[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47467-47468]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17028]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2020-0060]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on July 13, 2020, the American
Public Transportation Association (APTA) petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49
CFR parts 213, 214, 217, 218, 220, 225, 228, 229, 232, 234, 236, 238,
239, 240, 242, and 243. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-
2020-0060.
    APTA, on behalf of its member railroads, requests to renew the
emergency relief FRA previously granted by letter dated May 22, 2020,
in its emergency relief docket (Docket Number FRA-2020-0002). See
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FRA-2020-0002-0074. FRA renewed
this relief for an additional 60 days on July 20, 2020. See https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FRA-2020-0002-0094.
    APTA states that the requested emergency relief allows for
modifications in operations that are necessary to maintain public and
railroad employee health and safety, and it enables commuter and
passenger railroads to operate consistently with recommendations from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concerning reducing the
spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Additionally, APTA
states that its member railroads are currently only utilizing a small
portion of the relief to prioritize safety, but it expects that the
changing dynamics of COVID-19 may require use of relief not currently
being applied. Given the uncertain nature of the COVID-19 public health
emergency and its effect on railroad operations, APTA requests to renew
the relief for one year.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov (Docket Number FRA-2020-0060).
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. If any interested
parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing,
they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment
period and specify the basis for their request.

    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by September 4, 2020 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-17028 Filed 8-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:To whom it may concern,

I have been using E-cigarrettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes.  I truly feel they have been instrumental in helping my lungs feel better and getting me off of inhaling combusted smoke.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36819-36821]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16185]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0603]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Homewood Wedding Fireworks Display, Lake Tahoe,
Homewood, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of McKinney Bay in Lake Tahoe in support of the
Homewood Wedding Fireworks Display on August 2, 2019. This safety zone
is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment
from the dangers associated with pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the
Port San Francisco or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. to 10:12 p.m. on August 2,
2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0603 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Jennae Cotton, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

COTP Captain of the Port San Francisco
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with
respect to this rule because it is impracticable. It is impracticable
because the Coast Guard did not receive final details for this event
until July 16, 2019 and lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable
comment period and consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impractical because the Coast Guard learned of the
Homewood Wedding Fireworks Display with insufficient time to allow for
a delayed effective date.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port San
Francisco (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with
the Homewood Wedding Fireworks Display on August 2, 2019, will be a
safety concern for anyone within a 100-foot radius of the fireworks
barge during loading and staging and anyone within a 280-foot radius of
the fireworks barge starting 30 minutes before the fireworks display is
scheduled to commence and ending 30 minutes after the conclusion of the
fireworks display. For this reason, a safety zone is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters
around the fireworks barge during the fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. until 10:12 p.m. on
August 2, 2019 during the loading and staging of the fireworks barge in
McKinney Bay in Lake Tahoe, until 30 minutes after completion of the
fireworks display. From 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on August 2, 2019, during the
loading and staging of the fireworks barge until 30 minutes prior to
the start of the fireworks display, the safety zone will encompass the
navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge, from surface to
bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 100 feet out
from the fireworks barge. Loading the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks
barge is scheduled from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on August 2, 2019, at the
display location in McKinney Bay, where the fireworks barge will remain
until the conclusion of the fireworks display.
    At 9 p.m. on August 2, 2019, 30 minutes prior to the commencement
of the 12-minute Homewood Wedding Fireworks Display, the safety zone
will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and
under the fireworks barge, from surface to bottom, within a circle
formed by connecting all points 280 feet from the circle center at
approximate position 39[deg]05'11.9'' N, 120[deg]09'17.2'' W (NAD 83).
The safety zone will terminate at 10:12 p.m. on August 2, 2019.
    The effect of the safety zone is to restrict navigation in the
vicinity of the fireworks loading, staging, and firing site. Except for
persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the
restricted areas. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and
vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks firing site
to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting
vessels.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, limited
duration, and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone.
This safety zone impacts a 280-foot radius area of McKinney Bay in Lake
Tahoe for a limited duration of 15 hours and 12 minutes. The vessels
desiring to transit through or around the safety zone may do so upon
express permission from the COPT or the COTP's designated
representative.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The

Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's
responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Policy,
COMDTINST 5090.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment. This rule involves a safety zone of limited size and
duration. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6,
and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-988 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-988  Safety Zone; Homewood Wedding Fireworks Display,
Lake Tahoe, Homewood, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of Lake Tahoe, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by
connecting all points 100 feet out from the fireworks barge during the
loading and staging at the display location in McKinney Bay. Between 9
p.m. and 10:12 p.m. on August 2, 2019, the safety zone will expand to
all navigable waters, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by
connecting all points 280 feet out from the fireworks barge in
approximate position 39[deg]05'11.9'' N, 120[deg]09'17.2'' W (NAD 83)
(NAD 83).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast
Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative to
obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter
or operate in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the
safety zones on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Enforcement period. The safety zone will be enforced from 7
a.m. through 10:12 p.m. on August 2, 2019. The COTP or the COTP's
designated representative will notify the maritime community of periods
during which this zone will be enforced in accordance with Sec.  165.7.

    Dated: July 23, 2019.
Howard H. Wright,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port, San
Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2019-16185 Filed 7-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46886-46887]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18879]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72763; File No. SR-DTC-2014-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Transfer NIIDS to a Non-
Clearing Agency Affiliate

August 5, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On June 5, 2014, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposed rule
change SR-DTC-2014-08 (``Proposed Rule Change'') pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\ (``Act'') and Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The Proposed Rule Change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on June 25, 2014.\3\ The Commission did not
receive any comments on the Proposed Rule Change. This order approves
the Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72432 (June 19, 2014);
79 FR 36116 (June 25, 2014) (SR-DTC-2014-08).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    DTC filed the Proposed Rule Change to amend its Operational
Arrangements \4\ to transfer its New Issue Information Dissemination
Service (``NIIDS'') to a non-clearing agency affiliate (``NIIDS
Disseminator'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DTC Operational Arrangements, available at http://
www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/Settlement-Asset-Services/
Underwriting/operational-arrangements.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission approved DTC's establishment of NIIDS in 2008.\5\
NIIDS collects information (``NIIDS Data Elements'') regarding the
reporting, comparison, confirmation, and settlement of new issues in
municipal securities (``New Issue'') from the lead underwriter or other
authorized representative of a New Issue (``Dissemination Agent'') and
then makes that information available to information vendors and other
users (``Subscribers'') upon authorization by the Dissemination Agent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57768 (May 2, 2008); 73
FR 26181 (May 8, 2008) (SR-DTC-2007-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, when a Dissemination Agent provides authorization, DTC
disseminates the applicable NIIDS Data Elements directly to
Subscribers. Under the Proposed Rule Change, the Dissemination Agents
will continue to electronically input NIIDS Data Elements into DTC's
underwriting system for New Issue Processing but DTC will make NIIDS
Data Elements available to the NIIDS Disseminator, which will then deal
directly with Subscribers.
    Additionally, because DTC will be a conduit of the NIIDS Data
Elements and related information, and because DTC does not confirm the
validity of the NIIDS Data Elements, the inputting of NIIDS Data
Elements and the subsequent use thereof by any party will constitute a
waiver of any and all claims (whether direct or indirect) against DTC
and its affiliates and an agreement that DTC and its affiliates shall
not be liable for any loss or damages in relation to the collection and
any subsequent dissemination of NIIDS Data Elements and related
information. In addition, any party that inputs NIIDS Data Elements or
thereafter uses such data and related information agrees to indemnify
and hold DTC and its affiliates harmless from and against any and all
losses, damages, liabilities, costs, judgments, charges, and expenses
incurred by such party arising out of or relating to the collection and
subsequent dissemination of the NIIDS Data Elements.
    The date on which DTC will transfer NIIDS to the NIIDS Disseminator
will be set forth in a subsequent Important Notice to DTC Participants.

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \6\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \7\ requires,
among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act because transferring NIIDS from DTC to
the NIIDS Disseminator will promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and

settlement of securities transactions by providing for a more efficient
allocation of DTC's resources.

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \8\ and
the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that proposed rule change SR-DTC-2014-08 be, and hereby is,
approved.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18879 Filed 8-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 65545-65546]
[DOCID:fr25oc10-141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63133; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-93]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. To Establish a
Pilot Program To List Series With Additional Expiration Months for Each
Class of Options Opened for Trading on the Exchange

October 19, 2010.
    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 October 18, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Commentary .09 to NYSE Arca Options
Rule 6.4 to establish a Pilot Program to list additional expiration
months for each class of options opened for trading on the Exchange.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a Pilot Program to list additional
expiration months for each class of options opened for trading on the
Exchange, similar to a Pilot Program recently approved for use by the
International Securities Exchange, Inc. (``ISE''),\3\ by adding
proposed Commentary .09 to NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.4, Series of
Options Open for Trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 63104 (October 14, 2010)
approving SR-ISE-2010-91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 6.4(a), the Exchange currently opens
four expiration months for each class of options open for trading on
the Exchange, the first two being the two nearest months, regardless of
the quarterly cycle on which that class trades; the third and fourth
being the next two months of the quarterly cycle previously designated
for that specific class. For example, if the Exchange listed in late
May a new equity option on a January-April-July-October quarterly
cycle, the Exchange would list the two nearest term months (June and
July) and the next two months of the cycle (October and January). When
the June series expires, the Exchange would add the August series as
the next nearest month. And when the July series expires, the Exchange
would add the September series.
    The Exchange believes that there is market demand for a greater
number of expiration months. The Exchange therefore proposes to adopt a
Pilot Program pursuant to which it will list up to an additional two
expiration months, for a total of six expiration months for each class
of options open for trading on the Exchange. The proposal will become
effective on a pilot basis for a period of twelve months to commence on
the next full month after approval is received to establish the pilot
program. Under the proposal, the additional months listed pursuant to
the pilot program will result in four consecutive expiration months
plus two months from the quarterly cycle. For example, for option
classes in the January cycle that have expiration months of June, July,
October, and January, the Exchange would additionally list the August
and September series. For options classes in the February quarterly
cycle that have expiration months of October, November, February, and
May, the Exchange would additionally list the December and January
series. Under the proposal, no additional LEAP Series will be created.
    The Exchange seeks to limit the proposed rule change to 20 actively
traded options classes. By limiting the pilot to a small number of
classes, the Exchange will be able to gauge interest in the pilot while
limiting any additional demands on system resources. It has been
estimated that this pilot could add up to six or seven percent to
current quote traffic, although changes in market maker quoting
behavior may reduce that increase by up to half. The Exchange believes
that a limited pilot is a prudent step to determine actual market
demand for additional expiration months.
    If the Exchange were to propose an extension or an expansion of the
pilot program, or should the Exchange propose to make the pilot program
permanent, NYSE Arca will submit, along with any filing proposing such
amendments to the pilot program, a pilot program report (``Report'')
that will provide an analysis of the Pilot Program covering the first
nine months of the pilot program and shall submit the Report to the
Commission at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date of the
pilot program. The Report will include, at a minimum: (1) Data and
written analysis on the open interest and trading volume in the classes
for which additional expiration months were opened; (2) an assessment
of the appropriateness of the options classes selected for the pilot
program; (3) an assessment of the impact of the pilot program on the
capacity on NYSE Arca, OPRA, and on market data vendors (to the extent
data from market data vendors is available); (4) any capacity problems
or other problems that arose during the operation of the pilot program
and how NYSE Arca addressed such problems; (5) any complaints that NYSE
Arca received during the operation of the pilot program and how NYSE
Arca addressed them; and (6) any additional information that would
assist the Commission in assessing the operation of the Pilot Program.
    Finally, the Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems
capacity to support new options series that will result from the
introduction of additional expiration months listed pursuant to this
proposed rule change.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \4\ (the ``Act'') in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \5\
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. In particular, the
Exchange believes listing additional near-term expiration months will
offer investors more variety in trading options series that were
previously not available. The Exchange believes this proposal will also
generate additional volume in these options classes without
significantly taxing system resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not 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 \6\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposal is substantially similar to that of
another exchange that has been approved by the Commission.\8\
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 3.
    \9\ 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 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-NYSEArca-2010-93 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-2010-93. 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 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2010-93 and should be submitted on or before November 15,
2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-26926 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 59148]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24453]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3309-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

North Dakota; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of an Emergency
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
State of North Dakota (FEMA-3309-EM), dated March 14, 2010, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 14, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Deanne
Criswell, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this emergency.
    This action terminates the appointment of Willie G. Nunn as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this emergency.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-24453 Filed 9-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 05/01/2008 11:48 AM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mike Clark/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Zachary Pekar/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jason Burnett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

We'll discuss air-to-blood ratio further.  DOT edits attached.

Thanks all for your time;  Attached are DOT requested edits

We’re further discussing ratio 1:7.

Best,

heidi

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 10:58 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Beck, Nancy; Lee, Amanda I.; Fraas, Arthur G.; <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: air-to-blood ratio section

Yes, 11:15 is fine.  Should I set up a call-in number so Jennifer and the RTP folks can tie-in?  Let's plan on using 4407 unless I hear otherwise from you.

-----"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote: -----

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Beck, Nancy" <EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Lee, Amanda I."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> From: "King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date: 05/01/2008 10:34AM

cc: "Fraas, Arthur G."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jason Burnett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mike Clark/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Zachary Pekar/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: RE: air-to-blood ratio section

Lydia et al,

How about a short 11:15 am conversation, agenda items below.  Could Zack pls invite Jennifer Seed from OPPTS?  Maria Doa is on travel, but it sounds like Jennifer is available at that time. Perhaps Mike and Charlotte to reach out to Fred, the OPPTS OPEI lead, as appropriate.

Agenda items:

       Lead RRP rule baseline issue (should be quick)

       Tables:  Agreed upon edits in Tbl 1 are not reflected in the version we rec’d this morning; Tbl 6 looks good

       Dept of Transportation comments – how to resolve

       Ratios

       Timing of next draft for review preamble

       RIA review status

Thanks,

heidi

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:42 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Fraas, Arthur G<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: air-to-blood ratio section

We have talked to Jennifer Seed and Maria Doa at OPPTS.  They agree with the footnote as written.  They are available to talk with you and us at any time.  When would you like to talk?

-----"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote: -----

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, " Fraas, Arthur G. :PersonName" <EMAIL_ADDRESS> From: "King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date: 05/01/2008 07:33AM

cc: Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jason Burnett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: RE: air-to-blood ratio section

I haven’t heard from OPPTS yet on the LRRP rule language; I’ll keep trying, but if someone else has made contact pls let me know.

Thank you,

heidi

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:46 AM

To: King, Heidi R.; Fraas, Arthur G. :PersonName :PersonName

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: air-to-blood ratio section

We'll plan to discuss this later this morning.

 ----- Original Message -----

  From: "King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>   Sent: 05/01/2008 12:16 AM AST

  To: Lydia Wegman; " Fraas, Arthur G. :PersonName :PersonName" <EMAIL_ADDRESS>   Cc: Tricia Crabtree; Karen Martin; Robert Meyers; Jason Burnett

  Subject: RE: air-to-blood ratio section

Lydia ,

Thank you for this draft.  Two comments:

1.  We failed to note additional or clarified support for the higher ratios.  We remain somewhat uncomfortable with characterizing the science-based support for a ratio of 1:7 as equivalently robust to the science-based support for standards ranging up to 1:6.  I believe we’ll pick up the conversation in the morning.

2.  Questions regarding “reanalysis” and “potentially” on p 4:

More recently, a study of changes in children’s blood Pb levels associated with reduced Pb emissions and associated air concentrations near a Pb smelter in Canada (for children through age six in age) reports a ratio of 1:6 and reanalysis << Did the Agency mean to say additional analysis ??  Our conversation had not left me with the impression that the Hilts dataset has been reanalyzed by the Agency >> of the data by EPA for the initial time period of the study resulted in a ratio of 1:7 (CD, pp. 3-23 to 3-24; Hilts, 2003). [1]   Ambient air and blood Pb levels associated with the Hilts (2003) study range from 1.1 to 0.03 µg/m 3 , and associated population mean blood Pb levels range from 11.5 to 4.7 µg/dL, which are lower than levels associated with the older studies cited in the 1986 Criteria Document (USEPA, 1986).

Sources of uncertainty potentially  << The sentence reads well without “potentially”.  I believe these uncertainties are not potentially related; they were identified by the author as related >> related to air-to-blood ratios obtained from Hilts (2003) study have been identified.

Best regards,

heidi

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:25 PM

To: King, Heidi R.; Fraas, Arthur G. :PersonName :PersonName

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Fw: air-to-blood ratio section

-----Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/30/2008 11:24PM -----

To: Wegman Lydia@EPA

From: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US

Date: 04/30/2008 10:28PM

Subject: air-to-blood ratio section

Karen Martin, Ph.D.

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. EPA (C504-06)

Research Triangle Park , NC 27711

phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

ž

§

Ç

É

㜀$␸䠀$葝ᚠ葞ᆘ摧捺¨฀

Ÿ

Ç

É

O

h

㜀$␸䠀$摧捺¨ᨀe temporary shutdown of the facility in 2001, including sampling of a different age group at that time and a shorter time period (3 months) at these lower ambient air Pb levels prior to collection of blood Pb levels. Consequently, EPA calculated an alternate air-to-blood Pb ratio based on consideration for ambient air Pb and blood Pb reductions in the first time period (after opening of the new facility in 1997).


EPA Registration Division contact: Barbara Madden,<PHONE_NUMBER>

PP# 6E7108

 by establishing tolerances for residues of imidacloprid
(1-[6-chloro-3-pyridinyl) methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine) and its
metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as
1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine in or on
the raw agricultural commodities caneberry subgroup 13A and wild
raspberry at 2.5 parts per million (ppm). EPA has determined that the
petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth
in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition.  Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

. Nine field trials were conducted in 2003 to support the requested
tolerance on the caneberry subgroup 13A and wild raspberry.  Three
trials were on blackberry (one each in New Jersey [EPA Region 2], North
Carolina [Region 2], and Oregon [Region 12]); four on raspberry (one
each in Michigan [Region 5], Washington [Region 12], California [Region
10], and Quebec, Canada [Region 5B]); one on Marionberry (Oregon); and
one on boysenberry (California). At each trial, three foliar
applications of Provado 1.6F at a rate of approximately 0.1 lb ai/A each
were made, for a total of 0.3 lb ai/A..

	1. Acute toxicity.  Imidacloprid has low acute toxicity via the dermal
and inhalation routes and moderate acute toxicity via the oral route.
The acute oral LD50 value for imidacloprid technical was found to be 424
mg/kg for male rats and >450 mg/kg for female rats.  The acute dermal
LD50 is >5,000 mg/kg and the 4 hour rat inhalation LC50 is >5.33 mg/L in
the rat.  Imidacloprid is not irritating to rabbit skin or eyes.
Imidacloprid did not cause skin sensitization in guinea pigs.

	2. Genotoxicty.  Imidacloprid has been evaluated for genotoxicity using
in vivo and in vitro tests, including mammalian cell gene mutation
tests, chromosomal aberration tests, unscheduled DNA synthesis tests,
bacterial DNA repair tests and other mutagenicity studies.  The weight
of evidence shows that imidacloprid is not mutagenic.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.  In a developmental
toxicity study with Sprague Dawley rats, pregnant animals received an
oral administration of imidacloprid at 0, 10, 30, or 100 mg/kg/day
during gestation. The maternal NOAEL was 10 mg/kg/day based on decreased
body weight gain and the fetal NOAEL was 30 mg/kg/day based on a slight
increase in the incidence of wavy ribs in the presence of maternal
toxicity.

In a developmental toxicity study with rabbits, pregnant animals were
given oral doses of imidacloprid at 0, 8, 24, or 72 mg/kg bwt/day during
gestation. For maternal toxicity, the NOAEL was 24 mg/kg /day and the
LOEL was 72 mg/kg/day based on mortality, decreased body weight gain,
and decreased food consumption. For developmental toxicity, the NOAEL
was 24 mg/kg bwt/day and the LOAEL was 72 mg/kg bwt/day based on
decreased fetal body weight and increased resorptions.

In a 2-generation reproductive toxicity study, imidacloprid was
administered to rats at dietary levels of 0, 100, 250, or 700 ppm. For
parental/systemic toxicity, the NOAEL was 250 ppm (16.5 mg/kg/day) and
the LOAEL was 700 ppm based on decreased body weight in both sexes.  The
reproductive NOAEL was the highest dose tested, 700 ppm.

	4. Subchronic toxicity.  In a dermal toxicity study, groups of 5 male
and 5 female New Zealand White rabbits received repeated dermal
applications of imidacloprid at 1,000 mg/kg body weight/day, 6
hours/day, 5 days/week for 3 weeks. No dermal or systemic toxicity was
seen.  For systemic and dermal toxicity, the no observable adverse
effect level (NOAEL) was >1,000 mg/kg/day.

	5. Chronic toxicity.  A chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study was
performed with imidacloprid administered to male and female rats for two
years at dietary levels of 100, 300, 900 or 1,800 ppm.  There was no
evidence of carcinogenicity.  At 300 ppm, there was an increased
incidence of mineralized particles in thyroid colloid of male rats.  The
NOAEL was 100 ppm (5.7 mg/kg/day for males and 7.6 mg/kg/day for
females).

The oncogenic potential of imidacloprid was investigated in B6C3F1 mice.
 Dietary doses were 0, 100, 330, 1,000 or 2,000 ppm.  Decreased body
weights, decreased food consumption and hepatocellular hypertrophy were
seen at the highest dose level.  There was no evidence of
carcinogenicity.  The NOAEL was 2,000 ppm (208 mg/kg for males and 274
for females).

	6. Animal metabolism. The metabolism of NTN 33893 (imidacloprid) in
rats was reported in seven studies. These data show that imidacloprid
was rapidly absorbed and eliminated in the excreta (90% of the dose
within 24 hours), demonstrating no biologically significant differences
between sexes, dose levels, or route of administration. Elimination was
mainly renal (70 - 80% of the dose) and fecal (17 - 25%). The major part
of the fecal activity originated in the bile. Total body accumulation
after 48 hours consisted of 0.5% of the radioactivity with the liver,
kidney, lung, skin and plasma being the major sites of accumulation.
Therefore, bioaccumulation of imidacloprid is low in rats. Maximum
plasma concentration was reached between 1.1 and 2.5 hours. Two major
routes of biotransformation were proposed for imidacloprid. The first
route included an oxidative cleavage of the parent compound rendering
6-chloronicotinic acid and its glycine conjugate. Dechlorination of this
metabolite formed the 6-hydroxynicotinic acid and its mercapturic acid
derivative. The second route included the hydroxylation followed by
elimination of water of the parent compound rendering NTN 35884. A
comparison between [methylene -14C] imidacloprid and [imidazolidine
4,5-14C] imidacloprid showed that while the rate of excretion was
similar, the renal portion was higher with the imidazolidine labeled
compound. In addition, accumulation in tissues was higher with the
imidazolidine labeled compound (approximately 1% of the recovered
radioactivity).

	7. Metabolite toxicology. NA

	8. Endocrine disruption.  The toxicology database for imidacloprid is
current and complete.  Studies in this database include evaluation of
the potential effects on reproduction and development, and an evaluation
of the pathology of the endocrine organs following short_ or long term
exposure.  These studies revealed no primary endocrine effects due to
imidacloprid.

Assessments were conducted to evaluate potential risks due to chronic
and acute dietary exposure of the U.S. population and selected
population subgroups to residues of imidacloprid.  These analyses cover
all registered and pending uses for imidacloprid including the caneberry
subgroup commodities and wild raspberry.

xposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID™), which is licensed to Bayer, was
used to estimate the chronic and acute dietary exposure. This software
uses the food consumption data from the 1994_1998 USDA Continuing
Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII 1994_1998).

The endpoint for acute dietary risk assessments is based on
neurotoxicity characterized by decreases in motor or locomotor activity
in female rats at 42 mg/kg bwt/day (LOEL) from an acute neurotoxicity
study. Based on an uncertainty factor of 10x for interspecies, 10x for
intraspecies and 3x for use of a LOAEL rather than a NOAEL, EPA has
established an acute reference dose (aRfD) = 0.14 mg/kg bwt/day.

For chronic dietary analyses, EPA has established the reference dose
(cRfD) for imidacloprid at 0.057 mg/kg/day based on a NOAEL of 5.7 mg/kg
bwt/day from a rat chronic toxicity carcinogenicity study and
uncertainty factors of 10x for interspecies and 10x for intraspecies.

Results from the acute and chronic dietary exposure analyses described
below demonstrate a reasonable certainty of no harm to the overall U.S.
population or any population subgroup will result from the use of
imidacloprid on currently registered and pending uses.

	i. Food.  Tier 3 acute and chronic risk assessments were conducted
using PDP data or the results of field trials conducted at maximum label
application rates and the shortest pre-harvest intervals.  No
adjustments were made to account for dissipation of residues during
storage, transportation from the field to the consumer, washing or
peeling.  Therefore, the actual dietary exposure will be less than that
presented here.

For the chronic analysis, mean field trial residues were calculated.
For the acute Monte Carlo analysis, the entire distribution of residue
field trial data was used for the "non-blended" and "partially blended"
foods as determined by EPA's HED SOP 99.6.  For the foods considered as
"blended" by EPA'S HED SOP 99.6, mean field trial residue data were
used.  One half LOD/LOQ values were used for all non-detected values
(values below the sensitivity of the method), based on EPA's draft
guidance for submission of probabilistic human health exposure
assessments.

The acute Monte Carlo dietary exposure assessment estimated the percent
of the aPAD for the overall U.S. population, (all seasons), and various
subpopulations.  In this analysis, the exposure for the total U.S.
population was equal to 9.1% of the aPAD at the 99.9th percentile.  The
most highly exposed population subgroup, all infants, had an exposure
equal to 24.9% of the aPAD at the 99.9th percentile.  Therefore, the
acute dietary exposure estimates are below EPA's level of concern for
the overall U.S. population as well as the various subpopulations.

The chronic dietary exposure estimated the percent of the chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD) for the overall US population (all
seasons) and various subpopulations.  In this analysis, the exposure for
the total U.S. population was equal to 2.1% of the cPAD.  The most
highly exposed population subgroup, children (1-2 yrs), had an exposure
equal to 5.4% of the cPAD.  Therefore, the chronic exposure estimates
are below EPA's level of concern for the overall U.S. population as well
as the various subpopulations.

 DEEM-FCID™ acute and chronic residue files.  Since the exposures are
below 100% of the Population Adjusted Doses, there is no concern with
dietary exposure to residues of imidacloprid for even the most exposed
subpopulation.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Imidacloprid is currently registered for use
on the following residential non-dietary sites: Granular products for
application to lawns and ornamental plants; ready-to-use spray for
application to flowers, shrubs and house plants; plant spikes for
application to indoor and outdoor residential potted plants;
ready-to-use potting medium for indoor and outdoor plant containers;
liquid concentrate for application to lawns, trees, shrubs and flowers;
and ready-to-use liquid for directed spot application to cats and dogs.
In addition, there are numerous registered products intended for use by
commercial applicators to residential sites. These include gel baits for
cockroach control; products intended for commercial ornamental, lawn and
turf pest control; products for ant control; and products used as
preservatives for wood products, building materials, textiles and
plastics. The non-dietary exposure assessment is discussed in the Final
Rule on Imidacloprid Pesticide Tolerance published in Unit III.C.3. of
the Federal Register of June 13, 2003 (68 FR 35303). Addition of the
soybean use will have no impact on the non-dietary exposure to
imidacloprid.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Imidacloprid is a chloronicotinyl insecticide.  At this time, the EPA
has not made a determination that imidacloprid and other substances that
may have a common mechanism of toxicity would have cumulative effects.
Therefore, for these tolerance petitions, it is assumed that
imidacloprid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances and only the potential risks of imidacloprid in its aggregate
exposure are considered.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Using the conservative exposure assumptions
described above and based on the completeness of the toxicity data, it
can be concluded that aggregate exposure to residues of imidacloprid in
food and water present a reasonable certainty of no harm.  Exposure from
residues in crops and drinking water utilizes 9.1% of the aPAD and 2.1%
of the cPAD.  EPA generally has no concerns for exposures below 100% of
the Population Adjusted Doses.  An aggregate assessment for all uses for
imidacloprid demonstrated that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to the US Population from these uses of imidacloprid.

	2. Infants and children. EPA has considered data from developmental
toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and a 2 generation reproduction
study in the rat. These studies are discussed under Section B
(Toxicology Profile) above.  The developmental toxicity data
demonstrated no increased sensitivity of rats or rabbits to in utero
exposure to imidacloprid. In addition, the multi generation reproductive
toxicity study did not identify any increased sensitivity of rats to in
utero or post natal exposure. Parental NOAELs were lower or equivalent
to developmental or offspring NOAELs. The developmental toxicity studies
are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism
resulting from maternal pesticide exposure during gestation.
Reproduction studies provide information relating to effects from
exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating
animals and data on systemic toxicity.

FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold
margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold
effects to account for pre and post natal toxicity and the completeness
of the data base unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety
will be safe for infants and children. EPA has determined that the
toxicological database is complete for FQPA purposes and that there are
no residual uncertainties for pre-/post-natal toxicity for imidacloprid.
 Based on the available toxicity data the EPA has recommended that the
Special FQPA Safety Factor be reduced to 1x.

Based on the exposure assessments described above and on the
completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, it can be concluded
that the dietary exposure from all registered and pending uses of
imidacloprid and drinking water consumes 24.9% of the aPAD (99.9th
percentile) for infants, the most sensitive subpopulation.  Chronic
dietary exposure is 5.4% of the cPAD for Children 1-2 years old, the
most sensitive subpopulation for this scenario.  Thus, it can be
concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to imidacloprid residues.

F. International Tolerances

À

Á

-

¾

¿

Á

Â

Æ

Ç

Ø

Ù

摧⛡_ᴀnsect pests in crops, trees, ornamental plants and turf. An
evaluation of the maximum residue limits (MRLs) was conducted. No CODEX
Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) have been established for residues of
imidacloprid on caneberry commodities.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

{<HD1>}

{</HD1>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

	{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

	{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}


[Federal Register: July 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 39395-39396]
[DOCID:fr18jy07-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. CP07-411-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Application

July 11, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 29, 2007, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP
(Texas Eastern), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, filed in
Docket No. CP07-411-000, an application pursuant to section 7of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of the Commission's Regulations,
seeking (1) authorization to install, construct, own, operate and
maintain certain pipeline facilities, consisting primarily of the
installation of approximately 3.79 miles of 20-inch diameter pipeline
and a meter and regulating station (the Cedar Bayou Lateral Project),
and (2) an initial rate for firm service on the Cedar Bayou Lateral
under Rate Schedule MLS-1, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission

and open to public inspection. This filing is accessible online 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>.
    Specifically, Texas Eastern states that the facilities are required
to enable Texas Eastern to provide up to 360,000 Dth/d of Rate Schedule
MLS-1 firm transportation service to the Cedar Bayou Power plant owned
by NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG). Texas Eastern states that although a project
of this scope would otherwise qualify for construction under the
blanket certificate procedures, proposing an initial rate under Rate
Schedule MLS-1 requires a section 7(c) application. Texas Eastern
states that the capital cost used to calculate the Cedar Bayou Lateral
Project cost of service is $16,514,000.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Garth Johnson, Director, Certificates & Reporting, Texas Eastern
Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, at (713)
627-5415.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    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 at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission strongly encourages

intervenors to file electronically. 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.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 1, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-13871 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34681]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15476]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1--
Motor vehicle, 2--Rail freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft
only, 5--Passenger-carrying aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 6, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of
Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 10, 2018.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of the special permits
       Application No.                 Applicant          Regulation(s) affected              thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              SPECIAL PERMITS DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6769-M.......................  CHEMOURS COMPANY FC LLC.  173.314, 173.315........  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to authorize additional tank
                                                                                cars as approved packaging.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2)
10788-M......................  BEVIN BROS MANUFACTURING  173.302(a)..............  To modify the special permit
                                COMPANY.                                            to authorize attachments to
                                                                                cylinders prior to testing
                                                                                and to allow for alternative
                                                                                pressure testing
                                                                                requirements. (modes 1, 2,
                                                                                3, 4, 5)
11827-M......................  FUJIFILM ELECTRONIC       180.605(c)(1),            To modify the special permit
                                MATERIALS U.S.A., INC.    180.352(b)(3).            to authorize an additional
                                                                                hazardous material. (modes
                                                                                1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
14424-M......................  CHART, INC..............  172.301(c), 177.834(h)..  To update the permit with the
                                                                                most current tank drawings.
                                                                                (mode 1)
20351-M......................  ROEDER CARTAGE COMPANY,   180.407(c), 180.407(e),   To modify the special permit
                                INCORPORATED.             180.407(f).               to remove the requirement
                                                                                for periodic internal visual
                                                                                inspections and to authorize
                                                                                an additional tank dedicated
                                                                                to acetonitrile
                                                                                transportation. (mode 1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-15476 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4909-60-P