                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                                	OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND
	POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

Date:	January 20, 2011

SUBJECT:	Fluoxastrobin:  Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for proposed agricultural uses of fluoxastrobin on Squash and Cucumber Crop Subgroup 9B (Chayote; Chinese waxgourd; Cucumber; Gherkin; Gourd, edible; Pumpkin; Squash, summer; and Squash, winter).

PC Code: 028869
DP Barcode: 380848
Decision No.: 433137
Registration No.:  66330-64,
Petition No.: 0F7726
Regulatory Action: Section 3
Risk Assessment Type: Single Chemical
Case No.: NA
TXR No.: NA
CAS No.:  193740-76-0
MRID No.: NA
40 CFR: 180.609

FROM:		Kristin Rury, Biologist
			Risk Assessment Branch 3
			Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:		Barry O'Keefe, Senior Biologist
			Risk Assessment Branch 3
			Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:			Nancy Tsaur, Risk Assessor
			Risk Assessment Branch 3
			Health Effects Division (7509P)

The Registration Division (RD) requested that the Health Effects Division (HED) conduct an occupational exposure and risk assessment for new proposed uses of fluoxastrobin on squash and cucumber.  Note: This memorandum was reviewed by the Exposure Science Advisory Committee (ExpoSAC) on January 20, 2011.

1.0	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fluoxastrobin is a strobilurin class active ingredient (ai) that is proposed for use as a broad-spectrum fungicide.  The new proposed uses of fluoxastrobin are for control of certain diseases on squash and cucumber crop subgroup 9B (Chayote; Chinese waxgourd; Cucumber; Gherkin; Gourd, edible; Pumpkin; Squash, summer; and Squash, winter). The proposed formulated end-use product evaluated in this assessment is labeled under the trade name Fluoxastrobin 480 SC Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 66330-64), which contains 40.3% (i.e., 4 lbs ai/gallon) fluoxastrobin, and serves as the master label for Evito(R) 480 SC fungicide, DISARM(TM) 480 SC Fungicide, and Fluoxastrobin 480 SC Fungicide Seed Treatment, produced by Arysta LifeScience North America, LLC (Arysta).  In this memorandum, the name fluoxastrobin will be used for the ai in this product.

Proposed Use Profile:
Broadcast foliar applications of fluoxastrobin may be applied to squash and cucumber crop subgroup 9B at a maximum application rate of 0.16 lb ai/A for both foliar and soil-borne diseases.  For all of crop subgroup 9B, handlers may apply fluoxastrobin using groundboom equipment only.  The maximum application rate is 0.68 lb ai per year with a maximum of 4 applications per season and a minimum application interval of 7 days between applications.

Exposure Profile:
There is a potential for short- and intermediate-term occupational exposure to fluoxastrobin during mixing, loading, application, and other handling tasks and for short- and intermediate-term occupational exposure during post-application activities. Chronic exposure is not expected for the proposed use patterns associated with fluoxastrobin.

Hazard Profile:
A short-term dermal endpoint was not identified; therefore, only intermediate-term dermal risks as well as short- and intermediate-term inhalation risks were assessed.  The estimated dermal and inhalation exposures were compared to the oral No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 3.0 mg/kg/day from a 90 day subchronic feeding dog study in which dose-related reductions in net body weight gain and food efficiency, in addition to toxicity findings in the liver (cholestasis) of both sexes, and kidneys (increased relative weights in females and degeneration of the proximal tubular epithelium in males), were observed at the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) of 24.8 mg/kg/day for males and 24.2 mg/kg/day for females.  Because this endpoint is from an oral study, the estimated dermal exposures were adjusted by applying a 2.3% dermal absorption factor.  Since no inhalation absorption data are available, toxicity by the inhalation route is considered to be equivalent to the estimated toxicity by the oral route of exposure.  This endpoint is not a developmental effect; therefore, a 70-kg body weight was used in the calculations.  Resulting intermediate-term risk estimates were combined into total risk estimates because the same endpoint was chosen to evaluate both routes of exposure.  The level of concern (LOC) for occupational risk is for margins of exposure (MOEs) of 100 (i.e., an MOE < 100 is of concern).  Fluoxastrobin is characterized as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" based on the lack of increased tumor incidence in the rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies; therefore, cancer risks were not assessed.

Occupational Exposure & Risk Estimates:
	Agricultural Handlers:
No chemical-specific handler exposure data were submitted in support of this registration.  It is the policy of HED to use data from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) Version 1.1 as presented in PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide (8/98) to assess handler exposures for regulatory actions when chemical-specific monitoring data are not available (HED ExpoSAC Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) No. 7, dated 1/28/99).  The results of the occupational handler exposure and risk assessment indicate that MOEs were greater than the level of concern (LOC = 100) at some level of risk mitigation.

Dermal
For all handler mixing, loading, and applying scenarios, the intermediate-term dermal risks do not exceed HED's level of concern with baseline attire (i.e., long-sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks) or baseline attire plus chemical resistant gloves.  With baseline attire, the dermal MOE for mixer/loaders was 250, and the MOE for applicators was 17,000.  With baseline attire plus chemical resistant gloves, the dermal MOE for mixer/loaders was 31,000 and the MOE for applicators was 51,000.

Inhalation
The short- and intermediate-term inhalation risks to handlers do not exceed HED's level of concern at baseline (no respirator) for any of the handler scenarios.  With baseline attire (no respirator) the inhalation MOE for mixer loaders was 14,000 and the MOE for applicators was 22,000,000.

Combined
Combined dermal and inhalation risks do not exceed HED's level of concern with baseline attire or baseline attire plus chemical resistant gloves. With baseline attire, the combined (dermal + inhalation) MOE for mixer/loaders was 240 and the MOE for applicators was 17,000.  With baseline attire plus chemical resistant gloves, the combined (dermal + inhalation) MOE was 9,500 for mixer/loaders and 51,000 for applicators.

	Agricultural Post-Application:
Based on HED's current practices, a quantitative occupational post-application inhalation exposure assessment was not performed for fluoxastrobin at this time.  However, there are multiple potential sources of post-application inhalation exposure to individuals performing post-application activities in previously treated fields.  If new policies or procedures are put into place, HED may revisit the need for a quantitative occupational post-application inhalation exposure assessment for fluoxastrobin.

Intermediate-term dermal post-application exposures and risks to occupational workers were estimated using standard values established by HED since no chemical-specific data were submitted.  Using HED default assumptions and default DFR values, all scenarios resulted in MOEs greater than 100 on day 0 (12 hours after application), and therefore, risks do not exceed HED's level of concern.

The restricted entry interval (REI) is currently based on the acute toxicity of fluoxastrobin technical material.  Fluoxastrobin is classified as Toxicity Category III by the dermal route and for eye irritation potential and Toxicity Category IV for skin irritation potential.  Under the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides, active ingredients classified as acute toxicity categories III or IV for these routes are assigned a 12-hour REI.  Therefore, the 12-hour REI that appears on the proposed label is adequate for protection of the exposed workers.

Review of Human Research:
This risk assessment relies in part on data from studies in which adult human subjects were intentionally exposed to a pesticide or other chemical.  These studies, which comprise the PHED, have been determined to require a review of their ethical conduct and have received that review.

Residential Exposure:
This document presents the assessment of proposed agricultural uses of fluoxastrobin.  No residential uses are being requested at this time; therefore, no residential handler exposure and risk assessment has been conducted in this document.  However, uses on turf and ornamentals are currently registered on fluoxastrobin labels.

2.0	HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION

The quality of the toxicology database for fluoxastrobin is good and the confidence in the hazard and dose-response assessments is high.  The toxicity database for fluoxastrobin is considered adequate to support toxicity endpoint selection for risk assessment and for FQPA evaluation.  However, under the current 40 CFR §158.500 data requirement guidelines, the immunotoxicity data (OPPTS 780.7800) is required as a condition of registration.  HED determined that the 10X FQPA safety factor for the protection of infants and children should be removed for all potential exposure scenarios to fluoxastrobin because the toxicity database is adequate, there are no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity, and the doses chosen as quantitative risk estimates are adequately protective for infants and children.  Additionally, exposure data are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably account for potential exposures.  Based on these data and conclusions, the FQPA safety factor can be reduced to 1X.

To address the immunotoxicity data requirements as presented in the 40 CFR Part 158, HED examined the entire toxicity database of fluoxastrobin; the database of this chemical does not show clear evidence of biologically relevant effects on the immune system that relate to this chemical.  The overall weight of evidence suggests that this chemical does not directly target the immune system.  An immunotoxicity study in the mouse is available; the results of this study show no apparent decrease on B-cell activated, T-cell mediated IgM response to sheep red blood cell (SRBC) at doses as high as 2383 mg/kg/day. However, this study has many deficiencies including uncertainty in dietary test material intake, and the study is classified as unacceptable. At this time, HED does not believe that conducting a new functional immunotoxicity study will result in a lower NOAEL than the regulatory dose for risk assessment, and an additional factor for database uncertainty (UFDB) is not needed to account for lack of this study.

HED's LOC for the MOE is defined by the uncertainty factors that are applied to the assessment.  HED applies a 10X factor to account for interspecies extrapolation and a 10X factor to account for intraspecies sensitivity.  The total uncertainty factor that has been applied to the non-cancer risk assessment for fluoxastrobin is 100 for occupational exposure.  Occupational exposure and risk resulting in MOEs greater than or equal to 100x will not exceed HED's level of concern.

The acute toxicity for fluoxastrobin is summarized in Table 1.  Fluoxastrobin has a low order of acute toxicity based on its classification in Toxicity Category III via the oral and dermal routes, and Toxicity Category IV by the inhalation route of exposure.  Fluoxastrobin is a moderate eye irritant (Toxicity Category III), but is neither a dermal irritant nor a sensitizer.

               Table 1:  Acute Toxicity Profile - Fluoxastrobin
                                 Guideline No.
                                  Study Type
                                    MRID(s)
                                    Results
                               Toxicity Category
                                   870.1100
                               Acute oral - rat
                                   45865612
                              LD50>2000 mg/kg
                                      III
                                   870.1200
                              Acute dermal - rat
                                   45865613
                              LD50>2000 mg/kg
                                      III
                                   870.1300
                            Acute inhalation  - rat
                                   45865618
                                LC50 = 4.9 mg/L
                                      IV
                                   870.2400
                         Acute eye irritation - rabbit
                                   45865620
                               moderate irritant
                                      III
                                   870.2500
                       Acute dermal irritation  - rabbit
                                   45865622
                                not an irritant
                                      IV
                                   870.2600
                        Skin sensitization - guinea pig
                                   45865624
                               not a sensitizer
                                       -

Exposures to occupational handlers are expected to be short- and intermediate-term in duration via the dermal and inhalation routes.  Exposures to occupational post-application workers are expected to be short- and intermediate-term in duration via the dermal route.  A short-term dermal endpoint was not identified; therefore, only intermediate-term dermal risks were assessed.  For the other routes of exposure, the same point of departure (PoD) was  selected from a 90-day subchronic dog study (i.e., NOAEL of 3 mg/kg/day), based on dose-related reductions in net body weight gain and food efficiency in addition to toxicity findings in the liver (cholestasis) in both sexes and kidneys (increased relative weights in females and degeneration of the proximal tubular epithelium in males).  Because this is an oral study, dermal doses were adjusted to account for 2.3% dermal absorption, and inhalation doses were calculated assuming 100% absorption.  Resulting dermal and inhalation MOEs were combined into total MOEs because the same endpoint was chosen to evaluate both routes of exposure.  The endpoints and PoDs selected for fluoxastrobin are shown in Table 2.

Table 2:	 Summary of Toxicological Doses & Endpoints for Fluoxastrobin for Use in Occupational Risk Assessments
                                   Exposure
                                   Scenario
                              Point of Departure
             Uncertainty/FQPA Safety Factors and Level of Concern
                        Study and Toxicological Effects
Dermal
Short-Term
(1 - 30 days)
N/A

None
None: A 28-day dermal toxicity study in the rat is negative up to the limit dose and there are no developmental or neurotoxicity concerns
Dermal
Intermediate-Term
(1 - 6 months)
NOAEL = 3.0 mg/kg/day

dermal absorption rate = 2.3%
UFA = 10X
UFH = 10X
FQPA SF = 1X
LOC for MOE = 100
90 Day Subchronic Dog
LOAEL =  M/F 24.8/24.2 mg/kg/day (800 ppm) based on dose-related reductions in net body weight gain and food efficiency in addition to toxicity findings in the liver (cholestasis) in both sexes and kidneys (increased relative weights in females and degeneration of the proximal tubular epithelium in males).
Inhalation
Short-Term
(1 - 30 days) and
Intermediate-Term
(1 - 6 months)
NOAEL = 3 .0 mg/kg/day

Inhalation absorption rate = 100%

UFA = 10X
UFH = 10X
FQPA SF = 1X
LOC for MOE = 100
90 Day Subchronic Dog
LOAEL =  M/F 24.8/24.2 mg/kg/day (800 ppm) based on dose-related reductions in net body weight gain and food efficiency in addition to toxicity findings in the liver (cholestasis) in both sexes and kidneys (increased relative weights in females and degeneration of the proximal tubular epithelium in males).
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)
Classification: Not Likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level.  LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level.  FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor.  UF = uncertainty factor.  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (intra-species).  UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (inter-species).  MOE = margin of exposure.  LOC = level of concern.  N/A = not applicable.

3.0	PROPOSED USE PATTERNS

Table 3 provides a summary of the proposed uses of fluoxastrobin.

     Table 3: Use Profile for Fluoxastrobin for use on Squash and Cucumber
                                     Crop
                              Product Information
                                 Application
                             Method of Application
                   Maximum Single Application Rate (lb ai/A)
                      Maximum Number of Applications (oz)
                          Retreatment Interval (RTI)
                       Maximum Seasonal Application Rate
Squash/Cucumber Crop Subgroup 9B (Chayote; Chinese waxgourd; Cucumber; Gherkin; Gourd, edible; Pumpkin; Squash, summer; and Squash, winter)
EVITO(R) 480 SC Fungicide EPA Reg. No.  66330-64, 4 lb fluoxastrobin per gallon
                                Foliar Disease
                                Groundboom Only
                                     0.16
                                       4
                                   7-14 days
                                     0.68

                              Soilborne Disease

                                    7 days

4.0	OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE/RISK PATHWAY

	4.1 	Handler Exposure

Fluoxastrobin can be applied to crop subgroup 9B using groundboom application equipment.  Application methods, maximum application rates, and use sites are summarized in Table 3.  Handler exposure is expected to be short- or intermediate-term based on information provided on proposed labels.

The quantitative exposure/risk assessment for occupational handlers is based on the following exposure scenarios:

Mixer/Loaders:
   1. Mixing/loading liquid concentrate to support groundboom applications, and

Applicators:
   2. Applying sprays with groundboom equipment.

		4.1.1	Data and Assumptions for Handler Exposure Scenarios

Unit Exposures:
Chemical-specific data for assessing exposure during pesticide handling activities (mixing/loading, and applying) were not submitted to the Agency in support of this Section 3 application.  It is HED policy to use data from the PHED Version 1.1 to assess handler exposures for regulatory actions when chemical-specific data are not available (ExpoSAC, SOP No.7, January 1999).

Mitigation Approaches:
The baseline clothing level for occupational exposure scenarios is generally an individual wearing long pants, a long-sleeved shirt, shoes, socks, no chemical-resistant gloves, and no respirator.  The first level of mitigation generally applied is personal protective equipment (PPE), which may include addition of chemical resistant-gloves (as specified on the proposed label), an additional layer of clothing, and/or a respirator.  The next layer of mitigation considered in the risk assessment process is the use of appropriate engineering controls, which, by design, attempt to eliminate the possibility of human exposure.  Examples of commonly used engineering controls include enclosed cockpits or tractor cabs, closed mixing/loading systems, and water-soluble packets.

Occupational handler exposure assessments were completed by HED using baseline clothing attire, and baseline clothing attire plus gloves.

Area Treated:
Based on HED ExpoSAC SOP No. 9.1, the area treated in a day was assumed to be 80 acres for mixing, loading and applying fluoxastrobin with groundboom equipment to crop subgroup 9B.

Application Rate:
Broadcast foliar applications of fluoxastrobin may be applied at a maximum application rate of 0.16 lb ai/A for crop subgroup 9B.  Application rates are shown in Table 3.

Body Weight:
The average adult body weight of 70 kg was used for estimating dermal and inhalation doses, since the selected toxicological endpoints are not based on a developmental effect.

Absorption Factors:
Since the intermediate-term dermal endpoint was based on an oral study (90 day subchronic feeding study in the dog), a dermal absorption factor of 2.3% was used to estimate dermal exposure for intermediate-term durations.  The results of a preliminary dermal study (MRID 45911501) clearly showed that following intravenous administration, fluoxastrobin is rapidly and nearly totally excreted in the urine and feces within 48 hours (allowing for 100% bioavailability).  Following an 8-hour dermal application in a male monkey, absorption was negligible (1.16% preliminary, 2.16% main).  The normalized absorption value for the main study (MRID 45911502) was 2.31%.  Therefore, HED set the dermal absorption value at 2.3% for risk assessment purposes.

Since the short- and intermediate-term inhalation endpoint was based on an oral study (90 day subchronic feeding study in the dog) and no inhalation absorption data are available, toxicity by the inhalation route is considered to be equivalent to the estimated toxicity by the oral route of exposure (100% absorption factor).

Equations and Calculations:

Daily Exposure: Daily handler exposures are estimated for each applicable handler task with the application rate, the amount of acres treated in a day, and the applicable unit exposure using the following formula:

      Daily Exposure (mg ai/day) = Unit Exposure (ug ai/lb ai handled) x Application Rate (lbs ai/) x Daily Amount Handled (lbs/day) x Conversion Factor (mg/1,000 ug)

	Where:

	Daily Exposure =		Amount (mg ai/day) deposited on the surface of the skin that is
				available for dermal absorption or amount inhaled that is available for
				inhalation absorption,
       Unit Exposure =		Unit exposure value (ug ai/day),
      Application Rate =	Normalized application rate based on a logical unit treatment, such as acres; maximum values are used (lb ai/acre), and
      Daily Amount Handled =   Normalized application area based on a logical unit treatment such as acres (A/day).

Daily Dose:  Daily dose (inhalation or dermal) was calculated by normalizing the daily dermal or inhalation exposure value by body weight and accounting for dermal and inhalation absorption.

      Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day) = Daily Exposure (mg ai/day) x {Absorption Factor (%/100)}
									Body Weight (kg)

   Daily Exposure (mg ai/day) = daily unit exposure (mg/lb ai)  x application rate (lb ai/A) x acres treated (A/day)

   	Where:

	Average Daily Dose   = 	Absorbed dose received from exposure to a pesticide in a given
				scenario	(mg pesticide active ingredient/kg body weight/day),
	Daily Exposure          =	Amount (mg ai/day) deposited on the surface of the skin that is
				available for dermal absorption or amount inhaled that is available for
				inhalation absorption,
	Absorption Factor      = 	A measure of the amount of chemical that crosses a biological
				boundary such as 	the skin or lungs, and
	Body Weight             =	Body weight determined to represent the population of interest in a risk
				assessment.

Margin of Exposure (MOE): The daily dermal dose and daily inhalation dose received by occupational handlers were compared to the appropriate point of departure (i.e., NOAEL) to assess the risk to occupational handlers for each exposure route. All MOE values were calculated separately for dermal and inhalation exposure levels using the following formula:

	MOE = 		NOAEL (mg/kg/day)
	  	       Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)

	Where:

      	MOE   =		Margin of exposure value used by HED to represent risk or how close a
      			chemical exposure is to being a concern (unitless),
            ADD       =	Average daily dose (ADD) is absorbed dose received from exposure to pesticide, and
		NOAEL	 =	Dose level in a toxicity study, where no observed adverse effects occurred in the 				study.

Combined Risks:  Dermal and inhalation risks for intermediate-term exposures were combined in this assessment, since the toxicological effects for the dermal and inhalations routes were the same.  Dermal and inhalation risks were combined using the following formula:

		 Total MOE = 1/ ((1/ Dermal MOE) + (1/Inhalation MOE))

		4.1.2	Handlers Exposure and Risk

Summaries of the risks for occupational handlers are included in Table 4.  The maximum application rate for each exposure scenario is presented as the worst-case scenario.  All handler scenarios resulted in MOEs greater than the level of concern (LOC = 100) at some level of risk mitigation.

Dermal
For all handler mixing, loading, and applying scenarios, the intermediate-term dermal risks do not exceed HED's level of concern with baseline attire (i.e., long-sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks) or baseline attire plus chemical resistant gloves.  With baseline attire, the dermal MOE for mixer/loaders was 250, and the MOE for applicators was 17,000.  With baseline attire plus chemical resistant gloves, the dermal MOE for mixer/loaders was 31,000 and the MOE for applicators was 51,000.

Inhalation
The short- and intermediate-term inhalation risks to handlers do not exceed HED's level of concern at baseline (no respirator) for any of the handler scenarios.  With baseline attire (no respirator) the inhalation MOE for mixer loaders was 14,000 and the MOE for applicators was 22,000,000.

Combined
Combined dermal and inhalation risks do not exceed HED's level of concern with baseline attire or baseline attire plus chemical resistant gloves. With baseline attire, the combined (dermal + inhalation) MOE for mixer/loaders was 240 and the MOE for applicators was 17,000.  With baseline attire plus chemical resistant gloves, the combined (dermal + inhalation) MOE was 9,500 for mixer/loaders and 51,000 for applicators.

Table 4: Baseline and PPE Short-Term Exposure and Risk Estimates (MOE) for Occupational Application of Fluoxastrobin
                               Exposure Scenario
                             App Rate (lb ai/A)[1]
                            Acres Treated Daily[2]
                        Dermal Unit Exposure (mg/lb ai)
                     PPE-G Dermal Unit Exposure (mg/lb ai)
                      Inhalation Unit Exposure (mg/lb ai)
                            Dose Baseline Dermal[3]
                              PPE Dermal Dose[3]
                          Dose Baseline Inhalation[4]
                            MOE Baseline Dermal[5]
                               MOE PPE Dermal[5]
                          MOE Baseline Inhalation[5]
                           Combined Baseline MOE[6]
                              Combined PPE MOE[6]

                                 Mixer/Loader
    Mixing and Loading Liquid Formulation for Groundboom Application (PHED)
                                     0.16
                                      80
                                      2.9
                                     0.023
                                    0.0012
                                     0.012
                                    0.00010
                                   0.0002194
                                      250
                                    31,000
                                    14,000
                                      240
                                     9,500
                                  Applicator
                         Groundboom Application (PHED)
                                     0.16
                                      80
                                     0.041
                                     0.014
                                    0.00074
                                   0.000172
                                   0.0000588
                                  0.000000135
                                    17,000
                                    51,000
                                  22,000,000
                                    17,000
                                    51,000
1 Application rate is based on maximum values found in proposed label (EPA Reg. 66330-65).
2 Area treated is based on the area that can be reasonably treated in a single day based on the application method (standard EPA/OPP/HED values)
3 Daily Dermal Dose (mg/kg/day) = (Unit Exposure x Application rate x Area treated x Dermal Absorption Factor) 2.3% / 70 kg.
4 Daily Inhalation Dose (mg/kg/day) = (Unit Exposure x Application rate x Area treated x inhalation absorption factor 100%) / 70 kg.
5 Short- and Intermediate-Term MOE = NOAEL (3 mg/kg/day) / Daily Dose.  The LOC is 100.
6 Combined MOE = 1/(1/Dermal MOE + 1/Inhalation MOE)

	4.2 	Postapplication Exposure

		4.2.1	Data and Assumptions for Post-application Exposure Scenarios

There is the possibility for agricultural workers to have post-application dermal exposure to fluoxastrobin following its proposed agricultural crop uses.  Therefore, occupational intermediate-term dermal post-application risks were assessed.

There were no chemical-specific DFR data to assess post-application risks to workers while performing tasks related to crops treated with fluoxastrobin.  Occupational post-application exposures and risks were assessed using HED's default assumptions that 20% of the initial application is available for transfer on day 0 (i.e., 12 hours after application) and that the residue dissipates at a rate of 10% per day.

HED uses a concept known as the transfer coefficient (TC) to numerically represent the post-application exposures one would receive (generally presented as cm[2]/hour).  A TC is a measure of the residue transferred from a treated surface to a person who is doing a task or activity in a treated area.  These values are the ratio of an exposure for a given task or activity to the amount of pesticide residue on treated surfaces available for transfer.  HED has developed a series of standard transfer coefficients that are unique for a variety of job tasks or activities that are used in lieu of chemical- and scenario-specific data.  HED used Policy 003.1 Science Advisory Council for Exposure Policy Regarding Agricultural Transfer Coefficients to estimate transfer coefficients for the various tasks that post-application workers might perform on each crop grouping.

HED assumes an 8 hour workday for post-application workers and assumes 70 kg for an adult (average adult weight) since the endpoint is not based on developmental effects.

For fluoxastrobin, the exposure durations for non-cancer post-application risk assessment were short-term and intermediate-term.  However, since there is no toxicological point of departure for short-term dermal exposures, post-application risks are presented only for intermediate-term dermal exposures. The LOC for occupational post-application risk is for MOEs of 100 (i.e., an MOE < 100 is of concern).

Daily dermal exposures were calculated on each post-application day after application using the following equation:

DE(t) (mg/day) = (DFR(t) (ug/cm[2]) x TC (cm[2]/hr) x Hr/Day) x DA / 1,000 (ug/mg)

Where:
      DE(t)      =	Daily exposure or amount deposited on the surface of the skin at time (t) attributable for activity in a previously treated area,
	DFR(t)	=	Dislodgeable foliar residue at time "t" (ug/cm[2]),
	TC	=	Transfer Coefficient (cm[2]/hour),
       Hr/day   =	Exposure duration meant to represent a typical workday (8 hours), and
       DA         =	Dermal absorption factor (0.023)

Where:
	Default DFR (ug/cm[2]) = AR (lb ai/A) x F x (1- D)[t] x CF1 x CF2

      	AR = Maximum application rate,
      	F = Fraction of ai retained on the foliage,
      	D = Fraction of residue that dissipates daily,
      	t = Postapplication day,
      	CF1 = 4.54E+8 ug/lb, and
      	CF2 = 2.47E-8 A/cm[2].

   		4.2.2 	Agricultural Exposure and Risk

The post-application exposure associated with agricultural crops is summarized in Table 5.  Using HED default assumptions, maximum transfer coefficients, and surrogate DFR data, all scenarios resulted in MOEs greater than 100 on day 0 (12 hours after application) and, therefore, were not of concern to HED.

Table 5: Occupational Post-application Exposure to Proposed Uses of Fluoxastrobin
                                     Crop
                  Maximum Proposed Application Rate (lb ai/A)
                                   Activity
                              Foliage Development
                                      TC
                                  (cm[2]/hr)
                             Days After Treatment
                               DFR[1] (ug/cm[2])
                            Daily Dose (mg/kg/d)[2]
                                    MOE[3]
Squash/Cucumber Crop Subgroup 9B (Chayote; Chinese waxgourd; Cucumber; Gherkin; Gourd, edible; Pumpkin; Squash, summer; and Squash, winter)
                                     0.16
                      Irrigation, scouting, hand weeding
                                     Full
                                     1500
                                       0
                                   0.3588416
                                    0.0014
                                     2,100

                                     0.16
                    Hand Harvest, leaf pulling hand pruning
                                      Low
                                     2500
                                       0
                                   0.3588416
                                    0.0024
                                     1,300

                                     0.16
                 Irrigation, scouting, thinning, hand weeding
                                      Low
                                      500
                                       0
                                   0.3588416
                                    0.00047
                                     6,400
1 Default DFR (ug/cm[2]) = application rate (lb ai/A) x (1- daily dissipation rate) [t] x 4.54E8 ug/lb x 2.47E-8 A/cm[2] x 20% DFR after initial treatment.
2 Daily Dermal Dose = [DFR (ug/cm[2]) x TC x 0.001 mg/ug x 8 hrs/day x DA] x (body weight (70 kg)).
3 MOE = NOAEL/Daily Dose   (Adult Dermal NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day).

Restricted Entry Interval:  The restricted entry interval (REI) is based on the acute toxicity of fluoxastrobin technical material.  Fluoxastrobin is classified as Toxicity Category III by the dermal route and for eye irritation potential and Toxicity Category IV for skin irritation potential.  Under the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides, active ingredients classified as acute toxicity categories III or IV for these routes are assigned a 12-hour REI.  Therefore, the 12-hour REI that appears on the proposed label is adequate.
5.0	RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE

Fluoxastrobin is registered for use in residential settings on turfgrass for use by residential handlers.  Risks for fluoxastrobin application to turf was previously assessed and did not result in risks of concern (K. Rury D371251, 3/4/2010). Therefore, a revised assessment for residential handlers was not required.  Residential handler combined dermal + inhalation risks resulted in MOEs that ranged from 3,200 to 520,000.  Post-application incidental oral risks to children resulted in an MOE of 1,600 for object-to-mouth exposure, 120,000 for ingestion of treated soil, and MOEs that ranged from 400 to 850 for hand-to-mouth exposure.  Adult dermal post-application risks resulted in MOEs that ranged from 1,100 to 16,000 from contact with treated turf, and the risk from child dermal contact with treated turf resulted in an MOE of 670.
6.0	RESIDENTIAL BYSTANDER POST APPLICATION & SPRAY DRIFT

Based on the Agency's current practices, a quantitative post-application inhalation exposure assessment was not performed for fluoxastrobin at this time.  However, volatilization of pesticides may be a potential source of post-application inhalation exposure to individuals nearby to pesticide applications.  The Agency sought expert advice and input on issues related to volatilization of pesticides from its Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) in December 2009.  The Agency received the SAP's final report on March 2, 2010 (http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP/meetings/2009/120109meeting.html) and is in the process of evaluating the SAP report.  The Agency may, as appropriate, develop policies and procedures to identify the need for and, subsequently, the way to incorporate post-application inhalation exposure into the Agency's risk assessments.  If new policies or procedures are put into place, the Agency may revisit the need for a quantitative post-application inhalation exposure assessment for fluoxastrobin.

Spray Drift
Spray drift is always a potential source of exposure to residents nearby to spraying operations.  This is particularly the case with aerial application, but, to a lesser extent, could also be a potential source of exposure from the ground application method employed for pyraflufen-ethyl.  The Agency has been working with the Spray Drift Task Force, EPA Regional Offices, and State Lead Agencies for pesticide regulation and other parties to develop the best spray drift management practices.  The Agency is now requiring interim mitigation measures for aerial applications that must be placed on product labels/labeling.  The Agency has completed its evaluation of the new data base submitted by the Spray Drift Task Force, a membership of U.S. pesticide registrants, and is developing a policy on how to appropriately apply the data and the AgDRIFT computer model to its risk assessments for pesticides applied by air, orchard airblast, and ground hydraulic methods.  After the policy is in place, the Agency may impose further refinements in spray drift management practices to reduce off-target drift and risks associated with aerial as well as other application types where appropriate.


									Draft

									February 5, 2009

									Ref: PF/NPDES/PER

The blast furnace recycle system consists of two thickeners (i.e., one
for each furnace), a cooling tower and a pump house for recirculating
treated process water for reuse at the blast furnaces. Periodic blowdown
from or lake water make-up to this system occurs throughout the day in
order to maintain a hydraulic balance within the recycle system. The
blowdown is discharged to the plant’s dirty industrial wastewater
(DIW) sewer system for further treatment at the Secondary Wastewater
Treatment Plant (SWTP) prior to discharge to surface waters of the
State. In the event the recycle system experiences elevated
concentrations of cyanide, a steady-state blowdown can be directed to an
alkaline chlorination system to destroy the cyanide before discharge to
the SWTP.

The sinter plant has its own dedicated treatment plant that receives all
of the gas cleaning blowdown from the sinter plant and minor quantities
of filtrate from the mechanical dewatering of BOF sludge.  Excess
moisture is added to this system by virtue of the process and is blown
down to the Reclamation Services Building (RSB) for treatment. After pH
adjustment (we try to maintain a pH of about 9.3) and the addition of
flocculation/coagulation polymers, the wastewaters are directed to the
final thickener for preliminary clarification.   The effluent of the
final thickener discharges to the Dirty Industrial Wastewater (DIW)
sewer system for further treatment at the SWTP.

The basic oxygen furnace recycle system consists of two thickeners that
treat the gas cleaning process waters prior to recycling back to the gas
cleaning system or blowdown to the DIW sewer system for further
treatment at the SWTP.

The continuous casters (2) are equipped with scale pits for the removal
of suspended solids and oil. The hot forming mills (two plate mills and
the hot strip mill) are also equipped with scale pits and oil skimming
equipment. The facilities recycle a portion of the scale pit effluent
water for use in the production process and the balance is discharged to
the DIW sewer system for further treatment at the SWTP.

Wastewaters generated from the hot dip (galvanizing) coating line are
filtered prior to discharge to the DIW in order to remove particulate
zinc. Waste pickling acids are either used on site to neutralize
wastewaters, sold for off-site recycling or disposed of by deep well
injection. Pickling rinsewaters and fume scrubber blowdowns are combined
with pretreated wastewaters from the cold rolling operations and
directed, via the DIW sewer system, to the SWTP for final treatment.

Contaminated groundwater from the ore dock area is recovered and used as
a replacement for lake water in the gas cleaning systems of either the
Sinter Plant or the Blast Furnaces. As noted above, the blowdowns from
these systems receive initial treatment at the generation site and
secondary treatment at the SWTP.

Most of the facility’s wastewaters receive primary treatment at their
source and final treatment at the SWTP. Final treatment includes pH
adjustment, oil separation, flocculation/coagulation and clarification
prior to discharge through several open channel conveyances before
reaching the East Branch of the Little Calumet River. Sludges generated
by the SWTP will be disposed on-site in a permitted Type 1 solid waste
landfill (to be constructed). Any leachate generated by the landfill
will also undergo preliminary treatment prior to discharge to the DIW
and SWTP.

The SWTP effluent is routed through two lagoons prior to discharge
through internal Outfall 011 and final Outfall 001 into the East Branch
of the Little Calumet River. The lagoons are equipped with aerators for
temperature control. Lake Michigan water can also be added to the
Outfall 011 discharge during warm weather months for additional
temperature control.


[Federal Register: November 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 216)]
[Notices]
[Page 66090-66091]
[DOCID:fr06no08-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58891; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-072)]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Establish a PORTAL Reference
Database and Related Fees

October 30, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On September 16, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to establish a PORTAL Reference
Database and related fees. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on September 30, 2008.\3\ The
Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58622 (September 23,
2008), 73 FR 56876 (September 30, 2008)(the ``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Nasdaq has created, and has proposed to make publicly available,
for a fee, a consolidated fully-electronic reference database of
information culled from PORTAL offering documents and applications
submitted to Nasdaq since 1990.\4\ Nasdaq has represented that access
to the database would available to all market participants. The
database would allow users to determine a PORTAL issue's name and
offering description, CUSIP, country of incorporation, security class,
maturity class and date, currency denomination, applicable interest and
credit rating, convertibility and call provisions, total number of
shares offered, and date of PORTAL designation, in addition to other
information. On an ongoing basis, data regarding securities that obtain
PORTAL designation would be added to the database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For more information related to the background of the PORTAL
Market, see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55669 (April 25,
2007), 72 FR 23874 (May 1, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq has proposed that users of the PORTAL Reference Database
would pay both an annual fee and an access fee per year of data
desired. Annual fees would range between $20,000 and $100,000 and would
be based on the number of users and are per calendar year. Access

fees, which also range from $20,000 to $100,000, would be tiered based
on the number of users authorized for access and the number of the
years for which data is requested. The total cost of access to the full
database would be capped based on the number of users at a particular
firm.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\5\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ which requires
that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees
and other charges among its members and other persons using any
facility or system which the exchange operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq represented that it incurred hardware and software costs, as
well as personnel and other technology costs, to establish the PORTAL
Reference Database. Establishing the database required the retrieval,
review, conversion, and organization of large volumes of documents.
Nasdaq stated that there will be ongoing costs to maintain and update
the database, as well. The Commission notes that the pricing structure
should allow users to align and control the costs of access with their
data needs, and that the information will be available to any
participant that pays the fees. The Commission believes that the PORTAL
Reference Database will make historical information about issuances of
restricted equity and debt more available, which should assist market
participants to make better-informed investment decisions regarding
such securities.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ that the proposed rule change, (SR-NASDAQ-2008-072), be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-26445 Filed 11-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7888-7891]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3034]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63860; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-176]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Listing and
Trading of Alpha Index Options

February 7, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On December 10, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``Phlx'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ a proposed rule change to amend
certain of its rules to provide for the listing and trading of options
on NASDAQ OMX (``Nasdaq'') Alpha Indexes\SM\ (the ``Alpha Indexes'') on
the Exchange's electronic trading platform for options. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
December 27, 2010.\2\ The Commission received no comment letters on the
proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63575 (December 17,
2010), 75 FR 81320 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade cash-settled, European-
style options on Alpha Indexes.

Index Design and Composition

    Alpha Indexes measure relative total returns of one stock and one
exchange-traded fund share (``ETF'') underlying options which are also
traded on the Exchange (each such combination of two components is
referred to as an ``Alpha Pair'').\3\ The first component identified in
an Alpha Pair (the ``Target Component'') is measured against the second
component identified in the Alpha Pair (the ``Benchmark Component'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The total return measures performance (rate of return) of
price appreciation plus dividends over a given evaluation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade Alpha Index options only on
the following Alpha Pairs: AAPL/SPY, AMZN/SPY, CSCO/SPY, F/SPY, GE/SPY,
GOOG/SPY, HPQ/SPY, IBM/SPY, INTC/SPY, KO/SPY, MRK/SPY, MSFT/SPY, ORCL/
SPY, PFE/SPY, RIMM/SPY, T/SPY, TGT/SPY, VZ/SPY and WMT/SPY. The
Exchange represents that it will not list Alpha Index options on any
other Alpha Pairs without filing a

proposed rule change seeking Commission approval.

Index Calculation

    In order to calculate an Alpha Index, Nasdaq measures the total
return performance of the Target Component relative to the total return
performance of the Benchmark Component, based upon prices of
transactions on the primary listing exchange of each underlying
component. The Exchange has represented that any Target Component or
Benchmark Component upon which an Alpha Index is based will meet the
Exchange's listing standards, and options overlying them will already
be listed and traded on the Exchange. Further, the value of each Alpha
Index will initially be set at 100.00.
    To calculate an Alpha Index, Nasdaq first calculates a daily total
return for both the Target Component and the Benchmark Component of the
Alpha Pair. To calculate the daily total return today, the previous
trading day's closing market price for the component would be
subtracted from today's closing market price for the component to
determine a price difference (the ``Price Difference''). The Price
Difference would be added to any declared dividend, if today were an
``ex-dividend'' date, to yield the Price Plus Dividend Difference for
the component. The Price Plus Dividend Difference for the component is
then divided by the previous trading day's closing market price for the
component, and the result is rounded to four decimal places to yield
the total daily return.
    The total daily return for each component is then added to the
whole number one, which permits the ultimate Alpha Index to be
expressed in percentage terms. This figure for the Target Component is
then divided by the comparable figure for the Benchmark Component, and
then multiplied by previous trading day's closing Alpha Index value.
The resulting level depicts the Target Component's total return
performance versus that of the previous trading day.
    In the case of a corporate event which eliminates one of the
underlying components of an Alpha Pair, Nasdaq will cease calculation
of the Alpha Index for that Alpha Pair and all outstanding option
positions for that Alpha Pair will be immediately settled at the last
disseminated price of that Alpha Index. In the case of a corporate
event such as a spin off that affects the price of one of the
underlying components, Nasdaq will make an appropriate one-time
adjustment to the price of the underlying component used in the
calculation to ensure that the Alpha Index continues to reflect the
daily total return of the component.
    Alpha Index values will be disseminated every second over the
NASDAQ OMX Global Index Data Service (``GIDS'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=globalindexDS
for a description of the NASDAQ OMX Global Index Data Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contract Specifications

    The Exchange represents that Alpha Indexes are not broad-based or
narrow-based indexes. Rather, they are strategy-based indexes that
measure the relative total return of one stock and one ETF. Options on
Alpha Indexes are European-style and A.M. cash-settled. The trading
hours for options on the Alpha Indexes will be from 9:30 a.m. to 4:15
p.m. (Philadelphia Time).
    There will be at least two expiration months from the March, June,
September, December cycle plus two additional near-term months so that
the three nearest term months will always be available. Minimum strike
price intervals for Alpha Index options would be at 1 point intervals.
In addition, the minimum tick size for series of Alpha Index options
trading below $3 shall be $0.05, and for series trading at or above $3
shall be $0.10.

Listing Requirements

    Alpha Index options will be listed only on Alpha Indexes comprised
of Alpha Pairs that are actively traded. Rule 1009A, Designation of the
Index, is being amended to provide that at the time of the listing of
an Alpha Index option, options on each underlying component must also
be listed and traded on the Exchange and must meet the requirements of
Rule 1009, Criteria for Underlying Securities. Additionally, Rule 1009A
is being amended to provide that each underlying component's trading
volume (in all markets in which the underlying security is traded) must
have averaged at least 2,250,000 shares per day in the preceding twelve
months. Further, following the listing of an Alpha Index option,
options on each of the component securities of the Alpha Index must
continue to meet the continued listing standards set forth by Exchange
Rule 1010, Withdrawal of Approval of Underlying Securities or Options.
Also, each underlying component's trading volume (in all markets in
which the underlying security is traded) must have averaged at least
2,000,000 shares per day in the preceding twelve months.
    Finally, Rule 1009A is being amended to provide that no Alpha Index
option will be listed unless and until options overlying each of the
Alpha Index component securities have been listed and traded on a
national securities exchange with an average daily options trading
volume during the three previous months of at least 10,000 contracts.
Following the listing of an Alpha Index option, options on each of the
component securities of the Alpha Index must continue to meet this
options average daily volume standard.

Index Option Trading

    The Exchange proposes to list series of Alpha Index options at $1
or greater strike price intervals, and to list at least two strike
prices above and two strike prices below the current value of each
Alpha Index option at about the time a series is opened for trading on
the Exchange.\5\ The Exchange may also list additional strike prices at
any price point, with a minimum of a $1.00 interval between strike
prices, as required to meet the needs of customers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 1101A, Terms of Option Contracts, as
proposed to be amended.
    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Exchange Rule 1033A, Meaning of Premium Bids and Offers, bids
and offers in index options are to be expressed in terms of dollars and
decimal equivalents of dollars per unit of the index. As proposed by
the Exchange, the minimum tick size for series of Alpha Index options
trading below $3 will be $0.05 and for series trading at or above $3
will be $0.10; provided, however, that if options on either component
of an Alpha Pair have a minimum tick size of $0.01, options on the
Alpha Index will also have a minimum tick size of $0.01.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Rule 1034, Minimum Increments, as proposed to
be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Exchange Rule 1047A(c), trading in Alpha Index options
may be halted with the approval of an Options Exchange Official,
whenever trading on the primary market of one of the Alpha Pair
components is halted or suspended. Additionally, Exchange Rule 1047A(c)
provides that trading shall be halted whenever an Options Exchange
Official deems such action appropriate in the interests of a fair and
orderly market and to protect investors. Rule 1047A(c) is being amended
to provide that the Exchange will also halt trading in any Alpha Index
option whenever trading is halted in an option overlying one or both of
the components of the Alpha

Pair.\8\ Finally, the Exchange represents that if Nasdaq should cease
calculation of the Alpha Index due to a corporate event (such as a
merger) affecting one or more components of the Alpha Pair, the
Exchange will halt trading in the option and all open contracts will be
immediately settled at the last Alpha Index price to be disseminated.
Re-openings are conducted pursuant to Rule 1047A(d), which is being
amended so that it clearly applies to Alpha Indexes in addition to
stock indexes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Rule 1047A, Trading Rotations, Halts or
Reopenings, as proposed to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 1092, Obvious Errors and Catastrophic Errors, is being amended
to provide that trades of Alpha Index options on the Exchange will be
nullified pursuant to subsection (c)(iv)(C) of that rule if the trade
occurred during a trading halt on the primary market of either
component security of the Alpha Pair. The word ``percent'' is being
added to the previous clause applicable to stock index options to
correct an inadvertent omission in the existing rule text.
    The Exchange will trade consecutive and cycle month series pursuant
to Exchange Rule 1101A. Specifically, the Exchange represents that
there will be at least two expiration months from the March, June,
September, December cycle plus two additional near-term months so that
the three nearest term months will always be available. The trading
hours for options on Alpha Indexes will be from 9:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.
(Philadelphia Time).\9\ Alpha Index options are index options that are
available for FLEX trading.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Exchange Rules 1101A, Terms of Option Contracts,
Commentary .01, and 101, Hours of Business.
    \10\ See Exchange Rule 1079, FLEX Index, Equity and Currency
Options, as proposed to be amended. The Exchange also proposes that
separate position limits apply to FLEX Alpha Index options, which
are the same as the position limits applicable to non-FLEX Alpha
Index options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exercise and Settlement

    Options on any Alpha Index will expire on the Saturday following
the third Friday of the expiration month. Trading in the expiring
contract month will normally cease at 4:15 p.m. (Philadelphia Time) on
the last day of trading. Exercise will result in delivery of cash on
the business day following expiration. Additionally, Alpha Index
options will be A.M.-settled.\11\ The exercise settlement value will be
based upon the opening price of the individual stock or ETF from its
primary listing market on the last trading day prior to expiration
(usually a Friday).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exchange Rule 1009A, Designation of the Index, as
proposed to be amended.
    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The exercise settlement amount of an Alpha Index option will be
equal to the difference between the exercise settlement value and the
exercise price of the option, multiplied by $100. When the last trading
day is moved because of Exchange holidays, the last trading day for
expiring options will be the day immediately preceding the last
regularly-scheduled trading day.

Position Limits

    The Exchange proposes that the position limit for an option on an
Alpha Index shall be 60,000 contracts on the same side of the
market.\13\ For purposes of determining compliance with position
limits, positions in Alpha Index options will be aggregated with
positions in equity options on the underlying securities.\14\ All
position limit hedge exemptions will apply. Section (a) of Commentary
.01 to Rule 1001A is being amended by adding clause (iii), which
provides that each Alpha Index option position to be exempted under the
index hedge exemption must be hedged by a position in each of the
component securities underlying the Alpha Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Exchange Rule 1001A, Position Limits, as proposed to be
amended.
    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin

    The Exchange will set customer margin levels for Alpha Index
options at the level of the higher of the margin required for options
on the Target Component or the margin required for options on the
Benchmark Component.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Exchange Rule 721, Proper and Adequate Margin, as
proposed to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rules Applicable

    The Exchange represents that, except as modified in the proposed
rule change, Exchange Rules 1000A-1107A, Rules Applicable to Trading of
Options on Indices, will be applicable to Alpha Index options. The
Exchange proposes minor amendments to reflect the trading of Alpha
Index options, which are not the narrow-based or broad-based stock
index options that the Exchange currently trades, but rather are
strategy-based securities index options based upon an index whose
construction and calculation differ from those of stock index options.

Systems Capacity

    The Exchange affirms that it possesses the necessary systems
capacity to support any new series that would result from the
introduction of options on Alpha Indexes. The Exchange also represents
that it has been informed that the Options Price Reporting Authority
(``OPRA'') has the capacity to support such new series.

Clearing

    Alpha Index options are ``Strategy Based Options'' that will be
cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation.

Surveillance

    The Exchange represents that the surveillance for opening price
manipulation will be in place for the launch of options on Alpha
Indexes, and other existing surveillance patterns will be utilized to
monitor trading in options on each Alpha Index. The Exchange further
represents that these surveillance procedures are adequate to monitor
the trading of options on Alpha Indexes. For surveillance purposes, the
Exchange represents that it will have complete access to information
regarding trading activity in the pertinent underlying securities and
options thereon.

Customer Protection

    The Exchange represents that Exchange rules designed to protect
public customers who trade in options would apply to Alpha Index
options. Exchange Rule 1026 is designed to ensure that options,
including Alpha Index options, are sold only to customers capable of
evaluating and bearing the risks associated with trading in the
instruments. Exchange Rule 1024, applicable to the conduct of accounts,
Exchange Rule 1025 relating to the supervision of accounts, Exchange
Rule 1028 relating to confirmations, and Exchange Rule 1029 relating to
delivery of options disclosure documents also would apply to trading in
Alpha Index options.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\16\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a national securities exchange, the Phlx is required, under
Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\18\ to enforce compliance by its members,
and persons associated with its members, with the provisions of the
Act, Commission rules and regulations thereunder, and its own rules. In
addition, brokers that trade Alpha Index options will also be subject
to best execution obligations and FINRA rules.\19\ Applicable Exchange
rules also require that customers receive appropriate disclosure before
trading Alpha Index options.\20\ Furthermore, brokers opening accounts
and recommending options transactions must comply with relevant
customer suitability standards.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \19\ See NASD Rule 2320.
    \20\ See Exchange Rule 1029.
    \21\ See Exchange Rule 1026. See also Exchange Rules 1024 and
1025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The trading of options on Alpha Indexes will be governed by
Exchange Rules 1000A-1107A, the Exchange's trading rules for options on
indices. The Commission believes that the listing rules proposed by the
Exchange are consistent with the Act. The Commission also notes that
Alpha Index options will be listed only on specified Alpha Indexes.\22\
In addition, proposed changes to Rule 1009A requires that each
underlying component's trading volume (in all markets in which the
underlying security is traded) must have averaged at least 2,250,000
shares per day in the preceding twelve months and on a continuing basis
must have averaged at least 2,000,000 shares per day in the preceding
twelve months. The Commission believes that these requirements help to
ensure that only highly liquid securities would underlie Alpha Indexes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ AAPL/SPY, AMZN/SPY, CSCO/SPY, F/SPY, GE/SPY, GOOG/SPY, HPQ/
SPY, IBM/SPY, INTC/SPY, KO/SPY, MRK/SPY, MSFT/SPY, ORCL/SPY, PFE/
SPY, RIMM/SPY, T/SPY, TGT/SPY, VZ/SPY and WMT/SPY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that it will
have appropriate surveillance procedures in place for trading in Alpha
Index options. Opening price manipulation surveillance will be in place
for the launch of options on Alpha Indexes and other existing
surveillance patterns will be utilized to monitor trading in options on
each Alpha Index. In addition, for surveillance purposes, the Exchange
will have complete access to information regarding trading activity in
the pertinent underlying securities and options thereon. Further, the
Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed position and exercise
limits for the Alpha Index options are appropriate and consistent with
the Act.
    The Exchange has affirmed that it possesses the necessary systems
capacity to support any new series that would result from the
introduction of options on Alpha Indexes.\23\ In addition, one point
strike price intervals for Alpha Index options should provide investors
with flexibility in the trading of Alpha Index options and further the
public interest by allowing investors to establish positions that are
better tailored to meet their investment objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Commission notes that Alpha Index values will be
disseminated every second over the NASDAQ OMX Global Index Data
Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\24\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2010-176) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-3034 Filed 2-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 4892]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02644]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0082]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Suspected
Unapproved Parts Report

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The information collected on the FAA Form 8120-11 is
reported voluntarily by manufacturers, repair stations, aircraft owner/
operators, air carriers, and the general public who wish to report
suspected unapproved parts to the FAA for review. The report
information is collected and correlated by the FAA, Aviation Safety
Hotline Program Office, and used to determine if an unapproved part
investigation is warranted.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by April 22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Joseph
Palmisano, Federal Aviation Administration, AIR-600, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Palmisano by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0552.
    Title: Suspected Unapproved Parts Report.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8120-11.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The information collected on the FAA Form 8120-11 is
reported voluntarily by manufacturers, repair stations, aircraft owner/
operators, air carriers, and the general public who wish to report
suspected unapproved parts to the FAA for review. The report
information is collected and correlated by the FAA, Aviation Safety
Hotline Program Office, and used to determine if an unapproved part
investigation is warranted. When unapproved parts are confirmed that
are likely to exist on other products or aircraft of the same or
similar design or are being used in other facilities, the information
is used as a basis for an aviation industry alert or notification.
Alerts are used to inform industry of situations essential to the
prevention of accidents, if the information had not been collected. The
consequence to the aviation community would be the inability to
determine whether or not unapproved parts are being offered for sale or
use for installation on type-certificated products.
    Procedures and processes relating to the SUP program and associated
reports are found in FAA Order 8120.16A, Suspected Unapproved Parts
Program, and AC 21-29, Detecting and Reporting Suspected Unapproved
Parts. When unapproved parts are identified, the FAA notifies the
public by published Field Notifications (FN), disseminated using
Unapproved Parts Notifications (UPN), Aviation Maintenance Alerts,
Airworthiness Directives (AD), entry into an issue of the Service
Difficulty Reporting Summary, a Special Airworthiness Information
Bulletin, a display on an internet site, or direct mailing. Reporting
of information is strictly voluntary. The information is requested from
any individual or facility suspecting an unapproved part. Any burden is
minimized by requesting only necessary information to warrant an
investigation.
    Respondents: Anyone may fill out and send a Form 8120-11 into the
FAA.
    Frequency: Whenever anyone discovers or suspects they have received
an unapproved part.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: About 30 minutes to read and
disposition each form.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: The FAA collects approximately 208
forms from the public per year.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Joy Wolf,
Aviation Safety, Directives & Forms Management Officer (DMO/FMO),
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-02644 Filed 2-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 105 (Monday, June 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31220-31222]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12384]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0111]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Atlantic Ocean; Virginia Beach, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Virginia
Beach, VA. This safety zone will restrict vessel movement in the
specified area during the Virginia Symphony Orchestra Fireworks. This
action is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on
the surrounding navigable waters during the air show.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:15 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. on
September 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-0111]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 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 LCDR Hector Cintron, Waterways Management Division Chief,
Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Virginia Symphony Orchestra Firework Display over the Atlantic
Ocean in Virginia Beach, Virginia, is an annual event that has
previously been held on Wednesdays. It is typically included in the
table to 33 CFR 165.506, at section (c) event number ``9'', which
provides a recurring safety zone for certain annual events falling on
Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. However, in 2014, the organizers
will hold it on a Thursday. The perimeter of the safety zone and the
enforcement times remain the same as that from the table, only the day
of the week will change. A Notice to Proposed Rulemaking was published
on April 7, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR 19031). We received no
comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and
none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Spectator vessels may gather nearby to view the fireworks display.
Due to the need for vessel control during the fireworks display, vessel
traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of
participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Under provisions of 33
CFR 165.506, during the enforcement period, vessels may not enter the
regulated area unless they receive permission from the Coast Guard
Patrol Commander.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard will establish a safety zone on the waters of the
Atlantic Ocean within a 1000 yard radius of the center located near the
shoreline at position 36[deg]-51'-12'' N/075[deg]-58'-06'' W (NAD
1983), in the vicinity of Virginia Beach, Virginia. This safety zone
will be enforced on September 11, 2014 between the hours of 9:15 p.m.
and 9:45 p.m. Access to the safety zone will be restricted during the
specified dates and times.
    Except for vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his
Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety
zone during the time frame listed. The Captain of the Port will give
notice of the enforcement of the safety zone by all appropriate means
to provide the widest dissemination of notice among the affected
segments of the public. This will include publication in the Local
Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The primary impact of
these regulations will be on vessels wishing to transit the affected
waterways during the safety zone on the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity
of Virginia Beach, VA from 9:15 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. on September 11,
2014. Although these regulations prevent traffic from transiting a
portion of the Atlantic Ocean during these events, that restriction is
limited in duration, affects only a limited area, and will be well
publicized to allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting
the affected area.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in waters of the Atlantic Ocean during the outlined
timeframe.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) The
safety zone will only be in place for a limited duration, and (ii)
before the enforcement period, maritime advisories will be issued
allowing mariners to adjust their plans accordingly.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    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, above.
    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.

4. 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).

5. Federalism

    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 determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (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 the establishment of a safety zone.
This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34-g of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist was determined not to be necessary because the
event's environmental impact was already assessed for the existing
regulation that covers the same time and location for other days of the
week. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0111 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0111  Safety Zone, Atlantic Ocean; Virginia Beach, VA.

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, Captain of the
Port means the Commander, Sector Hampton Roads. Representative means
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: specified waters
of the Captain of the Port Sector Hampton Roads zone, as defined in 33
CFR 3.25-10, all waters of the Atlantic Ocean within 1000 yards of
36[deg]-51'-12'' N/075[deg]-58'-06'' W (NAD 1983) in Virginia Beach,
VA.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated
representatives.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this
safety zone shall:
    (i) Contact on scene contracting vessels via VHF channel 13 and 16
for passage instructions.
    (ii) If on scene proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant
or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a
U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
    (3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads can be reached through
the Sector Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads

in Portsmouth, Virginia at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) The Coast Guard Representatives enforcing the safety zone can
be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 Mhz) and
channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
    (d) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 9:15
p.m. until 9:45 p.m. on September 11, 2014.

    Dated: May 13, 2014.
John K. Little,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2014-12384 Filed 5-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54954-54955]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21676]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2013-0089]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This
document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA
intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number at the
heading of this notice by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by
clicking on ``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact James Bean, Office of Data
Acquisitions (NVS-410), Room W53-489, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Bean's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submissions of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:
    Title: National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Law Enforcement
Information
    Type of Request: New information collection
    OMB Control Number: Not assigned
    Affected Public: Law Enforcement Agencies
    Abstract: This collection of information is part of NHTSA's efforts
to upgrade its crash data systems. NHTSA's National Automotive Sampling
System (NASS) collects crash data on a nationally representative sample
of police-reported traffic crashes and related injuries. NASS data are
used by government, industry, and academia in the U.S. and around the
world to make informed highway safety decisions.
    Recognizing the importance as well as the limitations of the
current NASS system, NHTSA is undertaking a modernization effort to
upgrade its data

systems by improving the information technology (IT) infrastructure,
updating the data collected, and reexamining the NASS sample sites and
sample size.
    The current data system samples crashes through a clustered sample
of law enforcement agencies that were selected decades ago. Using
updated population and other auxiliary information, NHTSA has
identified a new set of probabilistically selected geographic locations
around the country that are expected to provide a more accurate traffic
safety picture, more precise estimates, and greater insight into new
and emerging data needs.
    This collection of information will assist NHTSA with the next step
in updating the NASS sample design, which is to select a fresh sample
of law enforcement agencies within these primary sampling units (PSUs).
This requires compiling basic crash count data from every law
enforcement agency that responds to motor vehicle crashes in the PSUs.
This data would be used to construct a measure of size in order to make
informed and efficient choices in the probabilistic selection of the
second stage sample units, the law enforcement agencies.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 2,900 hours (2 hours per respondent).
    Number of Respondents: 1,450

    Issued in Washington, DC on: August 30, 2013.
Terry T. Shelton,
Associate Administrator, National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2013-21676 Filed 9-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P