U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Washington, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

                  	PC Code: 099050

        	DP BARCODE: 364248

MEMORANDUM	June 10, 2009

	SUBJECT:		Tier I Drinking Water Assessment for Acetamiprid Proposed
Uses on Red Clover (Grown for Seed Only), Grape and Tomato (Greenhouse).

TO:			Laura Nollen, Risk Manager Reviewer

			Barbara Madden, Team Leader (RM Team 5)

			RIMUERB/RD (7505P)

FROM:			David Lieu, Chemist Trainee

			ERB4/EFED (7507P)

THRU:			Greg Orrick, Environmental Scientist

			Elizabeth Behl, Chief

			ERB4/EFED (7507P)

	This memo includes a drinking water exposure assessment for proposed
uses of acetamiprid on red clover (grown for seed only), grapes and
tomatoes in greenhouses.  These proposed uses do not exceed those
previously assessed in June 21, 2005 (DP BARCODE 303582), which were
based on acetamiprid maximum use patterns for citrus fruit (surface
water) and tree nuts (groundwater). The use pattern for citrus fruit
included the highest single application rate (i.e., 0.25 lb a.i./A,
applied twice per season at 7-day intervals). The use pattern for tree
nuts included the highest application rate per season (i.e., 0.18 lb
a.i./A, applied four times per season at 14 day intervals). The proposed
use on clover in ID, OR, and WA only has a maximum application rate of
0.075 lb a.i./A applied once a season. The proposed use on grapes and
other climbing small fruits (except fuzzy kiwifruit)(within crop
sub-group 13-07F) has a maximum application rate of 0.1 lb a.i./A,
applied twice at 14 day intervals. The proposed use on greenhouse grown
tomatoes has a maximum application rate of 0.075 lb a.i./A applied twice
per crop. All use patterns are summarized in Table 1. Because previous
exposure estimates (Table 2) were based on maximum application rates
that were greater than the proposed maximum application rates for these
uses, we recommend that these tier I estimates of exposure be used in
support of human health risk assessment.

Table 1. Summary of acetamiprid use patterns for different crops
proposed

	Product Name	EPA Reg. No.	Single App. Rate (lbs. a.i./A)	Number of
Apps.	Seasonal App. Rate (lbs. a.i./A)	Interval Between Apps. (days)
App. Method

Clover (for use in ID, OR, and WA only)	Assail 70 WP	8033-23	0.075	1
0.075	None	Aerial spray

	Assail 30 SG	8033-36	0.075	1	0.075	None	Aerial spray

Grapes and other Climbing Vine Small Fruits (except Fuzzy Kiwifruit)
(within Crop Sub-Group 13-07F)	Assail 70 WP	8033-23	0.1	2	0.2	14	Aerial
spray

	Assail 30 SG	8033-36	0.1	2	0.2	14	Aerial spray

Greenhouse-grown Tomatoes (mature plants)	TriStar 30 SG	8033-94	0.075	2
0.15	N/A	Chemigation/soil drenching

Citrus fruits (used in previous assessments)	Assail 70 WP	8033-23	0.25	2
0.55*	7	Aerial spray

	Assail 30 SG	8033-36	0.25	2	0.55*	7	Aerial spray

Tree Nuts (within Crop Group 14) (including Pistachio)	Assail 70 WP
8033-23	0.18	4	0.72	14	Aerial spray

	Assail 30 SG	8033-36	0.18	4	0.72	14	Aerial spray

* The seasonal application rate for citrus fruits is 0.55 lb a.i./A;
however the modeled application rate was only 0.50 lb a.i./A due to
limitations imposed by the indivisibility of 0.55 by 0.25.

Table 2.  Tier I 1-in-10-year EDWCs in surface water and ground water
for acetamiprid.

Drinking Water Source	Maximum Use Pattern	Exposure	EDWC

Surface water	Citrus fruit	Peak	20.1     ppb

Annual average	  4.9     ppb

Ground water	Tree nut	Peak & annual average	  1.6     ppt

It is also recommended that the label for TriStar 30SG specify the
maximum application rate (in lbs a.i./A) for a single application use on
greenhouse-grown tomatoes. The proposed label only implies such a rate.
A clearly stated value on the label would prevent confusion and promote
consistency.

  PAGE   1

  PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59874-59876]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23569]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73246; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delay the
Implementation Period of the New Options Floor Broker Management System
Until November 3, 2014

September 29, 2014.
    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 September 19, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the implementation rollout of its
new Options Floor Broker Management System.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to extend the rollout of the
Exchange's enhancements to the Options Floor Broker Management System
(``FBMS''). Today, FBMS enables Floor Brokers and/or their employees to
enter, route, and report transactions stemming from options orders
received on the Exchange. FBMS also establishes an electronic audit
trail for options orders represented by Floor Brokers on the Exchange.
Floor Brokers can use FBMS to submit orders to Phlx XL, rather than
executing the orders in the trading crowd.
    With the new FBMS, all options transactions on the Exchange
involving at least one Floor Broker are required to be executed through
FBMS. In connection with order execution, the Exchange allows FBMS to
execute two-sided orders entered by Floor Brokers, including multi-leg
orders up to 15 legs, after the Floor Broker has represented the orders
in the trading crowd. FBMS also provides Floor Brokers with an enhanced
functionality called the complex calculator that calculates and
displays a suggested price of each individual component of a multi-leg
order, up to 15 legs, submitted on a net debit or credit basis.
    The Exchange received approval to implement the FBMS enhancements
as of June 1, 2013,\3\ and delayed implementation until July 2013,\4\
until September 2013,\5\ until December 2013,\6\ until March 2014,\7\
and again until September 1, 2014.\8\ The Exchange made a number of
improvements intended to improve the performance of the new system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69471 (April 29, 2013),
78 FR 26096 (May 3, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-09).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69811 (June 20, 2013),
78 FR 38422 (June 26, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-67).
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70141 (August 8, 2013),
78 FR 49565 (August 14, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-83).
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70629 (October 8, 2013),
78 FR 62852 (October 22, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-100).
    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71212 (December 31,
2013), 79 FR 888 (January 7, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2013-129).
    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72135 (May 9, 2014), 79
FR 27966 (May 15, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-33).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Implementation began on March 7, 2014. In its most recent filing
delaying implementation,\9\ the Exchange stated that the implementation
period would be up to September 1, 2014, during which the new FBMS
enhancements and related rules would operate along with the existing
FBMS and rules.\10\ At this time, the Exchange needs additional time to
complete the implementation because of technology issues with the new
system. The new FBMS is available to all users (Floor Brokers) and in
all options. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes that the Floor Brokers
need additional time to familiarize themselves with the new features of
FBMS, based on that ongoing experience, offer input regarding system
performance, and provide the Exchange with the opportunity to address
performance improvements. Given some technology issues that the
Exchange has encountered during the implementation period, the delay is
needed to allow Floor Brokers additional time to adapt to the new
system as the Exchange works to improve the performance of the new
system. As the performance issues are resolved, the delay will allow
the Floor Brokers to migrate their business in a prudent manner. The
delay is not as a result of major technology changes from the original
proposal and no rule changes are being made; rather, the Exchange
continues to work to, generally, make the system more user-friendly and
provide more useful interfaces for the ultimate user, the Floor Broker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
    \10\ In the original filing, the Exchange stated its intent to
implement these enhancements with a trial period of two to four
weeks. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange seeks an additional two month period
(until November 3, 2014) to be able to continue the implementation
rollout; the Exchange announced the specific date on which the trial
period will end and the old FBMS will no longer be available in advance
through an Options

Trader Alert. During the additional time period, the Exchange will
continue to encourage Floor Brokers to use the new FBMS in order to
help them become more familiar with the new features of FBMS.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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, by enhancing FBMS to make the Exchange's markets more
efficient, to the benefit of the investing public. Although the
Exchange needs additional time to finalize the implementation rollout,
this time period is expected to be limited, depending on user input,
and will involve advance notice to the Exchange membership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange continues to
believe, as it stated when proposing these enhancements, that these
enhancements to FBMS should result in the Exchange's trading floor
operating in a more efficient way, which should help it compete with
other floor-based exchanges and help the Exchange's Floor Brokers
compete with floor brokers on other options exchanges.

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

    A written comment was received in support of the proposal.\13\ The
Exchange did not solicit comments. The Comment Letter requested the
Commission and Phlx postpone the implementation rollout of the new FBMS
from September 1, 2014 to a later date. The Comment Letter alleges that
the Floor Brokers did not have proper notice of the end of the
implementation period. Also, the Comment Letter requests that the new
FBMS be postponed to ensure the public outcry system is maintained.
Consistent with what the Comment Letter requests, the Exchange is
filing this delay of implementation to extend the implementation
rollout of its new FBMS for an additional two month period. The
Exchange has provided written notice on numerous occasions.\14\ With
respect to preserving the open outcry system, the Exchange notes that
under the new FBMS orders will continue to be represented in the
trading crowd; order exposure has not been eliminated. The Exchange is
merely modernizing how orders are executed and reported to support the
maintenance of an accurate audit trail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See letter from various Phlx Floor Brokers to Mary Jo
White, Chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, dated
August 28, 2014 (``Comment Letter'').
    \14\ See e.g. Options Trader Alerts 2014-26 and 2014-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.\17\ However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest.\18\ The Exchange has requested that the Commission
waive the 30-day operative delay so that the Exchange can implement the
enhancements once they are ready from a technology perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest as it will clarify when the delayed implementation of the FBMS
will be effective and operative immediately. In addition, because the
proposal only delays the implementation date of the FBMS and does not
make any additional changes to the FBMS itself, it does not raise any
novel regulatory issues. The Commission notes that the implementation
period was scheduled to expire on September 1, 2014, when the existing
FMBS would cease to operate and the new FBMS would be fully
implemented. However, Phlx has indicated that it needs additional time
to continue the implementation rollout of the new FMBS. Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.\20\ If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2014-59 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-2014-59. 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 such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal offices 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-Phlx-2014-59, and should be
submitted on or before October 24, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23569 Filed 10-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61746]
[DOCID:fr19oc06-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER06-1392-000]

FPL Energy Oliver Wind, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

October 13, 2006.
    FPL Energy Oliver Wind, LLC (FPL Oliver Wind) filed an application
for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule.
The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of
energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. FPL
Oliver Wind also requested waivers of various Commission regulations.
In particular, FPL Oliver Wind requested that the Commission grant
blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of
securities and assumptions of liability by Hawks Nest.
    On September 29, 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the
Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the
requests for blanket approval under part 34. The Director's order also
stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest
the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by FPL Oliver Wind should file a motion to intervene or
protest 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,
385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is November 13, 2006.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
FPL Oliver Wind is authorized to issue securities and assume
obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or
otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that
such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the
corporate purposes of FPL Oliver Wind, compatible with the public
interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of FPL Oliver Wind's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also 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
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions 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.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-17495 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 8 (Friday, January 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2473-2475]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00352]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68588; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2012-143]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services With
Respect to Regulatory Fees Related to the Central Registration
Depository, Which Are Collected by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.

January 4, 2013.
    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 December 21, 2012, 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. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (the ``Fee Schedule'') with
respect to regulatory fees related to the Central Registration
Depository (``CRD system''), which are collected by the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''). The Exchange proposes
to implement the fee changes on January 2, 2013. The text of 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 amend the Fee Schedule with respect to
regulatory fees related to the CRD system, which are collected by
FINRA.\4\ The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes on January
2, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The CRD system is the central licensing and registration
system for the U.S. securities industry. The CRD system enables
individuals and firms seeking registration with multiple states and
self-regulatory organizations to do so by submitting a single form,
fingerprint card and a combined payment of fees to FINRA. Through
the CRD system, FINRA maintains the qualification, employment and
disciplinary histories of registered associated persons of broker-
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain of the regulatory fees provided in the Fee Schedule are
collected and retained by FINRA via the CRD system for the registration
of associated persons of ETP Holders that are not FINRA members (``Non-
FINRA ETP Holders''). The Exchange originally adopted fees for use of
the CRD system in 2005.\5\ FINRA recently amended certain of the fees
assessed for use of the CRD system, and those amendments will become
effective January 2, 2013.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51641 (May 2, 2005),
70 FR 24155 (May 6, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-49).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67247 (June 25,
2012), 77 FR 38866 (June 29, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2012-030).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CRD system fees are user-based and there is no distinction in
the cost incurred by FINRA if the user is a FINRA member or a Non-FINRA
ETP Holder. Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to amend the fees in
the Fee Schedule to mirror those assessed by FINRA, which will be
implemented concurrently with the amended FINRA fees on January 2,
2013.\7\ The proposed changes are as follows: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that it has only adopted the CRD system
fees charged by FINRA to Non-FINRA ETP Holders when such fees are
applicable. In this regard, certain FINRA CRD system fees and
requirements are specific to FINRA members, but do not apply to NYSE
Arca-only ETP Holders.
    \8\ The Exchange is proposing to delete the current fees and
descriptions in their entirety and replace them with the updated
fees and descriptions in a separate table that will include all the
fees applicable to Non-FINRA ETP Holders, as discussed further
below. In this regard, the Exchange is proposing a new subheading in
the ``Regulatory Fees'' section of the Fee Schedule to differentiate
between those fees that are applicable to all ETP Holders and those
fees that are applicable only to Non-FINRA ETP Holders. The Exchange
notes that ETP Holders that are also FINRA members are charged CRD
system fees according to Section (4) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-
laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Increasing the disclosure processing fee from $95 to $110;
\9\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Section (4)(b)(3) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-laws
effective on January 2, 2013. The updated description in the Fee
Schedule for this fee would be ``additional processing of each
initial or amended Form U4, Form U5 or Form BD that includes the
initial reporting, amendment, or certification of one or more
disclosure events or proceedings.'' As noted below, this would
incorporate the applicability of the fee to Form BD processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Increasing the manual fingerprint processing fee from $13
to $30.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Section (4)(b)(6) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-laws
effective on January 2, 2013. The updated description in the Fee
Schedule for this fee would be ``processing and posting to the CRD
system each set of fingerprint results and identifying information
that have been processed through another self-regulatory
organization and submitted to FINRA.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to increasing the existing CRD system fees, FINRA
adopted a new fee for the additional processing of each initial or
amended Form BD that includes the initial reporting, amendment, or
certification of one or more disclosure events or proceedings.\11\
Broker-dealers use Form BD to, among other things, report disclosure
matters in which they or a control affiliate have been involved. Prior
to the adoption of the new fee, FINRA did not have a fee designed to
cover the costs associated with the review of Form BD, notwithstanding
that the review is similar to that performed of broker-dealers' Forms
U4 and U5. Such reviews include confirming that the matter is properly
reported, reviewing any documentation submitted and determining whether
additional documentation is required, conducting any necessary
independent research and, depending on the matter reported, analyzing
whether the event or proceeding subjects the individual or firm to a
statutory disqualification pursuant to Section 3(a)(39) of the Act.\12\

FINRA adopted a $110 fee for the review of a Form BD, which mirrors the
increased fee adopted for the review of Forms U4 and U5. As such, the
Exchange is adopting the identical fee for FINRA's review of a Form BD
submitted by Non-FINRA ETP Holders.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Section (4)(b)(3) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-laws
effective on January 2, 2013.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(39).
    \13\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to include in its Fee Schedule certain
other fees that are charged by FINRA to FINRA members as well as Non-
FINRA ETP Holders. These fees are as follows: \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Non-FINRA ETP Holders have been charged CRD system fees
since 2005. See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $100 for each initial Form U4 filed for the registration
of a representative or principal; \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Section (4)(b)(1) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-laws
effective on January 2, 2013. This fee is assessed when a Non-FINRA
ETP Holder submits its first Initial, Transfer, Relicense, or Dual
Registration Form U4 filing on behalf of a registered person. The
current applicable fee is $85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $15 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set
of fingerprints submitted electronically to FINRA, plus any other
charge that may be imposed by the U.S. Department of Justice for
processing each set of fingerprints; \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Section (4)(b)(4) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-laws
effective on January 2, 2013. The current applicable fee is $13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $30 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set
of fingerprint cards submitted in non-electronic format to FINRA, plus
any other charge that may be imposed by the U.S. Department of Justice
for processing each set of fingerprints; \17\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Section (4)(b)(5) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-laws
effective on January 2, 2013. The current applicable fee is $13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $45 annually for system processing for each registered
representative and principal.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Section (4)(b)(7) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-laws
effective on January 2, 2013. The current applicable fee is $30. The
proposed system processing fee would become effective for the 2013
Renewal Program. In this regard, as part of FINRA's 2013 Renewal
Program, Preliminary Renewal Statements reflecting the proposed $45
system processing fee will be made available in the fourth quarter
of 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise
intended to address any other issues surrounding regulatory fees and
that the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP Holders would
have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\19\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the change is reasonable because the
proposed fees are identical to those adopted by FINRA for use of the
CRD system for disclosure and the registration of FINRA members and
their associated persons. As FINRA noted in amending its fees, it
believed that the fees are reasonable based on the increased costs
associated with operating and maintaining the CRD system, and listed a
number of enhancements made since the last fee increase, including (1)
incorporation of various uniform registration form changes; (2)
electronic fingerprint processing; (3) Web EFTTM, which
allows subscribing firms to submit batch filings to the CRD system; and
(4) increases in the number and types of reports available through the
CRD system. These increased costs are similarly borne by FINRA when a
Non-FINRA ETP Holder uses the CRD system. FINRA further noted its
belief that the proposed fees are reasonable because they help to
ensure the integrity of the information in the CRD system, which is
very important because the Commission, FINRA, other self-regulatory
organizations and state securities regulators use the CRD system to
make licensing and registration decisions, among other things.
    The Exchange also believes that the change is reasonable because it
will provide greater specificity regarding the CRD system fees that are
applicable to Non-FINRA ETP Holders. All similarly situated ETP Holders
are subject to the same fee structure, and every ETP Holder must use
the CRD system for registration and disclosure. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes that the fees collected for such use should likewise
increase in lockstep with the fees assessed to FINRA members, as is
proposed by the Exchange. The proposed change, like FINRA's proposal,
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will result in
the same regulatory fees being charged to all ETP Holders required to
report information to the CRD system and for services performed by
FINRA, regardless of whether or not such ETP Holders are FINRA members.

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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change will result in the same regulatory
fees being charged to all ETP Holders required to report information to
the CRD system and for services performed by FINRA, regardless of
whether or not such ETP Holders are FINRA members.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \21\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \22\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.

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-NYSEARCA-2012-143 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2012-143.

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 such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at NYSE's principal office or on
the Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-2012-143, and should be submitted on or before
February 1, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00352 Filed 1-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 115 (Thursday, June 15, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39177-39179]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12699]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2023-0195; FRL-10612-02-R10]

Air Plan Approval; Idaho; Inspection and Maintenance Program
Removal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On March 30, 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed to approve revisions to the Idaho State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the State of Idaho (Idaho or the State) on December
29, 2022. The SIP revision, applicable in the Boise-Northern Ada County
Carbon Monoxide area (Northern Ada County CO area) in Idaho, removes
the Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program, which was previously
approved into the SIP for use as a control measure in the State's plan
to address motor vehicle emissions in the nonattainment area. The SIP
revision included a demonstration that the requested revision would not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of any national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) or with any other applicable requirement of
the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is taking final action to approve
Idaho's December 29, 2022, submission.

DATES: This action is effective on July 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2023-0195. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vaupel, EPA Region 10 at (206)
553-6121, or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it means the EPA.

I. Background

    On December 29, 2022, Idaho submitted a SIP revision to remove the
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program in the Northern Ada County
Carbon Monoxide (CO) area. The submission included a demonstration that
the requested revision would not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of any national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) or
with any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Idaho's submission also requested that the EPA remove the ordinances in
Table 1 of this preamble from the Idaho SIP.

        Table 1--Local I/M Ordinances That Idaho Requests Be Removed From the Northern Ada County CO SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Local agency
                 Local agency                                    Ordinance title                   approval date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality Board.............................  Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Ordinance.......        1/1/2010
Ada County....................................  The 1999 Motor Vehicle Emissions Control               6/15/1999
                                                 Ordinance.
City of Boise.................................  The 1999 Motor Vehicle Emissions Control               7/20/1999
                                                 Ordinance.
City of Eagle.................................  The 1999 Motor Vehicle Emissions Control               4/27/1999
                                                 Ordinance.
City of Garden City...........................  The 1991 Vehicle Emission Control Ordinance.....       8/13/1996
City of Meridian..............................  The 1999 Motor Vehicle Emissions Control                6/1/1999
                                                 Ordinance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed to approve Idaho's SIP revision on March 30, 2023
(88 FR 19030). Subsequently, on April 21, 2023, the EPA made a
correction to the docket number in the proposed rule and extended the
public comment period to May 22, 2023 (88 FR 24522). An explanation of
the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the submission, and the
EPA's reasons for approval were provided in the notice of proposed
rulemaking. The EPA did not receive comments on the proposed rulemaking
and is taking final action to approve Idaho's December 29, 2022,
submission.

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. The EPA is removing the local
ordinances identified in section I of this preamble from the Idaho
State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference under 1
CFR part 51.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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); and
     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.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    Idaho did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submission; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is
not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the
record inconsistent with the stated goal of Executive Order 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income
populations, and Indigenous peoples.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action

is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 14, 2023. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 8, 2023.
Casey Sixkiller,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart N--Idaho

0
2. In Sec.  52.670:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing entries ``Ada
County Ordinance'', ``City of Boise Ordinance'', ``City of Eagle
Ordinance'', ``City of Garden City Ordinance'' and ``City of Meridian
Ordinance''; and
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry for
``Northern Ada County Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan
Revision'' at the end of the table.
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  52.670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                    EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable
                                 geographic or      State       EPA approval
    Name of SIP provision        nonattainment    submittal         date                    Comments
                                     area            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Northern Ada County Carbon     Northern Ada       12/29/2022  6/15/2023,       Removal of I/M program.
 Monoxide Limited Maintenance   County.                        [INSERT
 Plan Revision.                                                Federal
                                                               Register
                                                               CITATION].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-12699 Filed 6-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 10250-10251]
[DOCID:fr05mr10-63]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0179; FRL-8815-3]

Kasugamycin; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption,
Solicitation of Public Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received a specific exemption request from the Oregon
Department of Agriculture to use the pesticide kasugamycin (CAS No.
6980-18-3) to treat up to 2,000 acres of newly planted, non-bearing
sweet or sour cherry orchards to control bacterial canker. The
applicant proposes the use of a new chemical which has not been
registered by the EPA.
EPA is soliciting public comment before making the decision whether or
not to grant the exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0179, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2010-0179. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keri Grinstead, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 308-8373; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2.  Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
     viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the
Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any
provision of FIFRA if the Administrator determines that emergency
conditions exist which require the exemption. The Oregon Department of
Agriculture has requested the Administrator to issue a specific
exemption for the use of kasugamycin on newly planted, non-bearing
sweet or sour cherry orchards to control bacterial canker. Information
in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this
request and may be found in the docket for this notice.
    As part of this request, the applicant asserts that kasugamycin is
needed to control alternative chemical-resistant strains of Pseudomonas
syringae pv. syringae, the major causal pathogen of bacterial canker of
young sweet and sour cherry trees. Bacterial canker is a risk to the
establishment of new cherry orchards and has become resistant to the
alternative chemical products. The applicant states that the use of
kasugamycin ``in 2,000 acres of newly planted, high density sweet
cherry orchards could help growers avert economic losses of nearly $5.1
million due to bacterial canker.''
    The Applicant proposes to make no more than two applications of
Kasumin 2L (2.0% kasugamycin) on a maximum of 2,000 acres of newly
planted, non-bearing sweet or sour cherry orchards between March 1,
2010 and November 30, 2010 in Benton, Clackamas, Lane, Linn, Marion,
Multnomah, Polk, Washington, Yamhill, Hood River, Sherman, Wasco,
Umatilla, and Union counties in Oregon. As currently proposed, the
maximum amount of product to be applied would be 2,000 gallons. EPA has
decided to open a shortened comment period and solicit input and
comments from the public for 10 days. In general, the length of a
comment period for an emergency exemption application is 15 days.
However, EPA is shortening this comment period to 10 days due to the
limited time available to consider this request with regard to the
requested use season. Because of these factors, EPA determined that a
10-day comment period is appropriate.
    This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the
application itself. The regulations governing section 18 of FIFRA
require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a
specific exemption proposing use of a new chemical (i.e., an active
ingredient) which has not been registered by EPA.
The notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the
application.
    The Agency will review and consider all comments received during
the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific
exemption requested by the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: March 1, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-4816 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


								Via e-mail

November 17, 2009

Mr. William Noggle

Office of Solid Waste

United States Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

RE:	PCB Import Petition

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. (Veolia) - Port Arthur, Texas Facility

	EPA Identification No. TXD000838896

Dear Mr. Noggle:

Pursuant to our November 3, 2009 correspondence and subsequent discussions with EPA, Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. (Veolia) is withdrawing its petition to import PCB wastes from Mexico.

Although we continue to support the importation of these materials for proper disposal, we do not wish to take up the EPA’s valuable resources by processing an exemption that may not be fully utilized in this economic climate.

If you have any questions regarding any of the information, please feel free to contact me at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Sincerely,

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C.

Mitch Osborne

General Manager

cc:	Carl Edlund	-	Director, Planning and Permitting, US EPA Region 6, Dallas

Jim Sales	-	TSCA PCB Permitting, US EPA Region 6, Dallas

Heather Ross	-	Director, TCEQ Region 10, Beaumont

David LaCoste

Robert Garner

Greig Siedor

Dan Duncan

Central Records

  PAGE  2

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C.

Highway 73, 3.5 miles West of Taylor’s Bayou, P.O. Box 2563, Port Arthur, TX 77640

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER> - fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

www.VeoliaES.com

TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS

NORTH AMERICA

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C.

Highway 73, 3.5 miles West of Taylor’s Bayou, P.O. Box 2563, Port Arthur, TX 77643

tel:<PHONE_NUMBER> - fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

www.VeoliaES.com


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 23701]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10567]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Land Use Change and Release of Grant Assurance
Restrictions at the Reid Hill View Airport and San Martin Airport,
Santa Clara County, California

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of a non-aeronautical land-use change.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to rule and
invites public comment on the application for a land-use change for
approximately 2.7 acres of airport property at Reid Hill View Airport,
and approximately 2.999 acres at San Martin Airport, Santa Clara
County, California. The land use change will allow a partial release of
airport land from the aeronautical use provisions of the Grant
Assurances that require it to serve an airport purposes since the land
is not needed for aeronautical uses. The land for partial release is
2.7 acres of a 55.09 acre parcel at Reid Hill View Airport and is
currently vacant. The land for partial release is 2.999 acres of a
63.79 acre parcel at San Martin Airport and is also currently vacant.
Solar systems will be placed on the leased parcels to generate clean
renewable energy for Santa Clara County. In return, fair market value
rent will be paid as lease revenue at both airports. This project will
serve the interest of civil aviation by contributing to the self-
sustainability of the two airports.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 22, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Comments on the request may be mailed
or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. James W. Lomen,
Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, San Francisco Airports
District Office, Federal Register Comment, 1000 Marina Boulevard, Suite
220, Brisbane, CA 94005. In addition, one copy of the comment submitted
to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Lin Ortega, Utilities
Engineer Program Manager, 2310 N. 1st Street, Suite 200, San Jose,
California 95131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21),
Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be
published in the Federal Register 30 days before the Secretary may
waive any condition imposed on a federally obligated airport by surplus
property conveyance deeds or grant agreements.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The County of Santa Clara, California requested a modification to
the conditions in the Grant Assurances to permit a partial release of
2.7 acres of a 55.09 acre parcel at Reid Hill View Airport and 2.999
acres of a 63.79 acre parcel at San Martin Airport for the
construction, maintenance, and operation of two proposed solar PV
(photovoltaic) systems. The release will allow the affected airport
land to be used for a non-aeronautical purpose. Fair market value lease
revenue will be paid on an annual basis at both airports. This project
will serve the interest of civil aviation by making the airports as
self-sustaining as possible.

    Issued in Brisbane, California, on May 16, 2017.
James W. Lomen,
Manager, San Francisco Airports District Office, Western-Pacific
Region.
[FR Doc. 2017-10567 Filed 5-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42667-42668]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19144]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL17-86-000]

Nebraska Public Power District v. Southwest Power Pool; Notice of
Complaint

    Take notice that on August 31, 2017, pursuant to Rule 206 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and sections 206 and 306 of the Federal
Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(e), Nebraska Public Power District
(Complainant or NPPD) filed a formal complaint against Southwest Power
Pool (Respondent or SPP) alleging that SPP's billing of $860,742.65 to
NPPD in connection with the Attachment Z2 revenue crediting process is
unlawful under SPP's Open Access Transmission Tariff, all as more fully
explained in the complaint.
    The Complainant states that certifies copies of the complaint were
served on the contacts for Respondent as listed on the Commission's
list of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically

should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
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>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 20, 2017.

    Dated: September 1, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19144 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 77678-77679]
[DOCID:fr19de08-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL07-86-006; EL07-88-006; EL07-92-006]

Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Notice of
Filing

December 12, 2008.
    Take notice that on December 10, 2008, Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) submitted proposed
revisions to the current Open Access Transmission Tariff regarding
Revenue Sufficiency Guarantees, as well as to the Open Access
Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff and
associated explanations of the refunds to be carried out by Midwest ISO
pursuant to the Commission's November 10, 2008 Order. Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 125 FERC ] 61, 161.
(2008).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 31, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-30145 Filed 12-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P