[Federal Register: June 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 110)]
[Notices]
[Page 32379-32380]
[DOCID:fr06jn08-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57899; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Disclaimer of Warranties and the Listing of $2.50 Strikes
for Options on the SIG KCI Coal Index\TM\

June 2, 2008.
    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 May 23, 2008, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Phlx. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Phlx proposes to add the SIG KCI Coal Index\TM\ (``SIG KCI Coal
Index'' or ``Index'') to Phlx Rule 1101A, Terms of Options Contracts,
regarding listing options at strike price intervals of $2.50 or greater
and to Phlx Rule 1104A, SIG Indices, LLLP, regarding disclaimer of
express or implied warranties.\5\ The text of the proposed rule change
is available at Phlx's principal office, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.phlx.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The SIG Indexes noted herein are trademarks of SIG Indices,
LLLP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Phlx Rules
1101A and 1104A to include the SIG KCI Coal Index that was recently
licensed by SIG Indices, LLLP (``Susquehanna'') to the Exchange, which
would enable the Exchange to list the index at $2.50 or greater strike
price intervals and limit Susquehanna's liability with respect to the
Index. This proposal should encourage listing such options at
appropriate strike price intervals to the benefit of investors and
should encourage maintenance of the Index by Susquehanna so that
options overlying the index may be available for trading.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange has recently entered into a licensing agreement
with Susquehanna that would, among other things, allow the Exchange
to list and trade options on the SIG KCI Coal Index\TM\ (``License
Agreement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx Rule 1101A currently indicates that the Exchange shall
determine fixed point strike price intervals for index options at no
less than $5.00, provided that for indexes that are listed in Phlx Rule
1101A the Exchange may determine to list strike prices at no less than
$2.50 intervals if the strike price is less than $200.\7\ The rule also
provides that such options may be traded at $2.50 strike price
intervals in response to customer interest or specialist request. The
proposed rule change adds the SIG KCI Coal Index to the list of indexes
in Phlx Rule 1101A upon which the Exchange may list options at $2.50
strike price intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54973 (December 20,
2006), 71 FR 78252 (December 28, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-82).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx Rule 1104A currently provides that Susquehanna makes no
warranty, express or implied, as to results to be obtained by any
person or entity from the use of Susquehanna proprietary indexes,\8\
and that Susquehanna makes no express or implied warranties of
merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose for use with
respect to any of the named indexes or any data included therein.\9\
The proposed rule change expands the coverage of Phlx Rule 1104A to
include the Index, as required by the License Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The indexes noted in Phlx Rule 1101A include the SIG
Investment Managers Index\TM\, the SIG Cable, Media & Entertainment
Index\TM\, the SIG Casino Gaming Index\TM\, the SIG Semiconductor
Equipment Index\TM\, the SIG Semiconductor Device Index\TM\, the SIG
Specialty Retail Index\TM\, the SIG Steel Producers Index\TM\, the
SIG Footwear & Athletic Index\TM\, the SIG Education Index\TM\, the
SIG Restaurant Index\TM\, the SIG Coal Producers Index\TM\, and the
SIG Energy MLP Index\TM\.
    \9\ The Exchange noted in its filing to adopt Phlx Rule 1104A
that the proposed disclaimer was appropriate given that it was
similar to disclaimer provisions of American Stock Exchange
(``AMEX'') Rule 902C relating to indexes underlying options listed
on that exchange. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48135
(July 7, 2003), 68 FR 42154 (July 16, 2003) (approving SR-Phlx-2003-
21). The Exchange has proposed amendments similar to the current
proposal to include a new index in Phlx Rule 1104A. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 51664 (May 6, 2005), 70 FR 25641 (May 13,
2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal should benefit investors by
effectively encouraging the listing and trading of options on an
additional Susquehanna index at more precise strike price intervals,
thereby expanding the availability of appropriate investment choices
for investors.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it is designed to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change should

encourage SIG Indices, LLLP to continue maintaining indexes upon which
options may be traded on the Exchange, thereby providing investors with
enhanced investment opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). When filing a proposed rule change
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act, an Exchange is required
to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date
of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange provided notice to the
Commission two business days prior to filing the proposed rule
change, and the Commission has determined to waive the five business
day requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\14\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Phlx has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that granting this request is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because it will allow the Exchange to
offer additional strike prices for options on the SIG KCI Coal Index to
investors without delay. For this reason, the Commission designates the
proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the
Commission.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ For the purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2008-40 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-40. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of Phlx. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-40 and
should be submitted on or before June 27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-12687 Filed 6-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81828-81830]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27744]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79306; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Fees
for Use of Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.

November 14, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 1, 2016, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGA Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
Fee Code Z
    The Exchange proposes to increase the fee for orders yielding fee
code Z, which is yielded on orders routed to a non-exchange destination
using ROUZ \6\ routing strategy, from $0.00100 to $0.00120 per share
for securities priced at or above $1.00. The Exchange does not propose
to amend the rate for orders yielding fee code Z in securities priced
below $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Rule 11.11(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Code O
    The Exchange also proposes to amend footnote 5 of its Fee Schedule
to increase the fee cap for orders yielding fee code O from $20,000 to
$35,000 per month per Member. Fee code O is appended to orders that are
touted to participate in the listing market's opening or re-opening
cross and are charged a fee of $0.00100 per share for orders in
securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.30% of the transaction dollar
value for securities priced below $1.00. When the Exchange routes to a
listing exchange's opening cross, such as the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq''), the Exchange passes through the tier saving that Bats
Trading, Inc. (``Bats Trading''), the Exchange's routing broker-dealer,
achieves on an away exchange to its Members. This tier savings takes
the form of a cap of Member's fees at $20,000 per month for using fee
code O. The proposed increase in the fee cap under footnote 5 is in
response to the September 2016 fee cap change by Nasdaq for orders that
participate in their opening cross processes.\7\ Nasdaq's September
2016 fee cap increase requires that members add, at a minimum, one
million shares of liquidity to Nasdaq, on average per day, during the
month to be eligible for its existing fee cap of $35,000 for orders
that participate in the opening cross. When Bats Trading routes to
Nasdaq's opening cross, it will now be subject to the increase fee cap
and new tier requirement. The proposed increase to the fee cap under
footnote 5 would enable the Exchange to equitably allocate its costs
among all Members utilizing fee code O. Therefore, the Exchange
proposes to amend footnote 5 to increase the fee cap for orders
yielding fee code O from $20,000 to $35,000 per month per Member in
response to Nasdaq's September 2016 increased fee cap and related
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78977 (September 29,
2016), 81 FR 691140 [sic] (October 5, 2016) (SR-Nasdaq-2016-132)
(increasing the fee cap for orders executed in its opening cross
from $30,000 to $35,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement this amendment to its Fee
Schedule November 1, 2016.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with

the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\9\ in particular, as it is designed to
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Code Z
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the fee for
orders routed to a non-exchange destination that yield fee code Z
represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among Members and other person using its facilities in that
they are designed in part to cover the costs of routing. While Members
that route to a non-exchange destination using ROUZ routing strategy
will be paying higher fees due to the proposal, the increased revenue
received by the Exchange will be used to fund the Exchange generally,
including the cost of maintaining and improving the technology used to
handle and route orders from the Exchange as well as programs that the
Exchange believes help to attract additional liquidity and thus improve
the depth of liquidity available on the Exchange. Accordingly, although
the cost of routing is increasing, the Exchange believes that the
increase is a modest increase and that higher routing fees will benefit
Members in other ways. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that routing
through the Exchange is voluntary. Lastly the Exchange also believes
that the proposed amendment is non-discriminatory because it applies
uniformly to all Members.
Fee Code O
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend footnote 5 to
increase the fee cap for orders yielding fee code O from $20,000 to
$35,000 per month per Member represents an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other
persons using its facilities. The proposed increase in the fee cap
under footnote 5 is in response to September 2016 fee cap increase by
Nasdaq for orders that participate in their opening cross process.
Prior to Nasdaq's September 2016 fee cap increase, Nasdaq capped Bats
Trading monthly fees for participating in it's opening cross at
$30,000. Nasdaq capped Bats Trading monthly fees for participating in
its opining cross at $30,000. Nasdaq has now increased that cap to
$35,000.\10\ The proposed increase to the fee cap under footnote 5
would enable the Exchange to equitably allocate its costs among all
Member who utilize fee code O. Therefore, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change to footnote 5 is equitable and reasonable because
it accounts for the increased Nasdaq fee cap, which enables the
Exchange to apply to its Member similar fee caps. The Exchange notes
that routing though Bats Trading is voluntary and believes that the
proposed change is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to
all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange does not believe that this change represents a
significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or
from pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally,
Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of
Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in
the financial markets. The Exchange believes that its proposal would
not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rates would
apply uniformly to all Members.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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) of the Act \11\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 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-BatsEDGX-2016-63 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2016-63. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2016-63, and should
be submitted on or before December 9, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27744 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20873-20874]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07386]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14634-006]

New England Hydropower Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving
Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 14634-006.
    c. Date Filed: January 17, 2023.
    d. Submitted By: New England Hydropower Company, LLC (NEHC).
    e. Name of Project: Ashton Dam Hydroelectric Project (project).
    f. Location: On the Blackstone River in Providence County, Rhode
Island. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or located
within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant To: 18 CFR 5.3 and 5.5 of the Commission's
regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Ms. Carol Wasserman, New England
Hydropower Company, LLC, 100 Cummings Center, Suite 451C, Beverly, MA
01915; Phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Arash Barsari at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
[email protected].
    j. NEHC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process
on January 17, 2023, and provided public notice of its request on
January 19, 2023 and January 26, 2023. In a letter dated March 2, 2023,
the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved NEHC's
request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7
of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating
consultation with the Rhode Island State Historic Preservation Officer,
as required by section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating NEHC as the Commission's
non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation
pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and consultation
pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. On January 17, 2023, NEHC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed and/or printed on the
Commission's website (http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). At this time, the Commission has
suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13,
2020.
    o. The applicant states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for an original license for Project No. 14634.

    p. Register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx
to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this
or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 3, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-07386 Filed 4-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 9809]
[DOCID:fr27fe06-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP06-62-000, CP06-63-000, and CP06-65-000]

Rendezvous Gas Services, L.L.C. and Rendezvous Pipeline Company,
L.L.C.; Notice of Applications

February 17, 2006.
    Take notice that on February 10, 2006, Rendezvous Gas Services,
L.L.C. (RGS) and Rendezvous Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Rendezvous
Pipeline), both located at 1050 17th Street, Suite 500, Denver,
Colorado 80265, filed an application pursuant to sections 7 (b) and (c)
of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations
requesting, in Docket No. CP06-62-000: (1) Approval to abandon RGS'
certificate authorities, issued in Docket Nos. CP05-40-000 and CP05-41-
000, including authorization to construct and operate a 20.8-mile, 20-
inch pipeline in Uinta and Lincoln Counties, Wyoming; and (2) issuance
of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Rendezvous
Pipeline to acquire RGS' jurisdictional assets and to succeed to RGS'
authority to construct and operate the pipeline facilities. The
application also requests, in Docket Nos. CP06-63-000 and CP06-65-000,
respectively, that Rendezvous Pipeline be issued: (1) A blanket
certificate under Subpart F of Part 157 of the Commission's
regulations; and (2) a blanket certificate under Subpart G of Part 284
of the Commission's regulations. The application is on file with the
Commission and open for public inspection. This filing is available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the application are to be directed to Perry
H. Richards, Rendezvous Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 1050 17th Street,
Suite 500, Denver, CO 80265, or call<PHONE_NUMBER> or Fax (303) 308-
3610.
    Any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to
the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed
comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the
NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on
the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will
receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper, see, 18 CFR 385.2001
(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the
``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filings.
    Comment Date: February 24, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-2701 Filed 2-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Proposed Unconditional Registration of the New active ingredient Cyflumetofen for foliar application on Citrus (Crop Group 10-10), Pome Fruits (Crop Group 11-10), Grapes, Strawberries, Tomatoes, Tree Nuts (Crop Group 14-12) and Ornamentals

                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                         Office of Pesticide Programs
                             Registration Division

                      Proposed Unconditional Registration
                   of the New Active Ingredient Cyflumetofen
                       for foliar application on Citrus
                        (Crop Group 10-10), Pome Fruits
                          (Crop Group 11-10), Grapes,
                            Strawberries, Tomatoes,
                         Tree Nuts (Crop Group 14-12)
                                and Ornamentals

                      Approved by: _____________________

									Lois Rossi, Director
									Registration Division
									Office of Pesticide Programs

                         Date: ______________________

Proposed Unconditional Registration of the New Active Ingredient Cyflumetofen for foliar application on tree nuts (crop group 14-12), pome fruits (crop group 11-10), citrus (crop group 10-10), grapes, strawberries, tomatoes and ornamentals

REGULATORY PROPOSAL

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency referred to thereafter as EPA or the Agency, is proposing to grant the registrations for pesticide products containing the new active ingredient, cyflumetofen, a miticide formulated as a technical and two end use products.  Cyflumetofen belongs to the acrylonitrile class of chemicals and is a selective contact miticide that is effective on all mite life stages.  The proposed use sites for cyflumetofen are tree nuts (crop group 14-12), pome fruits (crop group 11-10), citrus (crop group 10-10), grapes, strawberries, tomatoes and ornamentals.
Cyflumetofen is currently registered in Japan, Korea, Brazil, and in the European Union (ornamentals).   The present action was conducted as a joint review with Health Canada's Pesticide Management Regulatory Authority (PMRA) and Mexico's Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risk (COFEPRIS).

Three miticide products are under consideration, one technical and two end-use products (Sultan(TM) and Nealta(TM)).  Sultan is intended for use on ornamentals and Nealta(TM) for use on tree nuts, pome fruits, citrus, grapes, strawberries, and tomatoes.

I.  CHEMICAL INFORMATION

Chemical Name: Cyflumetofen (2-methoxyethyl α-cyano-α-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl]-β-oxo-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzenepropanoate).

EPA PC Code: 138831

Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Number: 400882-07-7

Mode of Action: Cyflumetofen is a non-systemic, contact miticide that provides knockdown and residual control of tetranychid mites.  It has a novel insecticidal mode of action and acts as a mitochondria complex II electron transport inhibitor resulting in knockdown and residual control of the egg, nymph, and adult stages of tetranychid mites.

Registrant: BASF Corporation

Proposed Products: Cyflumetofen is proposed for registration as a technical product, and two end use products (Sultan and Nealta).

The end-use products, formulated as suspension concentrates are to be applied as a foliar spray up via ground equipment.  Aerial applications are proposed for tomatoes only.  The proposed maximum single application rate and maximum application rate per crop cycle or year are 0.2 lb a.i. /A and 0.4 lb a.i. /A, respectively, corresponding to a maximum of 2 applications per crop cycle or year.  The proposed minimum application interval is 14 days.
II. HUMAN HEALTH RISK

A summary of the human health effects and risk of cyflumetofen as assessed in the Agency document entitled "Cyflumetofen.  New Active Ingredient Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Uses on Citrus (Crop Group 10-10), Pome Fruits Crop Group 11-10), Tree Nuts (Crop Group 14-12), Grape, Strawberry, and Tomato" is provided below.

A.  Summary of Toxicological Effects

The toxicological database for cyflumetofen is considered complete.  A subchronic inhalation study was not available; however, the Agency determined that the requirement for this study is not needed at this time. The major target organ in rats, mice, and dogs following short-term and long-term oral administration of cyflumetofen is the adrenal glands characterized by increased organ weight and histopathology (vacuolation and hypertrophy of the adrenal cortical cells).  Cyflumetofen has low acute toxicity by oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. It is minimally irritating to the eyes but not to the skin.  It is a skin sensitizer.  Decreased serum hormone concentrations (FSH, progesterone, and 17 β-estradiol) were observed in the mid- and high-dose F1 females in a rat reproduction study while no hormonal effect was observed in the F1 male rats at any dose level.  However, there were no corresponding changes in reproductive performance at any dose level.  In the developmental toxicity study in rats, an increased incidence of wavy ribs was noted at the high- dose (1000 mg/kg/day), while an increased incidence of incompletely ossified sternal centra was observed at the mid- and high-dose levels.  These incidences occurred in the presence of maternal toxicity; no skeletal malformations were noted.  In the developmental toxicity study in rabbits, a downward flexion of the forepaws and/or hind paws was observed in the high-dose (1000 mg/kg/day) group pups and delays in skeletal ossification were observed in pups at the mid- and high-doses.  Maternal toxicity (adrenal effects) was also observed at the mid- and high- doses.   No evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity was observed in any of the submitted studies for cyflumetofen.

No acute reference dose (aRfD) was established to assess acute dietary risks since there was no evidence of toxicity attributable to a single dose for the general U.S. population, infants and children, or females 13-49 years of age in any studies.  For the chronic dietary risk assessment, a chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.17 mg/kg/day was established for assessments of all populations, with a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 16.5 mg/kg/day and a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 30.6 mg/kg/day based on effects on the adrenals (increased organ weight and histopathology), which is the target organ.  Three rat studies (90-day subchronic, chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity, and reproduction studies) were selected as co-critical studies for the chronic dietary endpoint. These studies are appropriate for the duration and populations of concern since there is no progression of toxicity over time. No dermal hazard was identified for cyflumetofen.  For short- and intermediate-term inhalation exposure, the NOAEL of 16.5 mg/kg/day with a LOAEL of 30.6 mg/kg/day based on effects on the adrenals was selected from the same co-critical studies chosen for the chronic reference dose.

The risk assessments conducted for cyflumetofen were based on the most sensitive endpoints in the toxicity database, and the NOAELs selected for risk assessment are considered protective of potential developmental, neurotoxic, and immunotoxic effects for infants and children.  There is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in the developmental rat study or in the rat 2-generation reproduction study.  In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, a lower NOAEL was observed for the developmental effects compared to maternal effects.   However, the developmental effects have clearly defined NOAEL/LOAELs and NOAEL for such effects is more than 10-fold higher than the PODs.  Therefore, the PODs based on adrenal effects in rat are health protective of all lifestages.  There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in any of the submitted studies for cyflumetofen.

The mutagenic potential of cyflumetofen, its metabolites, and an impurity was tested in in vitro and in vivo studies. There was no concern for mutagenicity for the parent, the metabolites or the impurity. Consequently, mutagenicity can be ruled out as a possible mode of action for tumor formation.

In accordance with the EPA's Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March, 2005), the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) classified cyflumetofen as "Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential". This classification is based on the presence of a single tumor type (thyroid c-cell) in one sex (male) and one species (rat), and the lack of concern for mutagenicity. When there is suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, the Agency does not attempt a dose-response assessment as the nature of the data generally would not support one. Therefore, the Agency has determined that quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (i.e. the chronic reference dose) will adequately protect for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, likely to result from exposure to cyflumetofen.

B.  Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor

EPA has determined that reliable data show that the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA safety factor (SF) were reduced to 1x for all exposure scenarios. That decision is based on the following findings:

   * The toxicity database for cyflumetofen is complete.

   * There is no evidence of increased pre- and/or postnatal susceptibility for cyflumetofen.

   * No evidence of Immunotoxicity.

   * There is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in the developmental rat and rabbit studies or in the rat 2-generation reproduction study.  These studies have clearly defined NOAEL/LOAELs.  There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies for cyflumetofen, and a developmental neurotoxicity study is not required.

   * There are no residual uncertainties in the exposure database.  Since the dietary and residential exposure estimates were based on conservative assumptions, EPA is confident that this assessment does not underestimate dietary (food and water) or residential exposure.

   * The chronic dietary exposure assessment used tolerance level residues for all commodities, 100% crop treated (% CT), and empirical processing estimates when available or DEEM(TM) default processing factors.  The drinking water assessment utilized water concentration values generated by models and associated modeling parameters which are designed to produce conservative, health protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations which are not likely to be exceeded.  For these reasons it can be concluded that the chronic dietary exposure analysis does not underestimate risk from chronic exposure to cyflumetofen.  Similarly, EPA does not believe that the residential exposure estimates are underestimated because they are also based on conservative assumptions including maximum application rates and standard values for unit exposures, acreage treated/amount handled.    Based on the use of conservative assumptions with respect to potential exposure from food, water and residential uses, the assessment will not underestimate children's exposure to cyflumetofen.

C.  Cumulative Effects

Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to cyflumetofen and any other substances and cyflumetofen does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that cyflumetofen has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.

D.  Aggregate Risk Assessment

1.  Dietary (Food + Drinking Water) Risk:

A chronic aggregate dietary food and drinking water exposure and risk assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database DEEM-FCID(TM) (Version 3.16).  This software uses 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA).

Acute Dietary Risk: No acute dietary exposure and risk analysis was performed since there were no appropriate studies identified in the toxicology database that demonstrated evidence of toxicity attributable to a single dose.

Chronic Dietary Risk:  A partially refined chronic analysis was conducted that was based on tolerance-level residues, 100% crop treated (%CT) assumptions, and both empirically derived and default processing factors.  Using assumptions considered to be highly conservative, EPA has concluded that chronic risk estimates from exposure to cyflumetofen are below EPA's level of concern (<100% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD)), and range from <1% of the cPAD for the general U.S. population to 2.3% of the cPAD for the highest exposed population subgroup of children 1-2 years old.

2.  Residential Risk:

The proposed uses of cyflumetofen on ornamentals (i.e., residential settings), may result in adult residential handler and post-application exposure.  This exposure is expected to be only short-term in duration (i.e., 1 to 30 days) as intermediate- or long-term exposures are not likely based on the intermittent nature of applications by homeowners.  Since no dermal hazard was identified for cyflumetofen in the toxicological database, only inhalation exposure assessments were conducted.  The resulting inhalation margins of exposure (MOEs) for all scenarios are not of concern since they are above the level of concern (LOC) of 100 (MOEs >= 100).

E.  Occupational Risk Assessment

   1. Handler Exposure and Risk:

The occupational exposure and risk assessment addresses risks to workers exposed in an occupational setting via the dermal and inhalation routes of exposure.  Since no acute points of departure are identified, an acute aggregate risk assessment was not conducted.  EPA has conducted short-term and long-term (chronic) aggregate risk assessments for cyflumetofen.  Short-term aggregate MOEs are above the LOC of 100 and are not of concern (MOEs >= 100).  The long-term (chronic) aggregate assessment includes only dietary (food and water) exposure as long-term residential exposure is not expected.

2.  Occupational Post-Application Exposure and Risk:

 "Post-application" means exposures that occur when individuals are present in an environment that has been previously treated with a pesticide (also referred to as re-entry exposure).  Such exposures may occur when workers enter previously treated areas to perform job functions, including activities related to crop production, such as scouting for pests or harvesting.  Based on the proposed use pattern of cyflumetofen, short- and intermediate-term exposures are anticipated for handlers for the following reasons:  (1) the product can be applied twice per season (2) the product can be applied to multiple application sites, (3) there may be a large agribusiness and/or commercial applicators who may apply a product over a period of weeks, and (4) repeated use of miticides with similar modes of action can lead to build up therefore rotating miticides with different modes of action reduces the potential for developing mite resistance.  Long-term exposure is not expected for the proposed use patterns.

No dermal hazard has been identified for cyflumetofen; therefore occupational handler and post-application risks were assessed for the inhalation route of exposure only.  All estimated short- and intermediate-term handler inhalation risk estimates are above the Agency's level of concern (MOEs >= 100).  Based on the Agency's current practices, a quantitative post-application inhalation exposure assessment was not performed for cyflumetofen.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK

A summary of the environmental fate and ecological effects and risks of cyflumetofen as assessed in the Agency document entitled "Cyflumetofen: New Chemical Ecological Risk Assessment for Section 3 New Use on Citrus, Pome Fruits, Grapes, Strawberries, Tomatoes, Tree Nuts, and Ornamentals" is provided below.

A.  Environmental Fate

   1. Persistence:

Cyflumetofen is not persistent in the environment and rapidly converts to degradates via abiotic hydrolysis reactions (DT50 = 9.75 hours at pH 7) and biotic reactions with (DT50 of less than 21 days).  Many of the degradates (e.g., A-2, A-18, AB-1, and B-1) are much more persistent than the parent.

For comparison, cyflumetofen has a comparatively low water solubility of 0.0277 mg/L at 20ºC and Koc of 131,826 L/kg-organic carbon.  Only degradates AB-11, AB-12, AB-1 dimer, AU16 (dimer), and AU17 (dimer) are predicted to have lower water solubility than the parent.  Similarly, only degradates AB-12, AB-1 dimer, and AU17 (dimer) are predicted to have higher Kocs than the parent.  Therefore, the vast majority of the degradates are expected to be more mobile than the parent.

   2. Mobility:

Since cyflumetofen is used by foliar application, residues may be deposited into soil via wash off from rainfall or irrigation activities as well as directly deposited onto soil during the application.  Cyflumetofen appears to be non-volatile.  This is supported by its water solubility (0.0277 mg/L at 20ºC) and low vapor pressure (< 4.43 x 10[-8] torr at 25ºC) and Henry's Law constant (< 9.3 x 10[-7] Pa*m[3]/mol at 20ºC).

   3. Bioaccumulation:

The measured BCF (bio-accumulation in fish) is approximately 200x in whole fish (other tissues were not measured separately) based on TRR (total radioactive residues).  The BCF study is somewhat problematic in that the TRR were still increasing at the end of the accumulation phase.  The identity of radioactivity measured in the BCF study was not determined in the fish BCF study.  Therefore, it is unknown whether it is parent, degradate(s), or some combination of parent and degradate(s) that is accumulating in the fish.  However, the rate of accumulation appears to slow over the 21 day accumulation phase with concentrations only doubling from day 1 (approximately 100x) to day 21 (approximately 200x).  Therefore, given the high metabolism of Cyflumetofen evident in fish and high depuration rates of degradates, bioaccumulation in fish resulting from Cyflumetofen pesticide applications is not a concern.

B.  Ecological Risk

Ecological risk characterization integrates the results of the exposure and ecotoxicity data to evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects. The means of integrating the results of exposure and ecotoxicity data is called the risk quotient method. For this method, risk quotients (RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure estimates by ecotoxicity values, both acute and chronic (RQ = Exposure/Toxicity). RQs are then compared to EPA's levels of concern (LOCs). The LOCs are criteria used by the Agency to indicate potential risk to non-target organisms. The criteria indicate whether a pesticide, when used as directed, has the potential to cause adverse effects to non-target organisms. The ecological risk profile is described in detail below.

   1. Aquatic Organisms

Risk to Fish (Freshwater): The acute RQs calculated for freshwater fish represent risk based on the conservative assumption that the collective toxicity of parent cyflumetofen and all degradates are equivalent to the toxicity of the most toxic chemical among the parent and degradates for which data is available (i.e., degradate A-2).  Even under this conservative assumption, acute aquatic animal LOCs (>0.05) were not exceeded for freshwater fish regardless of use suggesting that the likelihood of adverse effects to freshwater fish from acute exposure as a result of the proposed uses of cyflumetofen is low.

It should be noted that the freshwater fish acute toxicity study with A-2 yielded a NOAEC of <5.04 mg a.i./L.  This NOAEC is based on sublethal effects including unbalanced swimming, faulty respiratory function, loss of equilibrium, and non-typical pigmentation observed at the lowest concentration tested.  Overall, the likelihood of adverse effects to freshwater fish from acute exposure to A-2 is considered low because: 1) acute RQs calculated using the LC50 endpoint did not exceed LOCs; 2) no sublethal effects were observed in fish acute toxicity studies with parent cyflumetofen where the organisms were presumably exposed to A-2 as a result of rapid hydrolysis, and 3) TTR surface water EECs, which represent parent cyflumetofen and multiple degradates including A-2, are at least 3 orders of magnitude less than the observed NOAEC for A-2.

The aquatic chronic LOC (=1) conducted using both parent and degradates, is not exceeded for freshwater fish regardless of use, suggesting that the likelihood of adverse effects to freshwater fish from chronic exposure as a result the proposed uses of cyflumetofen is low.
Risk to Aquatic Invertebrates (Freshwater):  Similar to fish, aquatic invertebrate acute and chronic toxicity studies with technical grade cyflumetofen were conducted as limit tests because of the low solubility of cyflumetofen (i.e., 28.1 ug/L at 20°C).  Mean-measured concentrations of 17.2 and 16.2 ug a.i./L for Daphnia magna (acute and chronic tests, respectively), 6.30 ug a.i./L  for Eastern oyster and 22.7 ug a.i./L for mysid shrimp were achieved using a saturator column and flow-through exposure.  An acute toxicity study with Daphnia magna was also conducted with a 20.4% formulation of cyflumetofen which results in a mean-measured concentration of 744 ug a.i. /L.

 Based on studies with daphnids, Eastern oyster, and mysid shrimp, technical grade cyflumetofen is practically non-toxic to aquatic freshwater invertebrates up to the tested solubility limit on an acute basis.

 Daphnia toxicity tests were conducted with cyflumetofen degradates A-2, B-1, and B-2; tests with the latter two degradates were limit tests.  A-2 is slightly toxic to freshwater invertebrates with an EC50 of 10.52 mg a.i. /L; B-1 is practically non-toxic to freshwater invertebrates with an EC50 of >177 mg a.i./L; and B-2 is practically non-toxic up to the limit concentration (i.e., 0.020 mg a.i./L. The NOAEC for the study with A-2 was set at 3.83 mg a.i. /L based on immobility observed at higher concentrations.  In the studies with B-1 and B-2, since there was no statistically-significant immobility, the NOAEC was set at the highest treatment concentration (i.e., 177.5 mg a.i. /L and 0.020 mg a.i. /L, respectively).

The aquatic chronic LOC (=1) conducted using both parent and degradates, is not exceeded for aquatic freshwater invertebrates regardless of use, suggesting that the likelihood of adverse effects to freshwater fish from chronic exposure as a result the proposed uses of cyflumetofen is low.

Risk to Aquatic Invertebrates (Estuarine/marine):  Estuarine/marine fish and invertebrate RQs were not calculated because of the lack of appropriate toxicity endpoints.  Based on a comparison of acute toxicity endpoints between freshwater and estuarine/marine organisms, there is no indication that estuarine/marine fish/invertebrates are more sensitive to parent cyflumetofen than freshwater fish/invertebrates.  In addition, estuarine/marine fish/invertebrates would have to be several orders of magnitude more sensitive than freshwater fish/invertebrates to the most toxic degradate tested, A-2, to exceed Agency LOCs suggesting that the likelihood of adverse effects to estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates as a result of the proposed uses of cyflumetofen is low.

 Risks to Aquatic Plants: Aquatic plant Tier II studies were conducted with technical grade cyflumetofen.  In addition, a Tier I green algal study was conducted with a 20.4% formulation of cyflumetofen.  Toxicity endpoints for studies testing technical grade cyflumetofen are based on initial-measured concentrations because the rapid hydrolysis of cyflumetofen typically resulted in concentrations that were below the level of detection or quantification at study termination.  No effects were noted in any of the aquatic plant studies.

Toxicity tests with the green alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata were conducted with the cyflumetofen degradates AB-11 and B-1.  There were no effects in the limit test with AB-11.  In the test with B-1, the EC50 was non-definitive (i.e., >102.7 mg a.i. /L), and there was no NOAEC (i.e., <0.10 mg a.i. /L) due to statistically-significant effects at the lowest treatment concentration.  However, there is uncertainty associated with the latter study because of the lack of a clear concentration-response relationship.

 Risks to Benthic Invertebrates:  The aquatic acute and chronic LOCs were calculated using parent and degradates.  LOCs  (>0.05 and 1, respectively) are not exceeded for sediment-dwelling (benthic) invertebrates regardless of use suggesting that the likelihood of adverse effects to benthic invertebrates from acute or chronic exposure to cyflumetofen for all proposed uses is low.

Chronic spiked sediment tests with Chironomus riparius were conducted with degradates AB-1 and AB-1 dimer.  Endpoints in the test with AB-1 were based on reduced emergence rates with NOAECs of 36.1 mg a.i./kg-dw, 34.2 mg a.i. /L, and 9.06 mg a.i. /L for sediment, pore water, and overlying water.  There were no statistically-significant effects on rates of emergence or development in the test with AB-1 resulting in the NOAEC being set at the highest treatment concentration: 75.3 mg a.i./kg-dw, 5.61 ug a.i. /L, and 27.4 ug a.i. /L for sediment, pore water, and overlying water.

   1. Terrestrial Organisms

Risk Concerns for Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-Phase Amphibians:  Avian acute RQs were not calculated because avian acute oral and subacute-dietary toxicity studies for cyflumetofen have non-definitive endpoints.  Instead, the most sensitive, non-definitive acute dose- and dietary-based toxicity values for birds were compared directly to the highest avian acute dose- and dietary-based EECs for the proposed uses of cyflumetofen.  An acute oral study with bobwhite quail yielded the most sensitive, non-definitive avian dose-based toxicity endpoints, LD50 > 2000 mg a.i./kg-bw and NOAEL = 74 mg a.i./kg-bw based on the sublethal effect of hunched posture.  A sub-acute dietary study with bobwhite quail yielded the most sensitive, non-definitive avian dietary-based endpoints, LC50 > 5033 mg a.i./kg-diet and NOAEC = 1133 mg a.i./kg-diet based on the sublethal effect of reduced weight gain.

The highest avian dose-based EECs correspond to those for small birds (20 g) and range from 1.33 (seeds) to 96.10 (short grass) mg/kg-bw.  Dietary-based EECs range from 5.27 fruits/pods/seeds) to 84.38 (short grass) mg/kg-diet.  These EECs are unlikely to cause avian mortality since they are roughly 2-3 orders of magnitude lower than test concentrations that caused no mortality in toxicity study.  Similarly, these EECs are unlikely to cause reduced weight gain since they are at least an order of magnitude greater than test concentrations that caused this sublethal effect in the bobwhite quail sub-acute dietary study.  However, the range of dose-based EECs does include test concentrations that were associated with sublethal effects (i.e., hunched posture) in the acute oral study with bobwhite quail.  Given that hunched posture was not observed in the sub-acute dietary or chronic, reproductive studies with bobwhite quail, the potential for cyflumetofen to cause this effect as a result of the proposed uses is low.  Therefore, this comparative analysis suggests that the likelihood of adverse effects to birds, reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians from acute exposure to cyflumetofen for all proposed uses is low.

 Avian chronic, dietary-based RQs were calculated for the maximum application rate for each proposed use of cyflumetofen using the NOAEC from the bobwhite quail reproduction study (154 mg a.i./kg-diet).  Avian chronic, dietary-based RQs range from 0.03 to 0.55 across all uses and feeding categories.  Therefore, the avian chronic LOC of 1 is not exceeded for birds of any feeding categories regardless of the proposed use.  This suggests the likelihood of adverse effects to birds; reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians from chronic exposure to cyflumetofen for all proposed uses are low.

 Risk Concerns for Mammals: No mammalian acute dose-based RQs were calculated because the mammalian acute oral toxicity study for cyflumetofen has a non-definitive endpoint.  No mammalian acute dietary-based RQs were calculated because a mammalian acute dietary-based endpoint (i.e., LC50, mg/kg-diet) is not available.

  An acute oral study with female Wistar rats yielded the non-definitive dose-based toxicity endpoint of LD50 > 2000 mg a.i./kg-bw.  The highest mammalian dose-based EECs correspond to those for small mammals (15 g) and range from 1.12 (seeds) to 80.45 (short grass) mg/kg-bw.  These EECs are unlikely to result in mammalian mortality or sublethal effects since they are roughly 2-3 orders of magnitude lower than test concentrations that caused no mortality or transitory sublethal effects in the acute oral toxicity study.  Therefore, this comparative analysis suggests that the likelihood of adverse effects to mammals from acute exposure to cyflumetofen for all proposed uses is low.

 Mammalian chronic dose- and dietary-based RQs were calculated for the maximum application rate for each proposed use of cyflumetofen using the NOAEC from a rat 2-generation reproduction study (150 mg/kg-diet, 9.21 mg/kg-bw/day).  Mammalian chronic dose- and dietary-based RQs range from 0.03 to 3.97 and 0.22 to 0.56, respectively, across all uses and feeding categories.  The mammalian chronic LOC of 1 is exceeded in small and medium mammals consuming short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants, or arthropods and large mammals consuming short grass or tall grass.   In spite of these exceedances, EPA believes the actual risk of chronic effects is low for several reasons.  The chronic RQs reflect exposure at the site of application, following 2 applications at the maximum use rate. RQs would be expected to get closer to the no effect levels as the distance from the treated area increases, and when lower application rates or fewer applications are used.  Further, the RQs assume that mammals forage for food exclusively in the treated area.  Additionally, the models used to estimate concentrations of cyflumetofen in the environment are conservative screening models, designed to provide high-end exposure estimates, a more refined assessment would likely show further reduction in the likelihood of actual risk to mammals.  Typical use rates are expected to further reduce the levels of concern.  Although the risk of chronic effects on mammals is low, it cannot be entirely discounted.  To mitigate potential chronic risk to mammals, EPA proposes requiring labeling language intended to reduce the area of potential exposure to cyflumetofen residues by reducing inadvertent off-target exposure via drift and runoff.  (See Proposed Regulatory Decision section).

Risk Concerns for Terrestrial (Upland and Semi-Aquatic) Plants:  RQs for dicots were calculated for the maximum application rate and application method (ground) for each proposed use.  For non listed dicots, RQs were below 1.  However, for listed dicots, RQs are greater than 1.  These RQs were generated using the EC25 and NOAEC for the most sensitive dicot from the seedling emergence study (tomato, EC25/NOAEC = 0.0393/0.000706 lb a.i. /A) and dicot NOAEC from the vegetative vigor study (NOAEC = 0.273 lb a.i. /A).  RQs for monocots were not calculated due to a lack of appropriate seedling emergence endpoints in the most sensitive species, oats.  Doses in this study did produce effects that were observed at levels to approximate a 25% inhibition of shoot weight and length.  The EC25 (i.e., seedling emergence) was calculated for the other 3 monocots studies (onion, corn, and ryegrass).

Overall, adverse effects to terrestrial plants (listed dicots and all monocots) from exposure to cyflumetofen as a result of the proposed uses are possible.  The Agency reviewed 10 terrestrial plants studies (4 monocots and 6 dicots) to assess the effects of cyflumetofen.  The results of the tests on all the dicots and most monocots were deemed acceptable.  Of the 4 monocots tested (i.e., oat, onion, corn, ryegrass), only the study with oat was deemed supplemental.  No effects were noted in the adult plants.  Therefore, a NOAEC for monocots was not established.  RQs were all less than 1, and the LOC was not exceeded for the other tested monocots (i.e., onion, corn, and ryegrass).  Because of the uncertainties in the oat study, the Agency is proposing to add an additional buffer zone of 15 feet to further protect against any potential effects of emerging non listed plants.  This additional measure is also similar to how the chemical has been proposed to be labeled in Canada.  If the registrant wishes to have the 15 foot buffer reexamined, they could repeat the oat study and see if a clearer dose response relationship is achieved.  Additionally, label language is being added with the intent to alert the users to spray drift exposure concerns when emerging seedlings are present.  Therefore, the Agency believes the potential risks are acceptable in light of the benefits.  (See Proposed Regulatory Decision section).

Risk Concerns for Beneficial Invertebrates: While exposure potential exists via pathways such as spray drift, available toxicity data for cyflumetofen indicate that it is practically non-toxic to honeybees and other beneficial invertebrates on an acute contact and an acute oral basis.   Acute limit tests with two beneficial terrestrial arthropods  -  the parasitic wasp (A. rhopalosiphi) and the predatory mite (T. pyri)  -  using a 20.3% formulation of cyflumetofen both yielded a LR50 of >1.2 lb a.i./A  and a NOAEC of 1.2 lb a.i./A which are greater than the single maximum application rate of 0.2 lb a.i./A for cyflumetofen.

IV. PROPOSED REGULATORY DECISION

Under Section 3(c)(5) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Agency is proposing unconditional registration for pesticide products containing the new active ingredient cyflumetofen for use on tree nuts (crop group 14-12), pome fruits (crop group 11-10), citrus (crop group 10-10), grapes, strawberries, tomatoes and ornamentals.  The products under consideration for the new uses are:

         * Cyflumetofen Technical
         * Sultan(TM) miticide
         * Nealta(TM) miticide

Section 3(c)(5) of FIFRA authorizes the Agency to approve the registration of a pesticide without condition, if the Administrator determines that (i) its composition is such as to warrant the proposed claims for it, (ii) its labeling and other material required to be submitted comply with the requirements of this Act, (iii) it will perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, and (iv) when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.
In reference to the first and second determinations above, the compositions of the pesticides are such that the proposed claims are warranted and the Agency received satisfactory data to conduct risk assessments for the uses proposed.
In reference to the third determination above, the Agency believes that the use of cyflumetofen will not cause any unreasonable adverse human health or ecological effects.  This determination is based on the findings in the Agency's conservative human health and environmental risk assessments.
As explained earlier (see section III. B.2), the proposed uses of cyflumetofen may pose adverse effects to terrestrial plants (listed dicots and all monocots).  Additionally, potential chronic risks to small and medium mammals consuming short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants, or arthropods and large mammals consuming short grass or tall grass may be expected as a result of the proposed cyflumetofen uses.  EPA believes the actual risk of chronic effects is low for several reasons.  The chronic RQs reflect exposure at the site of application, following 2 applications at the maximum use rate. RQs would be expected to get closer to the no effect level as the distance from the treated area increases, and when lower application rates or fewer applications are used.   Further, the RQs assume that all mammals forage for food exclusively in the treated area.  Additionally, the models used to estimate concentrations of cyflumetofen in the environment are conservative screening models, designed to provide high-end exposure estimates, a more refined assessment would likely show further reduction in the likelihood of actual risk to mammals.  Although the risk of chronic effects on mammals is low, it cannot be entirely discounted.   Moreover, a buffer zone of 15 feet from the edge of the treated fields will significantly reduce RQs and LOCs for terrestrial plants from exposure via spray drift.  Therefore to mitigate potential chronic risk to mammals and terrestrial plants (listed dicots and all monocots), the applicant has agreed to add the following labeling language intended to reduce the area of potential exposure to cyflumetofen residues by reducing inadvertent off-target exposure via drift and runoff:

   * Removal of aerial application from the label
   * Inserting the following section: To ensure the protection of threatened or endangered species, it is important to maintain spray drift loadings below levels of concern for any area adjacent to the application site that is not excluded as possible habitat for these organisms, the following restrictions apply:

       o          Buffer distance: 15 feet
       o          Release Height: 20 inches
       o          Droplet Size: A combination of spray nozzles and appropriate pressure must be selected to provide ASABE standard S571.1 droplet size category of fine (DV0.5 of >= 180 microns) or coarser than fine.
       o          Maximum ground wind speed: 15 mph

The Agency believes that with the revised labeling as described above, 1) their composition are such as to warrant the proposed claims for them, (ii) the labeling and other material required to be submitted comply with the requirements of this Act, (iii) these pesticides will perform their intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, and (iv) when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice these pesticides will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.  Therefore, the Agency proposes to grant these unconditional registrations and establish permanent tolerances as summarized below.

Commodity
                           Proposed Tolerance (ppm)
                        EPA-Recommended Tolerance (ppm)
Almond, hulls
                                      4.0
                                      4.0
Citrus, oil
                                     16.0
                                      16
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10
                                      0.3
                                     0.30
Fruit, pome, group 11-10
                                      0.3
                                     0.30
Grape
                                      0.6
                                     0.60
Grape, raisin
                                      0.9
                                     N/A*
Nut, tree, group 14-12
                                     0.01
                                     0.01
Strawberry
                                      0.6
                                     0.60
Tomato
                                      0.2
                                    0.40**
            *Not required, raisin is covered by RAC grape tolerance
            ** EPA is establishing a tolerance for tomato at 0.40 ppm to fully account for residue loss from the field trial samples during freezer storage from the time of harvest to the time of analysis.

As stated earlier, this present action was conducted as a joint review with Health Canada's Pesticide Management Regulatory Authority (PMRA) and Mexico's Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risk (COFEPRIS).  Harmonization of tolerance expression and levels for plant commodities was achieved during the review process.

As required by FIFRA, the Agency published a notice of receipt (NOR) of this application in the Federal Register (77 FR 65878, 10/31/2012) to register pesticide products containing the new active ingredient cyflumetofen.  A notice of filling (NOF) was also published to announce the filling of a petition requesting the establishment of regulation for residues of cyflumetofen in or on various commodities (77 FR 30481, 05/23/2012).  No comments were received on either notice.

A.  Data Requirements

There are no outstanding data requirements for cyflumetofen.

B. Labeling Requirements

In order to mitigate potential chronic risk to mammals and terrestrial plants (listed dicots and all monocots), the applicant has agreed to add the following labeling language intended to reduce the area of potential exposure to cyflumetofen residues by reducing inadvertent off-target exposure via drift and runoff:

   * Do not apply via aerial application
   * Inserting the following section: To ensure the protection of threatened or endangered species, it is important to maintain spray drift loadings below levels of concern for any area adjacent to the application site that is not excluded as possible habitat for these organisms, following restrictions apply:

       o          Buffer distance: 15 feet
       o          Release Height: 20 inches
       o          Droplet Size: A combination of spray nozzles and appropriate pressure must be selected to provide ASABE standard S571.1 droplet size category of fine (DV0.5 of >= 180 microns) or coarser than fine.
       o          Maximum ground wind speed: 15 mph


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18015-18016]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06569]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-1385-000]

BHER Market Operations, LLC; 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
BHER Market Operations, LLC'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 12, 2022.
    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 may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 23, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06569 Filed 3-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 53430]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21369]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0001]

Advisory Committee Renewals; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
entitled ``Advisory Committee Renewals'' that appeared in the Federal
Register of August 25, 2014 (79 FR 50658). The document announced the
renewal of certain FDA advisory committees by the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs. The table in the document contained several errors. This
document corrects those errors.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Granger, Office of Policy, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 3330,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of Monday, August
25, 2014, in FR Doc. 2014-20017, on page 50659 the table is corrected
to read:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Name of committee                   Date of expiration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advisory Committee for                January 22, 2016.
 Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical
 Pharmacology.
Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory       March 3, 2016.
 Committee.
Bone, Reproductive and Urologic       March 23, 2016.
 Drugs Advisory Committee (formerly
 Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory
 Committee).
Arthritis Advisory Committee........  April 5, 2016.
Pharmacy Compounding Advisory         April 25, 2016.
 Committee.
Anesthetic and Analgesic Drugs        May 1, 2016.
 Advisory Committee.
Blood Products Advisory Committee...  May 13, 2016.
Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory      May 30, 2016.
 Committee.
Drug Safety and Risk Management       May 31, 2016.
 Advisory Committee.
Science Advisory Board to the         June 2, 2016.
 National Center for Toxicological
 Research.
Peripheral and Central Nervous        June 4, 2016.
 System Drugs Advisory Committee.
Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory    June 4, 2016.
 Committee.
Transmissible and Spongiform          June 9, 2016.
 Encephalopathies Advisory Committee.
Science Board to the Food and Drug    June 26, 2016.
 Administration.
Allergenic Products Advisory          July 9, 2016.
 Committee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: September 3, 2014.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-21369 Filed 9-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 47493]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19413]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Executive Committee of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the Executive Committee of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on August 30, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 10th
floor, MacCracken Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Renee Butner, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 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 Executive Committee of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee taking place on August 30, 2012, at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591. The
Agenda includes:
    1. ARAC Restructure
    2. ARAC Tasking: Airman Testing Standards and Training Working
Group
    3. Status Report from the Rulemaking Prioritization Working Group
(RPWG)
    4. Status Reports from Assistant Chairs
    5. Remarks from EXCOM members
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the space
available. The FAA will arrange teleconference service for individuals
wishing to join in by teleconference if we receive notice by August 21.
Arrangements to participate by teleconference can be made by contacting
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Callers outside the Washington metropolitan area are responsible for
paying long-distance charges.
    The public must arrange by August 21 to present oral statements at
the meeting. The public may present written statements to the executive
committee by providing 25 copies to the Executive Director, 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.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 2, 2012.
Lirio Liu,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-19413 Filed 8-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P