[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 101 (Thursday, May 27, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28519-28520]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11113]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0676; FRL-10024-31-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; SC; Updates to Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC or Department), on April 24,
2020. The SIP revision proposes a non-substantive formatting change and
the removal of an outdated sentence regarding test methods for gaseous
fluorides from South Carolina's ambient air quality standards
regulation. EPA is proposing to approve these changes pursuant to the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and implementing federal regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2020-0676 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include a discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9088. Ms. Bell can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What is EPA proposing?

    On April 24, 2020, SC DHEC submitted a SIP revision to EPA for
approval that includes a non-substantive formatting change and the
removal of a sentence describing test methods for gaseous fluorides
from South Carolina Regulation Standard No. 2--Ambient Air Quality
Standards.\1\ EPA is proposing to approve these changes submitted by
South Carolina on April 24, 2020 pursuant to the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On April 24, 2020, SC DHEC also submitted to EPA SIP
revisions to Regulations: 61-62.1, Section I--Definitions; 61-62.1,
Section II--Permit Requirements; 61-62.1, Section III--Emission
Inventory and Emissions Statement; 61-62.1, Section IV--Source
Tests; 61-62.1, Section V--Credible Emissions; 61-62.5, Standard
5.2--Control of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX); 61-62.5, Standard 7--
Prevention of Significant Deterioration; and 61-62.5, Standard 7.1--
Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR). EPA will address these SIP
revisions in separate actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    SC DHEC has requested approval of two changes to South Carolina
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 2--Ambient Air Quality Standards.
First, SC DHEC proposes to update the formatting of references to the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) by adding the word ``Part'' to CFR
references in this regulation. This is a non-substantive, ministerial
change. Second, SC DHEC proposes to remove a sentence referencing test
methods for gaseous fluorides from this regulation. EPA previously
approved removal of standards applicable to gaseous fluorides (as
hydrogen flouride) from South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No.
2--Ambient Air Quality Standards, on June 29, 2017. See 82 FR 29414.
EPA's June 29, 2017 action was premised on the fact that SC DHEC
regulates hydrogen fluoride under South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5,
Standard No. 8--Toxic Air Pollutants, which is not part of South
Carolina's SIP.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Hydrogen fluoride is a hazardous air pollutant (HAP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although EPA's prior action approved SC DHEC's request to remove
standards for gaseous fluorides (as hydrogen fluoride) from South
Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 2--Ambient Air Quality
Standards, this prior action did not remove the related language
describing testing standards for gaseous fluorides that was contained
in this same regulation. SC DEHC's

current proposal to remove the language from this regulation regarding
test methods for gaseous fluorides would correct this inconsistency by
removing this remaining language from South Carolina Regulation 61-
62.5, Standard No. 2--Ambient Air Quality Standards.

III. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    The analysis previously provided by EPA in its June 29, 2017 action
approving removal of gaseous fluorides (as hydrogen fluoride) from
South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 2--Ambient Air Quality
Standards, remains applicable today. Gaseous fluorides (as hydrogen
fluoride) are not criteria pollutants. They are hazardous air
pollutants, which SC DHEC regulates under South Carolina Regulation 61-
62.5, Standard No. 8--Toxic Air Pollutants, a regulation that is
outside of South Carolina's SIP. Approving the removal of this language
from the South Carolina SIP is appropriate because there are no primary
or secondary national ambient air quality standards related to this
pollutant and because the testing standards for gaseous fluorides do
not function in the SIP because EPA previously removed the standards
for these pollutants from the SIP. The remaining changes to South
Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 2--Ambient Air Quality
Standards are non-substantive formatting changes. For these reasons,
this SIP revision would not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other CAA
requirement pursuant to CAA section 110(l).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 2--Ambient
Air Quality Standards, state effective on April 24, 2020. EPA has made
and will continue to make these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the
person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve SC DEHC's April 24, 2020 SIP submittal
proposing revisions to South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No.
2--Ambient Air Quality Standards and incorporate those revisions into
the SIP. EPA has determined that these revisions meet the applicable
requirements of sections 110 of the CAA and applicable regulatory
requirements at 40 CFR part 51.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This proposed action
merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not propose to impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Because this proposed rule merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law, this proposed rule for the State of South
Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Therefore, this action
will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or
preempt Tribal law. The Catawba Indian Nation (CIN) Reservation is
located within the boundary of York County, South Carolina. Pursuant to
the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120
(Settlement Act), ``all state and local environmental laws and
regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and
are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and
authorities.'' The CIN also retains authority to impose regulations
applying higher environmental standards to the Reservation than those
imposed by state law or local governing bodies, in accordance with the
Settlement Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 20, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2021-11113 Filed 5-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11410-11411]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05675]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31242; Amdt. No. 3843]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective March 27, 2019. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of March 27, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104,
Oklahoma City, OK 73125. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and
(3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 8, 2019.
Rick Domingo,
Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 25 April 2019

Brinkley, AR, Frank Federer Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig-B
Angola, IN, Tri-State Steuben County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-D
Leitchfield, KY, Leitchfield-Grayson CO, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig
Leitchfield, KY, Leitchfield-Grayson CO, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig
Leitchfield, KY, Leitchfield-Grayson CO, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig
New Orleans, LA, Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 11,
ILS RWY 11 SA CAT I, ILS RWY 11 CAT II, ILS RWY 11 CAT III, Amdt 5
Grand Marais, MN, Grand Marais/Cook County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 3
Spokane, WA, Spokane Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 3, ILS RWY 3 SA CAT I, ILS
RWY 3 CAT II, ILS RWY 3 CAT III, Amdt 7A
Spokane, WA, Spokane Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 3, Amdt 2E
Spokane, WA, Spokane Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 8, Amdt 2C
Spokane, WA, Spokane Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 3, Amdt 1A
Spokane, WA, Spokane Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 8, Amdt 1A
Spokane, WA, Spokane Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 21, Amdt 1C
Spokane, WA, Spokane Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 26, Amdt 1C
Burlington, WI, Burlington Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 2A

[FR Doc. 2019-05675 Filed 3-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER
EPA Registration Division contact: [Tony Kish<PHONE_NUMBER>]
Syngenta Crop Protection LLC. PP#
EPA has received a pesticide petition PP#    from Syngenta Crop Protection LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a (d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.475
      1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of [Difenoconazole :1 [2-[2-chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)]phenyl-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4,-triazole) ] in or on the raw agricultural commodity [rapeseed subgroup 20A] at [0.1] parts per million (ppm).
EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
A. Residue Chemistry
	1. Plant metabolism.
The nature of the residues in plants is understood for the purpose of the proposed tolerance. The metabolism of [14]C-difenoconazole has been studied using both phenyl and triazole labels in wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, grapes, and spring rape.  The metabolic pathway was the same in these four separate and distinct crops.  Therefore, the metabolism of difenocoanzole is considered to be adequately understood for all crops, per EPA Test Guideline 860.1300.
	2. Analytical method.I.Food [Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC has submitted a practical analytical method (AG-575B, master record identification (MRID) No. 428065-04) for detecting and measuring levels of difenoconazole in or on food with a limit of quantitation (LOQ) that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in the proposed tolerances.  EPA has validated this method and copies have been provided to FDA for insertion into pesticide analytical manual (PAM) II. Method REM 147.08 (MRID 46950222) is also available for enforcement method, for the determination of residues of difenoconazole in crops. Residues are qualified by liquid chromatography (LC)/mass spectrometry (MS)/(MS) The method is available to anyone who is interested, and may be obtained from the Field Operations Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
ii. Livestock.  Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. has submitted a practical analytical method (AG-544A, MRID-43292401) for detecting and measuring levels of difenoconazole in or on cattle tissues and milk and poultry tissues and eggs, with a LOQ that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in the proposed tolerances.  EPA has validated this method and copies have been provided to FDA for insertion into PAM II.  The method is available to anyone who is interested, and may be obtained from the Field Operations Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.  Tolerances in meat, milk, poultry or eggs were established for enforcement purposes.]
	3. Magnitude of residues. [Syngenta conducted magnitude of residue trials on canola in Canada to support the requested use of difenoconazole in/on rapeseed subgroup 20A. The maximum residue of difenoconazole on canola was 0.063 ppm. These residue trials satisfy the requested tolerance on rapeseed subgroup 20A. ]
B. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk.  EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.  Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the toxic effects caused by difenoconazole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at the following website: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-9759.htm.  A summary of the toxicological endpoints for difenoconazole used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.A and B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of April 28, 2009 (75 FR pages 22256-22263) (FRL-8817-3).
	1. Acute toxicity.  [Insert text.]

	2. Genotoxicty. [Insert text.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [Insert text.]

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [Insert text.]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [Insert text.]

	6. Animal metabolism. [Insert text.]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [Insert text.]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [Insert text.]

C. Aggregate Exposure
	1. Dietary exposure. [Tier III/IV acute, short-term, and chronic aggregate exposure evaluations were performed for difenoconazole ([(2S,4R)/(2R/4S)]/[(2R/4R)/(2S,4S) 1-(2-[4-(4-chlorophenoxy)-2-chlorophenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl-methyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole) using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID[TM]), version 2.16 from Exponent.  These exposure assessments included all current and pending uses.  Difenoconazole is currently registered for seed treatment uses on barley, canola, sweet corn, wheat, and imported rye, and for foliar uses on bananas (imported), Brassica vegetables (Crop Group 5), bulb vegetables (Crop Group 3), canola, citrus (Crop Group 10-10), cotton, cucurbit vegetables (Crop Group 9), fruiting vegetables (Crop Group 8-10), grapes, mango (imported), papaya (imported), pome fruit (Crop Group 11-10), sugar beets, tree nuts (Crop Group 14), tuberous and corm vegetables (Crop Group 1C), and wax apple (imported), carrots, chick peas, soybeans, stone fruit (Crop Group 12), strawberries, seed treatment use on all small grains such as wheat, barley, buckwheat, millet, oats, rye, and triticale and post-harvest use on potatoes treated with Thesis(TM) brand fungicide product containing difenoconazole.  For the post-harvest use, difenoconazole IR-4 residue data was used.  Residue values used in these assessments were obtained from residue field trials conducted at the maximum labeled treatment rate and harvested at the minimum pre-harvest interval (PHI).  Experimental processing factors were used for apple juice (0.03x), citrus oil (47x), citrus pulp (4.1x), cottonseed oil (6.3x), grape juice (0.6x), grape raisins (3.5x), orange juice (0.1x), potato dry flakes (0.01x), soybean hulls (11.3x), soybean meal (2.2x), soybean oil (0.7x), sugar beet molasses (0.58x), sugar beet sugar (0.33x), tomato paste (1.61x), and tomato puree (0.55x); all other processing factors utilized either the DEEM(TM) (version 7.87) default processing factors or theoretical concentration factors listed in OPPTS860.1520.  Anticipated residues in meat, milk, and eggs were calculated by constructing a theoretical "maximum reasonably balanced diet" (MRBD) using the OPPTS 860.1000 Table 1 feedstuffs (June 2008 revision).  Percent crop treated (%CT) values were estimated based upon economic, pest, and competitive pressures.  Drinking water estimates were selected using the higher of the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for surface and ground water.  All consumption data for these assessments were taken from the USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intake by individuals (CSFII) with the 1994-1996 consumption database and the Supplemental CSFII children's survey (1998) consumption database.]
	i. Food. [The difenoconazole acute food risk assessment was performed using an acute reference dose (aRfD) of 0.25 mg/kg-bw/day based upon an acute neurotoxicity study in rats with a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 25 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X.  The 100X safety factor includes intra- and inter-species variations; no additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of aggregate risk assessment, the exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each subpopulation.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the acute reference dose (%aRfD).  At the 99.9[th] percentile, acute (food only) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 864 (11.6% of the aRfD of 0.25 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed sub-population was children (1-2 years old) with a MOE of 481 (20.8% of the aRfD of 0.25 mg/kg-bw/day).  Because the Benchmark MOE for this assessment is 100 and the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the Benchmark or below 100% of the aRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dietary (food only) exposure to residues arising from all current and pending uses plus the proposed post-harvest use on potatoes.]
Chronic Exposure.  The difenoconazole chronic food risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups using a chronic reference dose of 0.01 mg/kg-bw/day based upon a combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats with a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 0.96 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X.  The 100X safety factor includes intra- and inter-species variations; no additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of aggregate risk assessment, the exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each subpopulation.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the chronic reference dose (%cRfD).  Chronic food exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 603 (15.9% of the cRfD of 0.01 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed subpopulation was children (1-2 years old) with a MOE of 241 (39.9% of the cRfD of 0.01 mg/kg-bw/day).  Because the Benchmark MOE for this assessment is 100 and the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the Benchmark or below 100% of the cRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dietary (food only) exposure to residues arising from all current and pending uses plus the proposed post-harvest use on potatoes.
Cancer.  A cancer dietary assessment was not conducted.  Difenoconazole is classified as a Group C, "possible human carcinogen," with a non-linear (MOE) approach for human risk characterization (CPRC Document, 7/27/94, Memo, P. V. Shah, March 3, 2007, HED Doc. No. 0054532).
	ii. Drinking water. [The Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) of difenoconazole were determined using Tier 1 screening model SCI-GROW (version 2.3) which estimates pesticide concentration in ground water and Tier II PRZM/EXAMS (PE version 5.0) which estimates surface water exposures.  EDWCs for difenoconazole from currently registered and pending uses were determined.  For the proposed post-harvest use on potatoes, there will be no environmental exposure to ground water and/or surface water.  Based on the SCI-GROW modeling results, the highest groundwater EDWC for difenoconazole was 0.0123 ppb (acute and chronic) based on the currently registered citrus use.   Based on Tier II PRZM/EXAMS modeling for surface water conducted by EPA (D367382), the currently registered grape use provided the highest EDWCs of 15.8 ppb and 10.4 ppb for acute and chronic, respectively (adjusted for 0.87 Percent Cropped Area, PCA).  Since the surface water EDWCs exceed the ground water EDWC, the surface water values were used for risk assessment purposes and will be considered protective for any ground water exposure concerns.
Acute Exposure from Drinking Water:  The peak (acute) EDWC of 15.8 ppb (0.0158 ppm) for surface water was input directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources" to obtain the acute dietary exposure from water.  Drinking water exposures were determined by taking the difference between the aggregate exposures (food + drinking water) and food exposures (food only) for each population subgroup.  At the 99.9th percentile, acute drinking water exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 58,685 (0.2% of the aRfD of 0.25 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed subpopulation was children 1-2 years old, with a MOE of 15,664 (0.6% of the aRfD of 0.25 mg/kg-bw/day).  Because the Benchmark MOE for this assessment is 100 and the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the Benchmark or below 100% of the aRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute exposure to drinking water residues arising from all current and pending uses plus the proposed post-harvest use on potatoes.
Chronic Exposure from Drinking Water.  The annual average (chronic) EDWC of 10.4 ppb (0.0104 ppm) for surface water was input into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources" to obtain the chronic dietary exposure from water.  Drinking water exposures were determined by taking the difference between the aggregate exposures (food + drinking water) and food exposures (food only) for each population subgroup.  Chronic drinking water exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 4,379 (2.2% of the cRfD of 0.01 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed sub-population was all infants <1 year old, with a MOE of 1,336 (7.2% of the cRfD of 0.01 mg/kg-bw/day).  Because the Benchmark MOE for this assessment is 100 and the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the Benchmark or below 100% of the cRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic exposure to drinking water residues arising from all current and pending uses plus the proposed post-harvest use on potatoes.]
	2. Non-dietary exposure. [Difenoconazole is a broad spectrum fungicide used in residential applications for landscape ornamentals and materials protection.  Difenoconazole is formulated in Difenoconazole 2EC for protection of landscape ornamentals and in DIFENO-Shield(TM) as an additive to paint.  For landscape ornamentals, these residential exposure assessments were run in support of registered uses of Difenoconazole 2EC at a maximum single application rate of 8.0 oz product/A (0.13 lb ai/A) for prevention of diseases in roses.  For paints containing DIFENO-Shield(TM), these exposure assessments assumed a maximum application rate of 0.01% ai w/w.  The toxicological endpoints established by the EPA in the August 2007 HED difenoconazole risk assessment were used (NOAEL = 1.25 mg/kg-bw/day).  The worse case short-term margin of exposure (MOE) for all uses assessed was for adults applying paint with an airless sprayer, with a combined (inhalation and dermal) MOE of 387.  Because the residential MOE exceeds the EPA's Benchmark MOE of 100, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from short-term exposures arising from all current and pending uses plus the proposed post-harvest use on potatoes.]
D. Cumulative Effects
	[Cumulative Exposure to Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity.  Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider "available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity".  An ongoing series of studies being conducted by the U.S. Triazole Task Force (USTTF) are designed to provide the Agency with more complete toxicological and residue information for 1,2,4 triazole and two conjugates, triazolylalanine and triazolyl acetic acid, metabolites common to most of the triazole fungicides.  Upon completion of review of those data, EPA will prepare a more sophisticated assessment based on the revised toxicological and exposure databases.  For the purposes of this tolerance action, the EPA has not assumed that difenoconazole has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.]
E. Safety Determination
	1. U.S. population. [Using the conservative assumptions described above, and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the acute aggregate exposure analysis for all current, pending and proposed uses of difenoconazole resulted in a MOE of 852 for the U.S. population.  The short-term aggregate exposure analysis for all current, pending and proposed uses of difenoconazole resulted in a MOE of 248 for the U.S. population.  The chronic aggregate exposure analysis for all current, pending and proposed uses of difenoconazole resulted in a MOE of 530 for the U.S. population.  Because the worst case aggregate MOE of 205 for short-term aggregate exposures exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to the U.S. Population from acute, short-term, and chronic aggregate exposures arising from all current and pending uses plus the proposed post-harvest use on potatoes.]
	2. Infants and children. [Using the conservative assumptions described above, and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the acute aggregate exposure analysis for all current, pending and proposed uses of difenoconazole resulted in a MOE of 466 for children 1-2 years old.  The short-term aggregate exposure analysis for all current, pending and proposed uses of difenoconazole resulted in a MOE of 333 for children 1-6 years old.  The chronic aggregate exposure analysis for all current, pending and proposed uses of difenoconazole resulted in a MOE of 223 for children 1-2 years old.  Because the worst case aggregate MOE for chronic exposures of 223 for children 1-2 years old exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to infants and children from acute, short-term, and chronic aggregate exposures arising from all current and pending uses plus the proposed post-harvest use on potatoes.]
F. International Tolerances
	[Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for residues of difenoconazole per se have been established on a number of commodities including banana, grapes, meat milk eggs, milks, peach, plums, pome fruit, potatoes, soybeans, tomatoes, and wheat.]


                         Final Economic Analysis and                       Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

                    Supporting Document for the Final Rule           for Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica

                 Occupational Safety and Health Administration                            U.S. Department of Labor

                                     2016


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 61260]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21249]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78718; File No. SR-OCC-2016-801]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Withdrawal of an Advance Notice Related to the Adoption of an
Options Exchange Risk Control Standards Policy

August 30, 2016.
    On March 4, 2016, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4(n)(1)(i) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,\2\ an advance
notice proposing to adopt a new Options Exchange Risk Control Standards
Policy and revise its Schedule of Fees to impose on clearing members a
fee of two cents per cleared options contract (per side) executed on an
options exchange that did not demonstrate sufficient risk controls
designed to meet the proposed set of principles-based risk control
standards. On April 14, 2016, the Commission requested additional
information from OCC pursuant to section 806(e)(1)(D) of the Clearing
Supervision Act.\3\ Notice of the advance notice was published in the
Federal Register on April 21, 2016.\4\ The Commission received one
comment letter in response to the advance notice.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(D). OCC did not submit a response to
the Commission's request for additional information.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77628 (April 15,
2016), 81 FR 23536 (April 21, 2016).
    \5\ See Letter from OCC, dated June 13, 2016, to Brent J.
Fields, Secretary, Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 14, 2016, OCC filed a withdrawal of its advance notice (SR-
OCC-2016-801) from consideration by the Commission. The Commission is
hereby publishing notice of the withdrawal.

    By the Commission.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21249 Filed 9-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83890-83892]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28034]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79327; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-143]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto,
Introducing NYSE OptX

November 16, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on November 3, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. On November 15, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposal.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposed to amend note 11,
infra, to clarify that QCC Orders sent through NYSE OptX to the
Exchange for execution would comply with the order format and EOC
entry requirements established by the Exchange, which are set forth
in Rule 6.67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to introduce NYSE OptX, an order entry
platform that would allow for the submission of Qualified Contingent
Cross orders (``QCC Orders'') by OTP Holders and OTP Firms. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

of the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to introduce NYSE OptX, an order entry
platform that would allow for the submission of QCC Orders by OTP
Holders \5\ and OTP Firms \6\ (collectively, ``OTPs''). OTPs currently
send QCC Orders through the use of third party front end order
management systems, such as PrecISE \7\ or PULSe,\8\ or by calling
Floor Brokers and relaying their orders by telephone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``OTP Holder'' refers to a natural person, in good
standing, who has been issued an OTP, or has been named as a
Nominee. An OTP Holder must be a registered broker or dealer
pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or a
nominee or an associated person of a registered broker or dealer
that has been approved by the Exchange to conduct business on the
Exchange's Trading Facilities. See Rule 1.1(q).
    \6\ The term ``OTP Firm'' refers to a sole proprietorship,
partnership, corporation, limited liability company or other
organization in good standing who holds an OTP or upon whom an
individual OTP Holder has conferred trading privileges on the
Exchange's Trading Facilities pursuant to and in compliance with
Exchange Rules. An OTP Firm must be a registered broker or dealer
pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. See
Rule 1.1(r).
    \7\ PrecISE Trade[supreg] is a front-end order and execution
management system for trading options and stock-option combinations.
See https://www.ise.com/options/precise/.
    \8\ PULSe\SM\ is a front end execution management system that
allows users to send orders to CBOE, C2 and to other U.S. options
and stock exchanges. See https://www.cboe.org/hybrid/pulsesalessheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE OptX is an order entry platform that utilizes a combination of
Instant Messaging (IM) and browser-based technology to allow OTPs to
submit QCC Orders for execution on the Exchange's trading system.\9\
There are multiple steps required for OTPs to execute their QCC Orders
through NYSE OptX.\10\ First, an OTP would send a QCC Order in plain
text to NYSE OptX.\11\ NYSE OptX would be established by an OTP as an
IM contact that can be accessed through various instant messaging
platforms. Next, upon receipt of the plain text message sent by an OTP,
NYSE OptX would translate the message into a pre-populated order ticket
with details of the order and return the order ticket to the OTP in a
browser-based URL. When the OTP opens the URL, the pre-populated order
ticket would appear with the order information as entered by the OTP.
The OTP would then confirm the order ticket and submit the order to the
Exchange for execution, or send the order to a Floor Broker for
execution. If an OTP sends the order to a Floor Broker, the Floor
Broker would verify the order and send it through NYSE OptX for
execution on the Exchange's trading system much like how the Floor
Broker would normally execute the order but without having to re-key
the order into the Floor Broker's terminal. After an order is executed
on the Exchange,\12\ NYSE OptX would remit details of the execution
back to the OTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange represents that NYSE OptX is merely an instant
messaging platform to link OTPs with the Exchange's trading system
(i.e., it is a new means of sending QCC Orders to the Exchange's
existing trading system), and does not require any changes to the
Exchange's communication or surveillance rules.
    \10\ OTPs would be required to log into NYSE OptX each trading
day, similar to how they would log into any other front end order
management system.
    \11\ OTPs would be required to provide all the essential
information regarding the QCC Order when sending it to NYSE OptX,
including the price of the option and the stock, the size and side
of the order, i.e., buy or sell, and delta. The Exchange represents
that QCC Orders sent to the Exchange for execution would comply with
the order format and EOC entry requirements established by the
Exchange. See Rule 6.67--Order Format and System Entry Requirements.
See also Amendment No. 1, supra note 4.
    \12\ All executions would be subject to the Exchange's standard
transaction fees and credits applicable to QCC Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE OptX is designed as an alternative to the front end order
management systems, such as PrecISE and PULSe, and as an alternative to
the use of telephones for the sending by OTPs of QCC Orders to the
Exchange. NYSE OptX would not provide OTPs with the capability to send
any other type of orders or the capability to send QCC Orders for
execution to other options markets. At this time, OTPs would only be
able to use NYSE OptX for the transmission of QCC Orders. Use of NYSE
OptX by OTPs would be voluntary and OTPs would continue to be able to
submit QCC Orders through the use of a third party front end order
management system, or by telephone, as they do today.
    While PrecISE and PULSe require software to be installed on a
desktop computer, NYSE OptX does not require installation of any
software as it relies on existing instant messaging technology which
would make its use by OTPs seamless. OTPs would also not need a
physical workstation to use NYSE OptX.
    The Exchange notes that the use of NYSE OptX to send QCC Orders is
optional. The Exchange is offering NYSE OptX as a convenience to OTPs
and NYSE OptX would not be the exclusive means available to OTPs to
execute QCC Orders on the Exchange. The Exchange will announce the
effective date of NYSE OptX in a Trader Update to be published no later
than 90 days following Commission approval. The effective date will be
no later than 270 days following publication of that Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \13\ of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\14\ in particular, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would promote just
and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market because offering NYSE OptX as
an alternate means to submit QCC Orders for execution on the Exchange
would generally allow the Exchange to better compete for QCC Orders and
thus enhance competition. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is reasonable as it could encourage OTPs to direct a greater
number of QCC Orders to the Exchange instead of sending such orders to
a competing exchange.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change would
allow the Exchange of [sic] offer a new service on an equitable and
non-discriminatory basis. Specifically, the Exchange believes that use
of NYSE OptX is equitable as it is voluntary and not required for OTPs
to execute QCC Orders on the Exchange. Additionally, as proposed, the
Exchange would provide NYSE OptX to OPTs [sic] on a non-discriminatory
basis in that NYSE OptX would be available to all OTPs in a `one-size
fits all' offering in which all OTPs would be subject to the same terms
and conditions and would receive the same level of service.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\15\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change evidences the strength of competition in the
options industry. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change will enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange relative to
other options exchanges that transact in QCC Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-143 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-143. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-143 and should
be submitted on or before December 13, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-28034 Filed 11-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 5950]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01947]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-879-000]

Pleasants 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
Pleasants 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 February 18, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 28, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01947 Filed 1-31-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46786-46787]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19632]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-515-000]

Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on July 14, 2011, Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC
(Millennium), One Blue Hill Plaza, Seventh Floor, P.O. Box 1565, Pearl
River, New York 10965, filed in the above referenced docket an
application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and
Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, requesting authorization to
construct, own and operate the Minisink Compressor Project, which
consists of a new 12,260 horsepower compressor station, suction and
discharge pipeline and related appurtenant facilities, all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open to public inspection. These facilities will enable Millennium
to increase firm deliveries to its interconnection with Algonquin Gas
Transmission, LLC at Ramapo, New York from 450,000 Dth/day to
approximately 675,000 Dth/day. The filing is available for review at
the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site web 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, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Gary
A. Kruse, Vice President-General Counsel & Secretary, Millennium
Pipeline Company, LLC, One Blue Hill Plaza, Seventh Floor, P.O. Box
1565, Pearl River, New York 10965, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by
facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Joseph S. Koury, Wright & Talisman,
P.C., 1200 G Street, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005, by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Ryan J. Collins, Wright & Talisman, P.C., 1200 G
Street, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005, by telephone at (202)
393-1200, by facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below 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 in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of

environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the
right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
    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: August 17, 2011.

    Dated: July 27, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-19632 Filed 8-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 3 (Friday, January 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 727]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31744]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9006-9]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements.
Filed 12/24/2012 through 12/28/2012.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As of October 1, 2012, EPA will not accept
paper copies or CDs of EISs for filing purposes; all submissions on or
after October 1, 2012 must be made through e-NEPA.
    While this system eliminates the need to submit paper or CD copies
to EPA to meet filing requirements, electronic submission does not
change requirements for distribution of EISs for public review and
comment. To begin using e-NEPA, you must first register with EPA's
electronic reporting site--https://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp

EIS No. 20120402, Draft EIS, FHWA, CA, State Route 58 (SR-58) Hinkley
Expressway Project, Grade Separate, Widen, and Realign, San Bernardino
County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 02/19/2013, Contact: James Shankel
909-383-6379.
EIS No. 20120403, Draft EIS, FHWA, ID, US-95 Thorncreek Road to Moscow,
from Milepost 337.67 to Milepost 344.00, Latah County, ID, Comment
Period Ends: 02/22/2013, Contact: John A. Perry<PHONE_NUMBER> extension
116.
EIS No. 20120404, Draft EIS, BLM, WA, Vantage to Pomona Heights 230 kV
Transmission Line Project, Grant, Brenton, Kittitas, and Yakima
Counties, WA, Comment Period Ends: 02/19/2013, Contact: William
Schurger<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120405, Revised Draft EIS, USACE, LA, Morganza to the Gulf of
Mexico, Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System Project,
Improvements and Changes, Terrebonne Parish and Lafourche Parish, LA,
Comment Period Ends: 02/19/2013, Contact: Nathan Dayan<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120406, Final EIS, USFWS, DE, Prime Hook National Wildlife
Refuge, Development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Milton, DE,
Review Period Ends: 02/04/2013, Contact: Thomas Bonetti<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20120395, Draft EIS, USFS, SC, AP Loblolly Pine Removal and
Restoration Project, Andrew Pickens Ranger District, Sumter National
Forest, Oconee County, SC, Comment Period Ends: 02/13/2013, Contact:
Victor Wyant<PHONE_NUMBER> Revision to FR Notice Published 12/31/2012;
Correcting Project State Location from CA to SC.

    Dated: December 31, 2012.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2012-31744 Filed 1-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 77 (Monday, April 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18932-18934]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08228]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0056]

Notice of Alleged Safety and Health Hazard (Form OSHA-7);
Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of
Collections of Information

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
collections of information contained in the OSHA-7 Form.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent or received) by
June 23, 2017.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0056, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2010-0056) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments,see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the
address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may contact Theda Kenney at the
address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employees filing occupational safety or
health complaints) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program
to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and
collections of information in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information
is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal,
collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of
the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes
information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for
enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the
causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and
accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain
such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent
feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information
(29 U.S.C. 657).
    Under paragraphs (a) and (c) of 29 CFR 1903.11 (``Complaints by
employees''), employees and their representatives may notify the OSHA
area director or an OSHA compliance officer of safety and health
hazards regulated by the Agency that they believe exist in their
workplaces at any time. These provisions state further that this
notification must be in writing and ``shall set forth with reasonable
particularity the grounds for the notice, and shall be signed by the
employee or representative of the employee.''
    In addition to providing specific hazard information to the Agency,
paragraph (a) permits employees/employee representatives to request an
inspection of the workplace. Paragraph (c) also addresses situations in
which employees/employee representatives may provide the information
directly to the OSHA compliance officer during an inspection. An
employer's former employees may also submit complaints to the Agency.
    To address the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c), especially
the requirement that the information be in writing, the Agency
developed the OSHA-7 Form; this form standardized and simplified the
hazard reporting process. For paragraph (a), they may complete an OSHA-
7 Form obtained

from the Agency's Web site and then send it to OSHA online, or deliver
a hardcopy of the form to the OSHA area office by mail or facsimile, or
by hand. They may also write a letter containing the information and
hand deliver it to the area office, or send it by mail or facsimile. In
addition, they may provide the information orally to the OSHA area
office or another party (e.g., a federal safety and health committee
for federal employees), in which case the area office or other party
completes the hard copy version of the form. For the typical situation
addressed by paragraph (c), an employee/employee representative informs
an OSHA compliance officer orally of the alleged hazard during an
inspection, and the compliance officer then completes the hard copy
version of the OSHA-7 Form; occasionally, the employee/employee
representative provides the compliance officer with the information on
the hard copy version of the OSHA-7 Form.
    The information on the hard copy version of the OSHA-7 Form
includes information about the employer and alleged hazards, including:
The establishment's name; the site's address and telephone and
facsimile numbers; the name and telephone number of the management
official; the type of business; a description and the specific location
of the hazards, including the approximate number of employees exposed
or threatened by the hazards; and whether or not the employee/employee
representative informed another government agency about the hazards
(and the name of the agency if so informed).
    Additional information on the hard copy version of the form
concerns the complainant, including: Whether or not the complainant is
an employee or an employee representative, or for information provided
orally, a member of a federal safety and health committee or another
party (with space to specify the party); the complainant's name,
telephone number, and address; and the complainant's signature
attesting that they believe a violation of an OSHA standard exists at
the named establishment; and the date of the signature. An employee
representative must also provide the name of the organization they
represent and their title.
    The information contained in the online version of the OSHA-7 Form
is similar to the hard copy version. However, the online version
requests the complainant's email address, and does not ask for the
site's facsimile number or the complainant's signature and signature
date.
    The Agency uses the information collected on the OSHA-7 Form to
determine whether reasonable grounds exist to conduct an inspection of
the workplace. The description of the hazards, including the number of
exposed employees, allows the Agency to assess the severity of the
hazards and the need to expedite the inspection. The completed form
also provides the employer with notice of the complaint and may serve
as the basis for obtaining a search warrant if the employer denies the
Agency access to the workplace.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed collections of information are
necessary for proper performance of the Agency's functions, including
whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the collections of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply--
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the collections
of information relating to the OSHA-7 Form. The Agency is requesting an
increase in burden hours from 13,659 to 19,258 (a total increase of
5,599 burden hours). The difference is the result of an overall
increase in complaints received annually from 50,641 complaints
estimated in the previous ICR to 70,976 complaints. There was also an
increase in operation and maintenance costs from $532 to $701. The
increase occurred due to an increase in the estimated number of written
OSHA-7 forms received, from 1,208 to 1,430 forms. The Agency will
summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will
include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of
the collections of information.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Notice of Alleged Safety and Health Hazards (Form OSHA-7).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0064.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Number of Responses: 70,976.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Varies.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 19,258.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $701.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-0056).
You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as their social security number
and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web
site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the

preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 13, 2017.
Dorothy Dougherty,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2017-08228 Filed 4-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P