager Information Statement
available on the Web site identified in the Multi-manager Notice no
later than when the Multi-manager Notice (or Multi-manager Notice and
Multi-manager Information Statement) is first sent to shareholders, and
will maintain it on that Web site for at least 90 days. In the
circumstances described in this application, a proxy solicitation to
approve the appointment of new Sub-Advisers provides no more meaningful
information to shareholders than the proposed Multi-manager Information
Statement. Moreover, as indicated above, the applicable Board would
comply with the requirements of section 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act
before entering into or amending Sub-Advisory Agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``Multi-manager Notice'' will be modeled on a Notice of
Internet Availability as defined in rule 14a-16 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), and specifically will,
among other things: (a) Summarize the relevant information regarding
the new Sub-Adviser; (b) inform shareholders that the Multi-manager
Information Statement is available on a Web site; (c) provide the
Web site address; (d) state the time period during which the Multi-
manager Information Statement will remain available on that Web
site; (e) provide instructions for accessing and printing the Multi-
manager Information Statement; and (f) instruct the shareholder that
a paper or email copy of the Multi-manager Information Statement may
be obtained, without charge, by contacting the Subadvised Funds.
    A ``Multi-manager Information Statement'' will meet the
requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and Item 22 of Schedule
14A under the Exchange Act for an information statement. Multi-
manager Information Statements will be filed electronically with the
Commission via the EDGAR system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Before a Subadvised Fund may rely on the requested order, the
operation of the Subadvised Fund in the manner described in the
application will have been approved by a majority of the Subadvised
Fund's outstanding voting securities as defined in the Act or, in the
case of a Subadvised Fund whose public shareholders purchase shares on
the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by
condition 2 below, by the initial shareholder(s) before such Subadvised
Fund's shares are offered to the public.
    2. The prospectus for each Subadvised Fund will disclose the
existence, substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to this
application. In addition, each Subadvised Fund will hold itself out to
the public as employing a multi-manager structure as described in the
application. The prospectus will prominently disclose that the Adviser
has ultimate responsibility, subject to oversight by the Board, to
oversee the Sub-Advisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and
replacement.
    3. Subadvised Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new
Sub-Adviser within 90 days after the hiring of the new Sub-Adviser
pursuant to the Modified Notice and Access Procedures.
    4. The Adviser will not enter into a Sub-Advisory Agreement with
any Affiliated Sub-Adviser without that agreement, including the
compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders
of the applicable Subadvised Fund.
    5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be
Independent Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional
Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-
existing Independent Trustees.
    6. Whenever a Sub-Adviser change is proposed for a Subadvised Fund
with an Affiliated Sub-Adviser, the Board, including a majority of the
Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the
Board minutes, that the change is in the best interests of the
Subadvised Fund and its shareholders, and does not involve a conflict
of interest from which the Adviser or the Affiliated Sub-Adviser
derives an inappropriate advantage.
    7. The Adviser will provide general management services to each
Subadvised Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the
general management and investment of the Subadvised Fund's assets, and
subject to review and approval of the Board, will: (i) Set the
Subadvised Fund's overall investment strategies; (ii) evaluate, select
and recommend Sub-Advisers to manage all or a portion of the Subadvised
Fund's assets; (iii) allocate and, when appropriate, reallocate the
Subadvised Fund's assets among Sub-Advisers; (iv) monitor and evaluate
the Sub-Advisers' performance; and (v) implement procedures reasonably
designed to ensure that the Sub-Advisers comply with the Subadvised
Fund's investment objective, policies and restrictions.
    8. No trustee or officer of the Trust or of a Subadvised Fund or
director or officer of the Adviser will own directly or indirectly
(other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled
by such person) any interest in a Sub-Adviser, except for (i) ownership
of interests in the Adviser or any entity that controls, is controlled
by, or is under common control with the Adviser; or (ii) ownership of
less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or
debt of a publicly traded company that is either a Sub-Adviser or an
entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with
a Sub-Adviser.
    9. In the event the Commission adopts a rule under the Act
providing substantially similar relief to that in the order requested
in the application, the requested order will expire on the effective
date of that rule.
    10. Subadvised Funds pay fees to a Sub-Adviser directly from Fund
assets. Any changes to a Sub-Advisory Agreement that would result in an
increase in the total management and advisory fees payable by a
Subadvised Fund will be approved by the shareholders of that Subadvised
Fund.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14630 Filed 6-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 38113-38114]
[DOCID:fr01jy10-84]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0009]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, OMB No. 1660-NEW; Environmental and Historic
Preservation Environmental Screening Form

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; new information
collection; OMB No. 1660-NEW; FEMA Form 024-0-1, Environmental and
Historic Preservation Environmental Screening Form.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted
the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management
and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission describes the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 2, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer

for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address FEMA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Environmental and Historic Preservation Environmental
Screening Form.
    Type of information collection: New information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-NEW.
    Form Titles and Numbers: Environmental and Historic Preservation
Environmental Screening Form, FEMA Form 024-0-1.
    Abstract: In efforts to examine the impact of its actions on the
environment, look at potential alternatives to that action, inform both
decision-makers and the public of those impacts through a transparent
process, and pursue mitigation if necessary, grant recipients need to
provide information that their actions will comply with all related
laws and regulations.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government; Business or
other for profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,323.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: 8 hours. The
estimated average hour burden per respondent has changed since
publication of the 60-day Federal Register Notice at 75 FR 13772, Mar.
23, 2010.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 10,584 hours. The estimated
total annual burden hours has changed since publication of the 60-day
Federal Register Notice at 75 FR 13772, Mar. 23, 2010.
    Estimated Cost: There is no annual reporting recordkeeping cost
associated with this collection.

    Dated: June 25, 2010.
Tammi Hines,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2010-16047 Filed 6-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-78-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37963-37966]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15165]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0115]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Fifth Coast Guard District Fireworks Display Cape
Fear River; Wilmington, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the enforcement
location of a safety zone for one specific recurring fireworks display
in the Fifth Coast Guard District. This regulation applies to only one
recurring fireworks event, held adjacent to the Cape Fear River,
Wilmington, North Carolina. The fireworks display formerly originated
from a location on land but this year will originate from a barge. The
safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable
waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel
traffic in a portion of the Cape Fear River, Wilmington, North
Carolina, during the event.

DATES: This rule will be effective from 5:30 p.m. on July 4, 2013,
until 1 a.m. on July 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2013-0115]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email BOSN4 Joseph M. Edge, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina,
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The regulation for this fireworks display is located at 33 CFR
165.506, Table to Sec.  165.506, section (d.) line 2. The Coast Guard
plans to permanently amend the regulation at 33 CFR 165.506 at a later
date to reflect this change.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and immediate
action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public during the
event. The potential dangers posed by fireworks displays conducted on
the Cape Fear River with other vessel traffic makes a safety zone
necessary to provide for the safety of participants, spectator craft
and

other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted,
it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during
the event. The Coast Guard will issue broadcast notice to mariners to
advise vessel operators of navigational restrictions. On scene Coast
Guard and local law enforcement vessels will also provide actual notice
to mariners.
    For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Any delay
encountered in this regulation's effective date by waiting for the NPRM
comment period to close would be impracticable and contrary to public
interest since immediate action is needed to provide for the safety of
life and property on navigable waters from the hazardous nature of
fireworks including unexpected detonation and burning debris.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Recurring fireworks displays are frequently held on or adjacent to
the navigable waters within the boundary of the Fifth Coast Guard
District. For a description of the geographical area of each Coast
Guard Sector or Captain of the Port Zone, please see 33 CFR 3.25.
    The regulation listing annual fireworks displays within the Fifth
Coast Guard District and safety zones locations is 33 CFR 165.506. The
Table to Sec.  165.506 identifies fireworks displays by COTP zone, with
the COTP North Carolina zone listed in section ``(d.)'' of the Table.
    The Battleship NORTH CAROLINA Commission sponsors an annual
fireworks display held on July 4 over the waters of Cape Fear River at
Wilmington, North Carolina. The Table to Sec.  165.506, at section (d.)
event Number ``2'', describes the enforcement date and regulated
location for this fireworks event.
    The location listed in the Table has the fireworks display
originating from a location, on land, on the north bank of the Cape
Fear River at Wilmington, North Carolina. However, this event changes
the fireworks launch location on July 4, 2013, to a position on the
Cape Fear River at latitude 34[deg]14'17'' N longitude 077[deg]57'11''
W.
    A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to
view the fireworks display. Due to the need for vessel control during
the fireworks display vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to
provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting
vessels. Under provisions of 33 CFR 165.506, during the enforcement
period, vessels may not enter the regulated area unless they receive
permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard will temporarily suspend the regulation listed in
Table to Sec.  165.506, section (d.) event Number 2, and insert this
temporary regulation at Table to Sec.  165.506, at section (d.) as
event Number ``15'', in order to reflect that the fireworks display
will originate from a barge in the Cape Fear River and therefore the
regulated area is changed. This change is needed to accommodate the
sponsor's event plan. No other portion of the Table to Sec.  165.506 or
other provisions in Sec.  165.506 shall be affected by this regulation.
    The regulated area of this safety zone includes all water of the
Cape Fear River within a 300 yards radius of latitude 34[deg]14'17'' N
longitude 077[deg]57'11'' W.
    This safety zone will restrict general navigation in the regulated
area during the fireworks event. Except for persons or vessels
authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the regulated area during the effective period. The
regulated area is needed to control vessel traffic during the event for
the safety of participants and transiting vessels.
    In addition to notice in the Federal Register, the maritime
community will be provided extensive advance notification via the Local
Notice to Mariners, and marine information broadcasts so mariners can
adjust their plans accordingly.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this regulation
restricts access to a small segment of the Cape Fear River, the effect
of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety zone will
be in effect for a limited duration; (ii) the zone is of limited size;
and (iii) the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime
advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
Additionally, this rulemaking changes the regulated area for the Cape
Fear River fireworks demonstration for July 4, 2013 only and does not
change the permanent regulated area that has been published in 33 CFR
165.506, Table to Sec.  165.506 at portion ``d'' event Number ``2''. In
some cases vessel traffic may be able to transit the regulated area
when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the Cape Fear River where fireworks
events are being held. This regulation will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will be
enforced only during the fireworks display event that has been
permitted by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port. The Captain of the
Port will ensure that small entities are able to operate in the
regulated area when it is safe to do so. In some cases, vessels will be
able to safely transit around the regulated area at various times, and,
with the permission of the Patrol Commander, vessels may transit
through the regulated area. Before the enforcement period, the Coast
Guard will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans
accordingly.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishing a safety zone for a
fireworks display launch site and fallout area and is expected to have
no impact on the water or environment. This zone is designed to protect
mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with aerial
fireworks displays. This rule is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-
295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  165.506, amend section (d) Coast Guard Sector North
Carolina--COTP Zone in the Table to Sec.  165.506 by--
0
a. Suspending entry 2, ``Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC, Safety
zone,'' from 5:30 p.m. on July 4, 2013, to 1 a.m. on July 5, 2013; and
0
b. Adding entry 15 from 5:30 p.m. on July 4, 2013, to 1 a.m. on July 5,
2013, to read as follows:

Sec.  165.506  Safety Zones; Fireworks Displays in the Fifth Coast
Guard District.

* * * * *

                                             Table to Sec.   165.506
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Number                           Date                    Location              Regulated area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                (d) Coast Guard Sector North Carolina--COTP Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
15................................  July 4-5, 2013............  Cape Fear River,       All waters of the Cape
                                                                 Wilmington, NC,        Fear River within a 300
                                                                 Safety Zone.           yard radius of the
                                                                                fireworks launch barge
                                                                                in approximate position
                                                                                latitude 34[deg]14'17''
                                                                                N longitude
                                                                                077[deg]57'11''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: May 2, 2013.
A. Popiel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2013-15165 Filed 6-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES May 20, 2004 Memorandum SUBJECT: Response to " Evaluation of the Potential Exposure of Workers to Propanil During Mixing/ Loading and Aerial Application to Rice Fields Using Simultaneous Dermal Dosimetry and Biological Monitoring Techniques" and " Propanil Exposures and Risk Assessment Based on Data from an Aerial Application Study in Rice with Liquid Formulations"

FROM: Shanna Recore, Industrial Hygienist Bill Smith, Environmental Protection Specialist Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

THRU: Al Nielsen, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

TO: Carmen Rodia, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

DP Barcode: 297899 PC Code: 028201 EPA MRID No.: 461478 01 Attached is the Health Effects Division's ( HED) response to both " Evaluation of the Potential Exposure of Workers to Propanil During Mixing/ Loading and Aerial Application to Rice Fields Using Simultaneous Dermal Dosimetry and Biological Monitoring Techniques" and " Propanil Exposure and Risk Assessment Based on Data from an Aerial Application Study in Rice with Liquid Formulations" submitted by The Propanil Task Force II to EPA on August 15, 2003 and December 5, 2003, respectively. Page 2 of 9 The Propanil Task Force II submitted to EPA September 13, 2003, a study titled Evaluation of the Potential Exposure of Workers to Propanil During Mixing/ Loading and Aerial Application to Rice Fields Using Simultaneous Dermal Dosimetry and Biological Monitoring Techniques ( MRID # 46075501). The purpose of this study was to quantify inhalation and dermal exposure of handlers during mixing/ loading and aerial application of propanil to rice fields. Thirty individuals participated in the study at eleven test sites ( 15 mixer/ loaders, 14 pilots, and 1 combined mixer/ loader/ pilot). The sites for this study were located in Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas and there were multiple sites in each state.

The study produced propanil specific biomonitoring and passive dosimetry data. The study author indicates that the study design employs a " commonly used technique of simultaneous dosimetry and biological monitoring." The technique involves the use of an outer dosimeter ( long sleeve shirt and long pants) worn over an inner dosimeter ( tee shirt and briefs). The author states that this dosimetry design " allows for penetration of the propanil residues through the clothing as would occur under normal field agricultural practices, and does not block the penetration of propanil through the skin as would occur if a long underwear whole body dosimeter were worn under the long sleeve shirt and long pants."

Total Handler Exposure Total handler exposure was calculated in the study through combining inhalation exposures ( measured using personal air samplers) with dermal exposures ( measured through passive dosimetry techniques). The dermal passive dosimetry techniques included hand washes, hat patches, and by the use of an " outer" dosimeter for the torso, arms, and legs and an " inner" dosimeter for the torso. The study author compared the residues on the inner dosimeter to the torso residues on the outer dosimeter and derived a " protection factor" attributable to the outer dosimeter. Dermal exposure to the torso, arms, and legs was then estimated by applying the protection factor to the outer dosimeter residues. Total dermal exposure was calculated by adding the adjusted torso, arms, and legs exposure to the hand exposure values and head/ face/ neck exposure values.

Total handler exposure was also calculated in the study using biomonitoring techniques   through analysis of the handlers' urine for 3,4 dichloroaniline ( 3,4 DCA), which the study author cites as the major metabolite of propanil. The study protocol required that handlers participating in the study would not be exposed to propanil for at least 3 days prior to and at least 3 days following the day of the study. In the study itself, however, only two handlers out of the 30 participants were known to have had no exposure in the 3 days before and 3 days following the study. Six other handlers may not have had exposures in the 3 days before and 3 days following the study, but there was some uncertainty. The remaining 22 participants were known to have had exposures in one or more of the 3 days before and 3 days following the study. The urine data collected for eight handlers who were presumed to have had no propanil exposures for three days before or three days after the study were input into a model to determine the half life of the excretion of detectable urine residues. The half life of the excretion of propanil metabolites was found to be 23.9 hours. Using a model to adjust for propanil residues that handlers may have received other than during the study, the study author calculated an approximate dose of propanil Page 3 of 9 for each handler on day 0. The study author calculated unit exposures of 54.7 ± 120 : g/ kg ai/ day for mixer/ loaders and 35.5 : g/ kg ai/ day for pilots. For both mixer/ loaders and pilots, the unit exposure values obtained from biomonitoring are much higher than those obtained from whole body dosimetry.

Use of the Passive Dosimetry Study Data HED has numerous concerns about the data produced by the study, including:

° The study protocol states that " mixer/ loaders will wear new or freshly laundered longsleeved shirts, new or freshly laundered long pants, new or freshly laundered t shirt and brief, new chemical resistant gloves, new shoes, new socks, and protective eyewear as required by the label." However, mixers/ loaders in the study wore either a chemicalresistant apron or a Tyvek coverall over the " outer" dosimeter ( cotton coverall) and also wore chemical resistant footwear. In calculating potential dermal exposures to mixers/ loaders, the study author does not factor in this additional personal protective equipment, which exceeds the requirements of the product labeling.

° The study states that most mixers/ loaders used a siphoning device to transfer the propanil from the drum into the mix tank and then used a dry lock system ( an engineering control) to pump the dilute mixture into the airplane spray tank. This would result in artificially low mixer/ loader exposures due to the use of the engineering control in part of the mix/ load process.

° The study protocol states that " all workers will perform their work tasks for a typical amount of time that represents an entire workday. One replicate will be an entire workday for each test subject. . . . The air sampling pump will operate for the entire monitoring replicate ( estimated to be 6 12 hours)." However, the average duration of actual handling for each replicate in the study was only 2.2 hours for mixers/ loaders and only 1.7 hours for pilots.

° The study protocol states: " applications of the test substance to rice fields will be made at a rate of 6 lbs ai/ acre." However, the average application rate used in the study was approximately 2.8 pounds active ingredient per acre   ranging from 1.9 to 4.5 lb ai/ acre.

° Overall, there were thirteen amendments and forty deviations to the study protocol.

Triple Layers for Mixers/ Loaders: In the study protocol, where the use of a protection factor was presented as an approach to calculating exposure to the torso, arms, and legs, the study authors stated that mixers/ loaders would wear new or freshly laundered long sleeve shirt and long pants over a tee shirt and briefs. EPA agreed that such attire would permit the calculation of a penetration factor for estimating risks to the torso, arms, and legs. However, in the actual study, all mixers/ loaders wore either a chemical resistant apron or a Tyvek coverall as an additional layer over cotton coveralls. The study did not use the residues on the apron or Tyvek coveralls, but measured residues on the cotton coverall as the " outer dosimeter" and on the Page 4 of 9 tee shirt and briefs as the " inner dosimeter." However, the apron provided a chemical resistant barrier over the coverall in the torso section and presumably reduced penetration to the coverall itself to a significant degree. Since an apron would not provide similar exposure to the legs and arms, applying a penetration factor calculated on the torso exposures to the residues measured on the arms and legs would result in a calculated penetration factor that would be artificially low. Similarly, the Tyvek coverall reduced exposure to the cotton coverall to a significant degree. Therefore, any calculated penetration factor also would be artificially low. HED considered calculating a penetration factor using the Tyvek coverall as the outer dosimeter and the cotton coverall as the inner dosimeter. However, only four mixer/ loader replicates were performed with Tyvek coveralls, which would not provide a statistically significant number. In addition, nonwoven fabric, such as Tyvek, is known to allow significantly less penetration than a cotton coverall, therefore a calculated penetration factor would not be representative of the penetration through cotton coveralls. Due to many practical considerations, including cost and heat stress concerns, EPA does not require routine use by mixers/ loaders or applicators of coveralls made from Tyvek or other nonwoven fabrics.

Reduced Likelihood of Penetration of Coverall: Penetration of a chemical through a matrix is dependent on three factors: 1. composition of the matrix, 2. concentration of the residue on the matrix surface, and 3. time of residue contact with the matrix surface. This study used application rates lower than the maximum 6 pounds active ingredient listed in the protocol and on the product labeling ( STAM M4), with an average application rate in the study slightly less than 3 pounds active ingredient per acre. In addition, this study involved much lower handling times than were listed in the protocol. The average actual handling time for mixers/ loaders was only 2.2 hours and for pilots was only 1.7 hours and the average dermal monitoring time was less than 4.5 hours for both handling tasks. The application rate factor would be expected to result in less residue being deposited on the outer dosimeter and the handling time factor would be expected to result in less time for the residue to penetrate the outer dosimeter.

Dermal Exposures to Mixers/ Loaders and Pilots: HED used the propanil passive dosimetry data to calculate dermal exposure to the torso, arms, and legs for the pilot scenarios only. HED did not calculate dermal exposure to the torso, arms, and legs for the mixer/ loader or for the mixer/ loader/ applicator scenarios, since an appropriate protection factor could not be calculated from the data as presented in the study. HED calculated the dermal body exposure to pilots using the same method as the study author. First, a penetration factor was derived by dividing the amount of residue on the inner dosimeter ( tee shirt and briefs) by the residue on the torso section of the outer dosimeter. Then outer dosimeter residues for arms, legs, and torso were multiplied by the penetration factor. For the pilot study, dermal unit exposures averaged 1.05E 04 mg/ lb ai for the arms, 4.82E 05 mg/ lb ai for the legs, and 7.46E 05 mg/ lb ai for the torso.

HED then calculated total dermal unit exposure for pilots by summing the dermal unit exposures to hands ( from hand washes), to face, head, and neck ( from head patches), and to the arms, legs, and torso ( as described above). Total dermal unit exposure estimates averaged 1.27E 03 mg/ lb ai Page 5 of 9 handled for the pilots. Total dermal unit exposure to mixers/ loaders and to the mixer/ loader/ applicator were not calculated by HED, since an appropriate protection factor could not be calculated from the data as presented in the study for dermal exposure to the torso, arms, and legs for these two scenarios.

Use of the Biomonitoring Study Data HED has the same concerns   excess PPE, short handling periods, and low amount of active ingredient handled   about the biomonitoring study data as for the passive dosimetry study data. In addition, HED has concerns that 22 of 30 study participants were known to have had propanil exposures in one or more of the 3 days before and 3 days following the study.

The report that the Propanil Task Force II submitted to EPA on December 5, 2003, titled " Propanil Exposure and Risk Assessment Based on Data from an Aerial Application Study in Rice with Liquid Formulations" states:

Analysis of DCA in urine was conducted only as a marker metabolite to afford a qualitative indication of exposure to propanil. DCA is not a major metabolite, but the short term dosing study in rats shows that approximately 47% of parent metabolizes into dicarboxylic acids in rats that, when hydrolyzed with hydrochloric acid, are converted to the DCA moiety. Only rat metabolism data is available for propanil. Because no human metabolism data exist, urine analysis for DCA is not valid as a tool for quantification of exposure to propanil, but is valid as a qualitative tool to indicate exposure to propanil. ( Dow AgroSciences LLC, Study ID: GH C 5691, page 14 15)

Therefore, the Propanil Task Force II did not attempt to use the biomonitoring data to perform a quantitative assessment of mixers/ loaders and pilots exposures to propanil.

Revised Exposure and Risk Assessment to Pilots Applying Propanil to Rice HED assessed the exposure and risks to pilots applying propanil to rice using data from version 1.1 of the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database ( which contains 24 to 48 replicates for pilots using enclosed cockpits) and using passive dosimetry and biomonitoring data from the study ( MRID # 46075501) titled Evaluation of the Potential Exposure of Workers to Propanil During Mixing/ Loading and Aerial Application to Rice Fields Using Simultaneous Dermal Dosimetry and Biological Monitoring Techniques ( which contains 14 replicates for pilots using enclosed cockpits). HED believes the propanil specific passive dosimetry study data represents artificially low exposure values, due to the limited amount of active ingredient handled by pilots and the limited period of time the pilots wore the dosimeters. In a normal work day, HED believes it is unlikely that pilots would change out of their work clothes until the end of an 8 to10 hour workday. Page 6 of 9 The results of the revised exposure and risk assessment indicate that:

° risks are not a concern using the propanil specific passive dosimetry data when applying propanil at the 3 or 6 pounds active ingredient per acre application rate at up to 3200 acres per day. ( Note: HED believes the passive dosimetry data represents artificially low exposure values.)

° risks remain a concern using the propanil specific biomonitoring data when applying propanil at the 3 or 6 pounds active ingredient per acre application rate at 350 to 3200 acres per day.

° risks remain a concern using PHED data > at the 6 pounds active ingredient per acre application rate for scenarios, even when only 350 acres are treated per day and > at the 3 pounds active ingredient per acre application rate and 1200 or 3200 acres per day.

° risks are not a concern using PHED data when applying propanil at the 3 pounds active ingredient per acre application rate to 350 or 500 acres per day.

These risks calculated from the study passive dosimetry data are essentially the same as those calculated in the report titled " Propanil Exposure and Risk Assessment Based on Data from an Aerial Application Study in Rice with Liquid Formulations" that was submitted to EPA on December 5, 2003, by the Propanil Task Force II.

See table below   Summary of Risks to Pilots in Enclosed Cockpits Using PHED and Propanil Specific Data. Page 7 of 9 Summary of Risks to Pilots in Enclosed Cockpits Using PHED and Propanil Specific Data Exposure Scenario Data Sourcea Application Rate ( lb ai/ A) Area Treated Dailyb ( acres) Engineering Controls ( Enclosed Cockpits)

Dermal Unit Exposure ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation Unit Exposure ( ug/ lb ai) Biomonitoring Unit Exposure ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal MOE Inhalation MOE Dermal + Inhalation MOE Geometric Mean Target MOE = 300 Applying Sprays to Rice with Enclosed Cockpit Aerial Equipment PHED 6 3200 0.005 0.068 N/ A 33 480 31 Propanil Dosimetry 0.00027 0.00093 N/ A 610 35,000 600 Propanil Biomonitoring N/ A N/ A 0.016 N/ A N/ A 2.1 PHED data 1200 0.005 0.068 N/ A 88 1300 82 Propanil Dosimetry 0.00027 0.00093 N/ A 1600 94,000 1600 Propanil Biomonitoring N/ A N/ A 0.016 N/ A N/ A 5.5 PHED data 500 0.005 0.068 N/ A 210 3100 200 Propanil Dosimetry 0.00027 0.00093 N/ A 3900 230,000 3800 Propanil Biomonitoring N/ A N/ A 0.016 N/ A N/ A 13 PHED data 350 0.005 0.068 N/ A 300 4400 280 Propanil Dosimetry 0.00027 0.00093 N/ A 5600 320,000 5500 Propanil Biomonitoring N/ A N/ A 0.016 N/ A N/ A 19 PHED data 3 3200 0.005 0.068 N/ A 66 970 62 Propanil Dosimetry 0.00027 0.00093 N/ A 1200 71,000 1200 Propanil Biomonitoring N/ A N/ A 0.016 N/ A N/ A 4.1 PHED data 1200 0.005 0.068 N/ A 180 2600 170 Propanil Dosimetry 0.00027 0.00093 N/ A 3200 190,000 3100 Propanil Biomonitoring N/ A N/ A 0.016 N/ A N/ A 11 PHED data 500 0.005 0.068 N/ A 420 6200 390 Propanil Dosimetry 0.00027 0.00093 N/ A 7800 450,000 7700 Propanil Biomonitoring N/ A N/ A 0.016 N/ A N/ A 26 Exposure Scenario Data Sourcea Application Rate ( lb ai/ A) Area Treated Dailyb ( acres) Engineering Controls ( Enclosed Cockpits)

Dermal Unit Exposure ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation Unit Exposure ( ug/ lb ai) Biomonitoring Unit Exposure ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal MOE Inhalation MOE Dermal + Inhalation MOE Geometric Mean Target MOE = 300 Page 8 of 9 PHED data 350 0.005 0.068 N/ A 600 8800 560 Propanil Dosimetry 0.00027 0.00093 N/ A 11,000 650,000 11,000 Propanil Biomonitoring N/ A N/ A 0.016 N/ A N/ A 38 Footnotes:

a PHED data is from version 1.1 of the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database; Propanil Data is from the Propanil Study Evaluation of the Potential Exposure of Workers to Propanil During Mixing/ Loading and Aerial Application to Rice Fields Using Simultaneous Dermal Dosimetry and Biological Monitoring Techniques dated September, 13, 2003.

b Acres treated daily: 3200 acres was the high end estimate for rice provided by the Propanil Task Force at the SMART Meeting that occurred on March 23, 2001,

1200 acres per day is the default acres treated for rice under Policy 9 of the Science Advisory Council for Exposure ( 06/ 23/ 2000) titled " Standard Values for Daily Acres Treated in Agriculture," and 500 acres and 300 acres are presented for rangefinder purposes. Page 9 of 9


[Federal Register: April 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 20523-20524]
[DOCID:fr25ap07-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-56-000]

Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc., Borough of Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania; City and Towns of Hagerstown, Thurmont, and Williamsport,
Maryland; District of Columbia Office of the People's Counsel; Illinois
Citizens Utility Board; Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counsel;
Maryland Office of People's Counsel; New Jersey Division of Rate
Counsel; Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Division of
Consumer Counsel; Office of the Ohio Consumer's Counsel; Old Dominion
Electric Cooperative; Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate; PJM
Industrial Customer Coalition; Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative,
Inc.; State of Delaware, Division of the Public Advocate v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Complaint

April 18, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 17, 2007, the above-referenced ``Joint
Complainants'' tendered for filing, pursuant to sections 205 and 206 of
the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824d and 824e (2006) and Rule 206 of
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, a
complaint for a Show Cause Order and assurances from PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. that it has not violated, and will not violate,
its tariff requirements pertaining to market monitoring.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 30, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7801 Filed 4-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P