[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59082-59083]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23658]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0870]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AIWW), Elizabeth River, Southern Branch, Chesapeake, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the operation of the Norfolk Southern
7 Railroad Bridge across the Elizabeth River (Southern
Branch), AIWW mile 5.8, at Chesapeake, VA. This deviation is necessary
to facilitate replacing lift joints on the Norfolk Southern 7
Railroad Bridge. This temporary deviation will allow the drawbridge to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position on specific dates and
times.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on October 9, 2012 until
8 p.m. on October 11, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0870 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0870 in the ``Keywords''
box and then clicking ``Search''. This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth
Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have any questions on reviewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Norfolk Southern Corporation, owner and
operator of the single-leaf bascule Norfolk Southern 7
Railroad Bridge, mile 5.8, at Chesapeake, VA, has requested a temporary
deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR
117.997(d), to accommodate lift joint replacement.
    Under the current operating schedule the bridge shall be left in
the open position at all times and will only be lowered for the passage
of trains and to perform periodic maintenance. The Norfolk Southern
7 Bridge, at AIWW mile 5.8, across the Elizabeth River
(Southern Branch) in Chesapeake, VA, has a vertical clearance in the
closed position to vessels of 7 feet above mean high water.
    To facilitate lift joint replacement, the drawbridge will be
maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.
on October 9, 2012 and again from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. on October 11, 2012;
at all other times the bridge will operate in accordance to its regular
operating schedule. The bridge normally operates in the open position
with several vessels transiting a week. Coordination with waterway
users has been completed.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the opening restrictions of
the draw span to minimize transiting delays caused by the temporary
deviation. There are no alternate routes available but vessels may pass
between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. during the relevant time period. Mariners
able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any
time and the bridge is able to open for emergencies. Mariners are
advised to proceed with caution.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: September 17, 2012.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-23658 Filed 9-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70429-70434]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27379]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0358; FRL-10001-86]

Fenpropathrin; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for
residues of fenpropathrin in or on fuzzy kiwifruit. This action is in
response to EPA's granting of an emergency exemption under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of
the pesticide on fuzzy kiwifruit. This regulation establishes a maximum
permissible level for residues of fenpropathrin in or on this
commodity. The time-limited tolerance expires on December 31, 2022.

DATES: This regulation is effective December 23, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 21, 2020
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0358, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this
document electronically, please go to https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-chemical-safety-and-pollution-prevention-ocspp and select
``Test Guidelines for Pesticides and Toxic Substances.''

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect
of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2019-0358 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or before February 21, 2020. Addresses
for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are
provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0358, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections
408(e) and 408(l)(6) of, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is
establishing a time-limited tolerance for residues of fenpropathrin,
(alpha-cyano-3-phenoxy-benzyl 2,2,3,3
tetramethylcyclopropanecarboxylate), in or on fuzzy kiwifruit at 5
parts per million (ppm). This time-limited tolerance expires on
December 31, 2022.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA
section 18. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding
precedents for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the safety
standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having
received any petition from an outside party.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Fenpropathrin on Fuzzy Kiwifruit and FFDCA
Tolerances

    According to the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries
(ADAI), in 2017 brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) damage was observed
in a small block of nursery stock plants. This observation alerted the
staff at the kiwi nursery to the potential of BMSB for the 2018 crop
season. ADAI claimed that in 2018, BMSB severely damaged the kiwifruit
crop, making it unmarketable. ADAI estimated losses as high as 50% for
2018 and projected 2019 losses to be over $1.6 million without the use
requested under the section 18 emergency exemption. After having
reviewed the submission, EPA determined that an emergency condition
exists for this State, and that the criteria for approval of an
emergency exemption are met.
    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application,
EPA assessed the potential risks presented by

residues of fenpropathrin in or on fuzzy kiwifruit. In doing so, EPA
considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA
decided that the necessary tolerance under FFDCA section 408(l)(6)
would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18.
Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in
order to address an urgent, non-routine situation and to ensure that
the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance
without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA
section 408(l)(6). Although this time-limited tolerance expires on
December 31, 2022, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the
pesticide not in excess of the amount specified in the tolerance
remaining in or on fuzzy kiwifruit after that date will not be
unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a manner that was
lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was
authorized by this time-limited tolerance at the time of that
application. EPA will take action to revoke this time-limited tolerance
earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant
information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.
    Because this time-limited tolerance is being approved under
emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether
fenpropathrin meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on fuzzy
kiwifruit or whether a permanent tolerance for this use would be
appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that this
time-limited tolerance decision serves as a basis for registration of
fenpropathrin by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section
24(c), nor does this tolerance by itself serve as the authority for
persons in any State other than Alabama to use this pesticide on the
applicable crops under FIFRA section 18, absent the issuance of an
emergency exemption applicable within that State. For additional
information regarding the emergency exemption for fenpropathrin,
contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other
relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data
to assess the hazards of, and to make a determination on, aggregate
exposure expected as a result of this emergency exemption request and
the time-limited tolerance for residues of fenpropathrin on fuzzy
kiwifruit at 5 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated
with establishing the time-limited tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fenpropathrin used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of November 28, 2012 (77 FR 70904)
(FRL-9366-1).

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fenpropathrin, EPA considered exposure under the time-
limited tolerance established by this action as well as all existing
fenpropathrin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.466. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from fenpropathrin in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Acute effects were identified for fenpropathrin.
In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat
in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA used
tolerance level residues for some commodities and refined the
assessment by incorporating distributions of field trial values and
Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data for other commodities. EPA
translated data from some commodities to other commodities according to
EPA's guidance documents for translating monitoring data and field
trial data. EPA also included estimates of percent crop treated in the
assessment. For most processed commodities, EPA used the Agency's 2018
default processing factors for those commodities for which they were
available. In some cases, EPA used empirical processing factors.
    ii. Chronic exposure. Based on the available data for
fenpropathrin, use of the acute endpoint and dose for risk assessment
is protective for repeated dose exposure and risk. Therefore, only an
acute dietary assessment was performed, which is considered protective
of chronic dietary exposure.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data cited in Unit IV.A., EPA has
concluded that fenpropathrin does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing dietary risk only
if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.

     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, and the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows: Apples,
15%; apricots 2.5%; blueberries, 2.5%; broccoli, 2.5%; Brussels
sprouts, 10%; cabbage, 2.5%; cauliflower, 2.5%; cherries, 21%; cotton,
2.5%; cucumbers, 2.5%; grapefruit, 35%; grapes, 10%; nectarines, 9%;
oranges, 35%; peaches, 9%; pears, 10%; plums, 2.5%; prune plums, 2.5%;
squash, 2.5%; strawberries, 50%; tangerines, 15%; tomatoes, 10%; and
watermelons, 2.5%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6 to 7
years. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey
data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
    The Agency estimated the PCT for new uses as follows: 100% for
fuzzy kiwifruit.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
IV.B1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are
derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable
and have a valid basis. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which fenpropathrin may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used water
solubility limit at 25 [deg]C in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fenpropathrin in drinking water. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    The water solubility limit of fenpropathrin at 25 [deg]C is 10.3
parts per billion (ppb). The limit of solubility was directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the
water concentration value of 10.3 ppb was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Fenpropathrin is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA 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.''
    The agency is required to consider the cumulative risks of
chemicals sharing a common mechanism of toxicity. The agency has
determined that the pyrethroids and pyrethrins share a common mechanism
group (see https://www.regulations.gov; Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0489-
0006). The members of this group share the ability to interact with
voltage-gated sodium channels ultimately leading to neurotoxicity. The
cumulative risk assessment for the pyrethroids/pyrethrins was published
on Nov. 9, 2011 (USEPA, 2011a) and is available at https://www.regulations.gov; Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0746. No cumulative
risks of concern were identified. This assessment was conservative and
appropriate to address use expansions, such as this use on kiwifruit.
For information regarding the EPA's efforts to evaluate the risk of
exposure to pyrethroids, refer to https://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reevaluation/pyrethroids-pyrethrins.html. After all of the chemical-
specific interim decisions have been completed for the pyrethroid class
of pesticides, an update of the cumulative risk assessment may be
performed in association with registration review.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional SF when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Evidence of increased
qualitative or quantitative susceptibility of the offspring was not
observed in any of the available animal testing guideline toxicity
studies, including the developmental neurotoxicity study (DNT).
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
required 10X FQPA SF were reduced to 3X for children less than 6 years
old. For the general population, and including children greater than 6
years old, EPA is reducing the FQPA SF to 1X. That decision is based on
the following findings:
    i. While the database is considered to be complete with respect to
the guideline toxicity studies for fenpropathrin, EPA lacks additional
data to fully characterize the potential for juvenile sensitivity to
neurotoxic effects of pyrethroids. In light of the literature studies
indicating a possibility of increased sensitivity in juvenile rats at
high doses, EPA identified a need, and requested proposals for,
additional non-guideline studies to evaluate the potential for
sensitivity in juvenile rats. A group of pyrethroid registrants is
currently conducting those studies. Pending the results of those
studies, however, the available toxicity studies

for fenpropathrin can be used to characterize toxic effects including
potential developmental and reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity, and
neurotoxicity. Acceptable developmental toxicity studies in rats and
rabbits, reproduction studies in rats, neurotoxicity studies (acute,
subchronic, and developmental) in rats, and immunotoxicity studies in
rats are available. In addition, a route-specific dermal toxicity study
is available, and the inhalation study has been waived.
    ii. After reviewing the extensive body of data and peer-reviewed
literature on pyrethroids, the Agency has reached a number of
conclusions regarding fetal and juvenile sensitivity for pyrethroids.
Based on an evaluation of over 70 guideline toxicity studies for 24
pyrethroids submitted to the Agency, including prenatal developmental
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, and pre- and postnatal multi-
generation reproduction toxicity studies and DNTs in rats in support of
pyrethroid registrations, there is no evidence that pyrethroids
directly impact developing fetuses. None of the studies show any
indications of fetal toxicity at doses that do not cause maternal
toxicity.
    iii. Increased susceptibility was seen in offspring animals in the
DNT study with the pyrethroid zeta-cypermethrin (decreased pup body
weights) and DNT and reproduction studies with another pyrethroid,
beta-cyfluthrin (decreased body weights and tremors). However, the
reductions in body weight and the other non-specific effects occur at
higher doses than neurotoxicity, the effect of concern for pyrethroids.
The available developmental and reproduction guideline studies in rats
with zeta-cypermethrin did not show increased sensitivity in the young
to neurotoxic effects. Overall, findings of increased sensitivity in
juvenile animals in pyrethroid studies are rare. Therefore, the
residual concern for the postnatal effects is reduced. High-dose LD50
studies (studies assessing what dose results in lethality to 50% of the
tested population) in the scientific literature indicate that
pyrethroids can result in increased quantitative sensitivity to
juvenile animals. Examination of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic
data indicates that the sensitivity observed at high doses is related
to pyrethroid age-dependent pharmacokinetics--the activity of enzymes
associated with the metabolism of pyrethroids. Furthermore, a rat
physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model predicts a 3-fold
increase of pyrethroid concentration in juveniles' brains compared to
adults at high doses. In vitro pharmacodynamic data and in vivo data
indicate that adult and juvenile rats have similar responses to
pyrethroids at low doses and therefore juvenile sensitivity is not
expected at relevant environmental exposures. Further, data also show
that the rat is a conservative model compared to the human based on
species-specific pharmacodynamics of homologous sodium channel
isoforms. The Agency has retained a 3X uncertainty factor to protect
for exposures of children less than 6 years of age based on increased
quantitative susceptibility seen in literature studies on pyrethroid
pharmacokinetics (PKs), and the increased quantitative juvenile
susceptibility observed in high dose studies in the literature.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The Agency used tolerance level residues for some
commodities and refined the assessment by incorporating distributions
of field trial values and Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data
for other commodities. EPA translated data from some commodities to
other commodities according to EPA's guidance documents for translating
monitoring data and field trial data. EPA also included estimates of
percent crop treated in the assessment. For most processed commodities,
EPA used the Agency's 2018 default processing factors for those
commodities for which they were available. In some cases, EPA used
empirical processing factors.
    For this kiwifruit section 18 request, EPA updated the 2016 dietary
exposure assessment by including kiwifruit. As residue data are not
available for kiwifruit, the Agency translated grape PDP data to
kiwifruit. For section 18 requests, the Agency assumes the proposed
commodity will be treated to a level of 100% across the country. As a
result, 100% crop treated was assumed for kiwifruit. EPA also made
refinements to the residue data for dried cranberry, dried mango, and
dried papaya. In the 2016 assessment, EPA used tolerance level residues
for these commodities. For this section 18 request, EPA translated
strawberry PDP data to dried cranberries, avocado field trial data to
dried mango, and avocado field trial data to dried papaya. The Agency
assumed 100% crop treated for the three dried commodities: Cranberry,
mango, and papaya.
    EPA made a conservative (protective) assumption in the water
concentration used to assess exposure to fenpropathrin in drinking
water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risk
posed by fenpropathrin.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to fenpropathrin will occupy 99.5% of the aPAD for children 1 to 2
years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. A chronic dietary exposure assessment was not
conducted because the acute endpoint adequately protects against
chronic effects. There are no residential uses for fenpropathrin.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term
adverse effect was identified; however, fenpropathrin is not registered
for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential
exposure. Because there is no short-term residential exposure and acute
dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately
protective aPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to
assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short-term risk is
necessary, and EPA relies on the acute dietary risk assessment for
evaluating short-term risk for fenpropathrin.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term non-dietary, non-occupational
exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a
background exposure level). Because no intermediate-term adverse effect
was identified, fenpropathrin is not expected to pose an intermediate-
term risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, fenpropathrin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes

that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the
general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure
to fenpropathrin residues, including anticipated residues on fuzzy
kiwifruit.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology utilizing gas chromatography with
electron capture detector (GC/ECD), Residue Method Numbers RM-22-4
(plants) and RM-22A-1 (animals), is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established an MRL for fenpropathrin on fuzzy
kiwifruit.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, a time-limited tolerance is established for residues of
fenpropathrin, (alpha-cyano-3-phenoxy-benzyl 2,2,3,3
tetramethylcyclopropanecarboxylate), in or on kiwifruit, fuzzy at 5
ppm. This tolerance expires on December 31, 2022.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these
types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order
12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, titled
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, titled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it
considered a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled
``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' (82 FR 9339,
February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, titled ``Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance
with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 5, 2019.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.466, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.466  Fenpropathrin; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances
specified in Table 2 to this paragraph (b) are established for residues
of fenpropathrin, (alpha-cyano-3-phenoxy-benzyl 2,2,3,3
tetramethylcyclopropane carboxylate) in or on the specified
agricultural commodities, resulting from use of the pesticide pursuant
to FIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions. The tolerance expires on the
date specified in Table 2.

                        Table 2 to Paragraph (b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Parts per    Expiration
                  Commodity                      million        date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiwifruit, fuzzy............................            5    12/31/2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-27379 Filed 12-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 43801-43803]
[DOCID:fr28jy08-116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58195; File No. SR-BSE-2008-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Extend a Pilot Program That Allows No Minimum Size Order Requirement
and Certain Premature Terminations Under the Price Improvement Period
Process on the Boston Options Exchange Facility Until November 18, 2008

July 18, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 18, 2008, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Supplementary Material to
section 18 (The Price Improvement Period ``PIP'') of Chapter V of the
Rules of the Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX'') to extend a
pilot program that permits BOX to have no minimum size requirement for
orders entered into the PIP and under certain circumstances permits the
premature termination of the PIP process (``PIP Pilot Program''). The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the BSE's Web site:
http://www.bostonstock.com, 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 these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization 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 proposed rule change is to extend the PIP Pilot
Program under the BOX Rules for four (4) additional months. The PIP
Pilot Program allows BOX to have no minimum size requirement for orders
entered into the PIP process and under certain circumstances permits
the premature termination of the PIP process.\5\ The proposed rule
change retains the text of Supplementary Material .01 to section 18 of
Chapter V of the BOX Rules and seeks to extend the operation of the PIP
Pilot Program until November 18, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Pilot Program is currently set to expire on July 18,
2008. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55999 (July 2, 2007),
72 FR 37549 (July 10, 2007) (SR-BSE-2007-27); see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 54066 (June 29, 2006), 71 FR 38434 (July 6,
2006) (SR-BSE-2006-24); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
52149 (July 28, 2005), 70 FR 44704 (August 3, 2005) (SR-BSE-2005-
22); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49068 (January 13,
2004), 69 FR 2775 (January 20, 2004) (SR-BSE-2002-15) (``Original
PIP Pilot Program Approval Order''). See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 51821 (June 10, 2005), 70 FR 35143 (June 16, 2005)
(SR-BSE-2004-51) (Order approving, among other things, under certain
circumstances the premature termination of a PIP process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the PIP Pilot Program provides small
customer orders with benefits not available under the rules of some
other exchanges. One of the important factors of the PIP Pilot Program
is that it guarantees Participants the right to trade with their
customer orders that are less than 50 contracts. In particular, any
order entered into the PIP is guaranteed an execution at the end of the
auction at a price at least one penny better than the national best bid
or offer.
    In further support of this proposed rule change, and as required by
the Original PIP Pilot Program Approval Order, the Exchange represents
that it has been submitting to the Commission a monthly PIP Pilot
Program Report, offering detailed data from, and analysis of, the PIP
Pilot Program.
    To aid the Commission in its evaluation of the PIP Pilot Program,
BSE represents that BOX will provide the following additional
information each month:
    (1) The number of orders of 50 contracts or greater entered into
the PIP auction;
    (2) The percentage of all orders of 50 contracts or greater sent to
BOX that are entered into BOX's PIP auction;
    (3) The spread in the option, at the time an order of 50 contracts
or greater is submitted to the PIP auction;
    (4) For PIP trades for orders of fewer than 50 contracts, the
percentage executed at the National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'') plus
$.01, plus $.02, plus $.03, etc.;
    (5) For PIP trades for orders of 50 contracts or greater, the
percentage executed at the NBBO plus $.01, plus $.02, plus $.03, etc.;
    (6) The number of orders submitted by Order Flow Providers
(``OFPs'') when the spread was $.05, $.10, $.15, etc. For each spread,
BOX will specify the percentage of contracts in orders of fewer than 50
contracts submitted to BOX's PIP that were traded by: (a) The OFP that
submitted the order to the PIP; (b) BOX Market Makers assigned to the
class; (c) other BOX Participants; (d) Public Customer Orders
(including Customer PIP Orders (``CPOs'')); and (e) unrelated orders
(orders in standard increments entered during PIP). For each spread BOX
will also specify the percentage of contracts in orders of 50 contracts
or greater submitted to BOX's PIP that were traded by: (a) the OFP that
submitted the order to the PIP; (b) BOX Market Makers assigned to the
class; (c) other BOX Participants; (d) Public Customer Orders
(including CPOs); and (e) unrelated orders (orders in standard
increments entered during PIP);
    (7) For the first Wednesday of each month: (a) The total number of
PIP auctions on that date; (b) the number of PIP auctions where the
order submitted to the PIP was fewer than 50 contracts; (c) the number
of PIP auctions where the order submitted to the PIP was 50 contracts
or greater; (d) the number of PIP auctions (for orders of fewer than 50
contracts) with 0 participants (excluding the initiating participant),
1 participant (excluding the initiating participant), 2 participants
(excluding the initiating participant), 3 participants (excluding the
initiating participant), 4 participants (excluding the initiating
participant), etc., and (e) the number of PIP auctions (for orders of
50 contracts or greater) with 0 participants (excluding the initiating
participant), 1 participant (excluding the initiating participant), 2
participants (excluding the initiating participant), 3 participants
(excluding the initiating participant), 4 participants (excluding the
initiating participant), etc.; and
    (8) For the third Wednesday of each month: (a) The total number of
PIP auctions on that date; (b) the number of PIP auctions where the
order submitted to the PIP was fewer than 50 contracts; (c) the number
of PIP auctions where the order submitted to the PIP was 50 contracts
or greater; (d) the number of PIP auctions (for orders of fewer than 50
contracts) with 0 participants (excluding the initiating participant),
1 participant (excluding the initiating participant), 2 participants
(excluding the initiating participant), 3 participants (excluding the
initiating participant), 4 participants (excluding the initiating
participant), etc., and (e) the number of PIP auctions (for orders of
50 contracts or greater) with 0 participants (excluding the initiating
participant), 1 participant (excluding the initiating participant), 2
participants (excluding the initiating participant), 3 participants
(excluding the initiating participant), 4 participants (excluding the
initiating participant), etc.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes
that the data demonstrates that there is sufficient investor interest
and demand to extend the PIP Pilot Program for an additional four (4)
months. The Exchange represents that the Pilot Program is designed to
provide investors with real and significant price improvement
regardless of the size of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 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.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
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. The Exchange requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, which would make the rule
change operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest because such waiver will allow the PIP pilot
program to continue without interruption.\10\ Accordingly, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing
with the Commission.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \11\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange
provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
date of the filing of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BSE-2008-39 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-BSE-2008-39. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of 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-BSE-2008-39 and should be
submitted on or before August 18, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17119 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 155)]
[Notices]
[Page 46217-46218]
[DOCID:fr11au06-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. RP06-465-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC;
Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.; East Tennessee Natural Gas,
LLC; Egan Hub Storage, LLC; Notice Requesting Temporary Waiver of
Certain Tariff Provisions and NAESB Standards and Notice of Expedited
Comment Period

August 4, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 3, 2006, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP
(Texas Eastern), Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), Maritimes
& Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. (Maritimes), East Tennessee Natural Gas,
LLC (East Tennessee) and Egan Hub Storage, LLC (Egan Hub) (together
referred to as the ``Pipelines'') requested temporary

waiver of the following due to the Electronic Bulletin Board
(``LINK[supreg]'') outages associated with the migration from the
legacy computing platform and database:

Texas Eastern General Terms and Conditions (``GT&C''):
    Section 2--Electronic Communications.
    Section 3.14--Capacity Release.
    Section 4.1--Scheduling of Storage and Transportation Services.
    Section 16.1--Informational Postings.
Algonquin GT&C:
    Section 14--Capacity Release.
    Section 22--Nominations.
    Section 23.4--Scheduling Penalty.
    Section 31.2--Penalty Payment.
    Section 38.3--Informational Postings.
    Section 40--Electronic Communication.
East Tennessee GT&C:
    Section 15--Scheduling of Receipts and Deliveries.
    Section 17--Temporary Release or Permanent Assignment of Rights to
Firm Transportation Service.
    Section 18--Temporary Release or Permanent Assignment of Rights to
LNG Service.
    Section 23--Electronic Communication.
    Section 35.5--Informational Postings.
    Section 47.6--Unauthorized Delivery Imbalance Charge.
Maritimes GT&C:
    Section 2--Electronic Communication.
    Section 5--Service Nomination Procedure.
    Section 9--Capacity Release.
    Section 25.1--Informational Postings.
Egan GT&C:
    Section 4--Capacity Release.
    Section 8--Nominations and Scheduling.
    Section 22.1--Informational Postings.
    Section 32--Electronic Communications.
    Flowing Gas Related Standards.
    Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards.
    Capacity Release Related Standards.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (``FERC'') Regulations:
    Section 284.12--Standards for pipeline business operations and
communications.
    Section 284.13--Reporting requirements for interstate pipelines.

    The Pipelines state that the conversion of LINK[supreg] from the
current mainframe platform to a client-server platform will cause
essentially all functions of LINK[supreg] to be unavailable commencing
at 5 p.m. CCT on Friday, August 18, 2006 and projected to end at 5 a.m.
CCT on Monday, August 21, 2006.
    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 and 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 date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 August 9, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-13139 Filed 8-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85625-85626]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28718]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC21-36-000.
    Applicants: Lea Power Partners, LLC, Waterside Power, LLC, Badger
Creek Limited, Bear Mountain Limited, Chalk Cliff Limited, Double C
Generation Limited Partnership, High Sierra Limited, Kern Front
Limited, Live Oak Limited, McKittrick Limited, WGP Redwood Holdings,
LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of Lea Power Partners, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 12/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20201218-5373.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1123-005; ER10-1119 005.
    Applicants: Union Electric Company, Ameren Illinois Company.

    Description: Triennial Market Power Update for Central Region of
Ameren Companies.
    Filed Date: 12/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20201218-5255.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1257-008; ER10-1258-008.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., Wabash Valley
Energy Marketing, Inc.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update for Central Region of
Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 12/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20201218-5252.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1819-028; ER10-1820-031.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation,
Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Central Region of
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20201218-5257.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-323-009.
    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Central Region of
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.
    Filed Date: 12/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20201218-5258.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-807-006; ER10-1852-046; ER10-1951-028; ER11-
4462-049; ER17-838-024.
    Applicants: Pinal Central Energy Center, LLC, Florida Power & Light
Company, NEPM II, LLC, NextEra Energy Services Massachusetts, LLC,
NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of NextEra Entities.
    Filed Date: 12/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20201218-5248.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-486-001.
    Applicants: Golden Fields Solar III, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Golden Fields Solar III,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20201218-5250.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-690-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter
Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-12-21_SA 3605 OTP-CPEC
FCA (WAPA Jamestown) to be effective 2/20/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20201221-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-691-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-12-21 PSC-GndVly-
NonConf-SISA-619-0.0.0 to be effective 12/22/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20201221-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-692-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Letter Agreement Corona
Porphyry Interconnection Project SA No. 1132 to be effective 12/22/
2020.
    Filed Date: 12/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20201221-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-693-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-12-21_LMR Performance
Evaluation Filing to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20201221-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-694-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: BPA Construction Agmt--
Conversion Ross-Lex-Swift Rev 3 to be effective 2/20/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20201221-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-695-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Avista Corp. BPA Walla Walla
Wanapum Construction Agreement SA T1168 to be effective 12/22/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20201221-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/11/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES21-10-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Supplement to November 5, 2020 Application and Request
for Shortened Comment Period of California Independent System Operator
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 12/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20201217-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 21, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28718 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 247)]
[Notices]
[Page 77429-77431]
[DOCID:fr26de06-77]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54953; File No. SR-NASD-2006-134]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Extending the Pilot Relating to Manning Price-Improvement
Standards for Decimalized Securities

December 18, 2006.

    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 December 7, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NASD. NASD
has designated the proposal as constituting a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASD is proposing to extend through June 30, 2007, the current
pilot price-improvement standards for decimalized securities contained
in NASD Interpretive Material (``IM'') 2110-2--Trading Ahead of
Customer Limit Order (``Manning Rule''). NASD proposes no changes to
its rule text.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NASD has proposed changes to the text of NASD IM 2110-2 in a
separate filing, SR-NASD-2005-146, which is currently pending at the
Commission. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54705 (November
3, 2006), 71 FR 65863 (November 9, 2006) (Notice of filing of SR-
NASD-2005-146). The proposed changes in SR-NASD-2005-146 would
amend, among other provisions, the price-improvement standards in
NASD IM-2110-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASD 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. NASD 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
    NASD's Manning Rule requires an NASD member firm to provide a
minimum level of price improvement to incoming orders in exchange-
listed securities if the firm chooses to trade as principal with those
incoming orders at a price equal to or better than customer limit
orders the firm currently holds. If a firm fails to provide the minimum
level of price improvement to the

incoming order, the firm must execute its held customer limit orders at
the price at which the firm traded for its own account or better.
Generally, if a firm fails to provide the requisite amount of price
improvement and also fails to execute its held customer limit orders,
it is in violation of the Manning Rule.
    On April 6, 2001,\6\ the Commission approved, on a pilot basis,
price improvement standards for decimalized securities contained in the
Manning Rule. The applicable provision in the current version of the
Manning Rule is as follows: \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44165 (April 6,
2001), 66 FR 19268 (April 13, 2001) (SR-NASD-2001-27).
    \7\ Pursuant to the terms of the Decimals Implementation Plan
for the Equities and Options Markets, the minimum quotation
increment for Nasdaq securities at the outset of decimal pricing is
$0.01. On June 9, 2005, the Commission adopted Rule 612 of
Regulation NMS which establishes minimum pricing increments for NMS
stocks (e.g., exchange-listed securities). Rule 612 of Regulation
NMS generally prohibits market participants from displaying,
ranking, or accepting quotations, orders, or indications of interest
in any NMS stock priced in an increment smaller than $0.01 if the
quotation, order, or indication of interest is priced equal to or
greater than $1.00 per share. If the quotation, order, or indication
of interest is priced less than $1.00 per share, the minimum pricing
increment is $0.0001. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808
(June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04).
Rule 612 of Regulation NMS became effective on January 31, 2006. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52196 (August 2, 2005), 70 FR
45529 (August 8, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04).
    Given the adoption and implementation of Rule 612 of Regulation
NMS, Nasdaq, among other market centers, implemented changes to its
trading systems to accept, rank, execute and disseminate priced
quotations in accordance with Rule 612 of Regulation NMS. Quotations
submitted to Nasdaq that are not in compliance with Rule 612 of
Regulation NMS are rejected.

    For Nasdaq securities authorized for trading in decimals
pursuant to the Decimals Implementation Plan For the Equities and
Options Markets, the minimum amount of price improvement necessary
in order for a member to execute an incoming order on a proprietary
basis in a security trading in decimals when holding an unexecuted
limit order in that same security, and not be required to execute
the held limit order, is as follows:
    (1) For customer limit orders priced at or inside the best
inside market displayed in Nasdaq, the minimum amount of price
improvement required is $0.01; and
    (2) For customer limit orders priced outside the best inside
market displayed in Nasdaq, the member must price improve the
incoming order by executing the incoming order at a price at least
equal to the next superior minimum quotation increment in Nasdaq
(currently $0.01).

    Since approval, these standards continue to operate on a pilot
basis that terminates on December 31, 2006.\8\ NASD has determined to
seek an extension of its current Manning Rule pilot until June 30,
2007. NASD believes that such an extension provides for an appropriate
continuation of the current Manning Rule price improvement standards
while the Commission continues to analyze the issues related to
customer limit order protection in a decimalized environment. NASD is
not proposing any other changes to the pilot at this time. NASD
proposes to make the proposed rule change operative on January 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53972 (June 12,
2006), 71 FR 35315 (June 19, 2006) (SR-NASD-2006-069).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among
other things, that NASD rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule change will
improve treatment of customer limit orders and enhance the integrity of
the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received by NASD.

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

    The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder \11\
because the proposal 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 if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\12\ NASD has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay and designate the proposed rule change effective
immediately. NASD intends for the rule to become operative on January
1, 2007. The Commission hereby grants the request.\13\ The Commission
believes that such waiver is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because it will allow the protection
of customer limit orders provided by the pilot to continue without
interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act requires that a self-
regulatory organization submit to the Commission written notice of
its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. NASD
complied with the five day pre-filing requirement.
    \13\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of the
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2006-134 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-134. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will

post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. 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-NASD-2006-134 and should be
submitted on or before January 16, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-22007 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P