[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31056-31058]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14089]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0009; FRL-9962-59]

Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and
Federal Agency Crisis Declarations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted emergency exemptions under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of
pesticides as

listed in this notice. The exemptions were granted during the period
January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 to control unforeseen pest outbreaks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
    [emsp14]Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    [emsp14]Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    [emsp14]Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    [emsp14]Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of
the emergency exemption.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0009, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    EPA has granted emergency exemptions to the following State and
Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form:
Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific.
    Under FIFRA section 18 (7 U.S.C. 136p), EPA can authorize the use
of a pesticide when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations
(commonly called emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal
agencies and are of four types:
    1. A ``specific exemption'' authorizes use of a pesticide against
specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most
emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.
    2. ``Quarantine'' and ``public health'' exemptions are emergency
exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are
rarely requested.
    3. A ``crisis exemption'' is initiated by a State or Federal agency
(and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request
and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.
    EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency
cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses
unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a
conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in ``a
reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health, including exposure
of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.
    If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity
would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-
limited tolerance meeting the ``reasonable certainty of no harm
standard'' of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
    In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency
granted the exemption, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized
and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, number of acres
(if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also gives the
Federal Register citation for the time-limited tolerance, if any.

III. Emergency Exemptions

A. U.S. States and Territories

Alabama
    Department of Agriculture and Industries
    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 45,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control
sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this
action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective April 9,
2017 to October 31, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 75,000 acres
of cotton to control tarnished plant bugs. Tolerances in connection
with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a);
Effective June 1, 2017 to October 31, 2017.
Arkansas
State Plant Board
    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 420,000 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bugs.
Tolerances in connection with a previous action have been established
in 40 CFR 180.668(a); Effective June 1, 2017 to October 31, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 50,000 acres
of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-
limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established
in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective April 9, 2017 to September 15, 2017.
Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the uses of streptomycin and
oxytetracycline on a maximum of 388,534 acres of citrus to manage HLB
or citrus greening disease caused by the bacteria, Candidatus
Liberibacter Asiaticus. Time-limited tolerances in connection with
these actions have been established at 40 CFR 180.337(b)
(oxytetracycline) and 180.245(b) (streptomycin). Effective January 10,
2017 to December 31, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of tolfenpyrad on a maximum of 51,600 acres
of fruiting vegetables to control various thrips. A time-limited
tolerance in connection with this action have been established in 40
CFR 180.675(b); Effective March 1, 2017 to March 1, 2018.
Louisiana
Department of Agriculture and Forestry
    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 180,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control
sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this
action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective April 9,
2017 to November 30, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 175,000 acres
of cotton to control tarnished plant bugs. Tolerances in connection
with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a);
Effective May 15, 2017 to October 31, 2017.
    Quarantine exemption: EPA authorized the use of triclopyr on a
maximum of 382,467 acres of sugarcane

to control Merrill's nightshade. A time-limited tolerance in connection
with this action will be established in 40 CFR 180.417(b); Effective
February 10, 2017 to May 31, 2020.
Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole on
mushroom spawn and supplement equivalent to a maximum of 83,750,000
square feet of crop to control Trichoderma green mold. A time-limited
tolerance in connection with a previous action is established at 40 CFR
180.242(a); Effective March 17, 2017 to March 17, 2018.
Texas
Department of Agriculture
    Crisis exemption: On March 17, 2017, the Texas Department of
Agriculture declared a crisis exemption to allow the use of tolfenpyrad
on a maximum of 10,000 acres of dry bulb onions to control onion
thrips. The need for this use is expected beyond the 15 days allowed
under a crisis exemption, and a specific exemption request was
submitted to the Agency. A time-limited tolerance in connection with
this action will be established in 40 CFR 180.675(b); Effective March
14, 2017 to March 31, 2017.
    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 3,000,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control
sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this
action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective April 9,
2017 to November 30, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of clothianidin on a maximum of 4,000 acres
of immature citrus trees to manage the transmission of Huanglongbing
(HLB) disease vectored by the Asian citrus psyllid. A time-limited
tolerance in connection with this action was established in 40 CFR
180.668(b); Effective May 1, 2017 to May 1, 2018.

B. Federal Department and Agency

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspector Service
    Quarantine exemptions: EPA authorized the use of methyl bromide on
post-harvest unlabeled imported/domestic commodities to prevent the
introduction/spread of any new or recently introduced foreign pest(s)
to any U.S. geographical location; March 1, 2017 to March 1, 2020.
    EPA authorized the planting of 100% of cotton acreage to transgenic
(Bt) cotton as a component of the Pink Bollworm (PBW) Eradication
Program in the PBW eradication area of California. A potential maximum
of an additional 1,600 acres could be planted to Bt cotton under this
quarantine exemption. Effective: March 9, 2017 to March 9, 2020.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: May 26, 2017.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-14089 Filed 7-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


In conclusion, although GABAA receptor mediated neurotoxicity is a strong hypothesis as a common mechanism endpoint for the macrocyclic lactone pesticides, data demonstrating the interactions of emamectin and abamectin with mammalian GABAA receptors are not available, and data in mammalian preparations linking alterations in GABAA receptor function to disruptions in neuronal excitability in vitro and in vivo, and ultimately adverse outcome, are also currently lacking for this class of compounds.  In the absence of such data, the key biological steps leading to the adverse outcome (i.e, the mammalian mechanism of action) cannot be established and by extension a CMT cannot be established.

For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.

7.0 Occupational Exposure/Risk Characterization

Based on the anticipated use patterns and current labeling, types of equipment and techniques that can potentially be used, occupational handler exposure is expected from the proposed uses.  The quantitative exposure/risk assessment developed for occupational handlers is based on the following scenarios:
   1. Mixing/loading liquids to support groundboom applications (cotton/strawberries),
   2. Mixing/loading liquids to support aerial applications (cotton only),
   3. Flagging to support aerial application (cotton only),
   4. Applying sprays with groundboom equipment (cotton/strawberries), and
   5. Applying sprays with aerial equipment (cotton only).

Agricultural workers performing typical post-application activities (e.g. scouting, irrigation, transplanting/harvesting, etc.) may receive short- and intermediate-term exposure to abamectin residues.

9.1	Short-/Intermediate-Term Handler Risk

The results of the occupational handler exposure and risk assessment indicate that short- and intermediate-term dermal and inhalation risks do not exceed HED's LOC (i.e., an MOE < 300) at some level of mitigation.  The abamectin product labels direct mixers, loaders, applicators and other handlers to wear a long-sleeved shirt and long pants, chemical-resistant gloves, and shoes plus socks.  For short- and intermediate-term exposure, the combined (dermal + inhalation) MOEs for mixer/loader scenarios range from 150 to 2,300 at baseline level of clothing (single layer long-sleeved shirt, long pants, and shoes plus socks).  With single layer plus gloves as required by the label, the lowest MOE of 150 increases to 600.  All uses have acceptable MOEs given the proposed label requirements.  For flaggers, the MOE is 2,700 at baseline (no gloves, no respirator).  Only engineering control (enclosed cockpit) data are available to assess risks to handlers operating aircrafts.  For ground and aerial applicators the MOEs range from 1,900 to 4,800 (no gloves, no respirator).

The Agency has evaluated scenarios that may be limited in nature such as flagging during aerial applications because engineering controls (i.e., Global Positioning Satellite technology) are now predominantly used as indicated by the 1998 National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) survey of their membership.  It appears, however, flaggers are still used in approximately 10 to 15 percent of aerial application operations.  In cases like these, the Agency strongly encourages the use of the engineering control system but will continue to evaluate risks for flaggers and any other population where a clear exposure pathway exists until the potential for exposure is eliminated.  The Agency is aware that NAAA is conducting another survey on exposure issues and will consider those results as are timely and appropriate.

HED has no data to assess exposures to pilots using open cockpits.  The only data available is for exposure to pilots in enclosed cockpits.  Therefore, risks to pilots are assessed using the engineering control (enclosed cockpits) and baseline attire (long-sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks); pilots are not required to wear protective gloves.  With this level of protection, there are no risk estimates of concern for applicators.

Table 9.1.  Short- and Intermediate-Term Occupational Exposure and Risk Estimates for Abamectin Use on Cotton and Strawberries.[a]
                                     Crop
                               Exposure Scenario
                            Dermal Unit Exposure[b]
                          Inhalation Unit Exposure[b]
                          Maximum Application Rate[c]
                             Area Treated Daily[d]
                                    Dermal
                                  Inhalation
                                     Total

                                    Dose[e]
                                    MOE[f]
                                    Dose[g]
                                    MOE[h]
                                    MOE[i]

                                   ug/lb ai
                                   ug/lb ai
                                    lb ai/A
                                       A
                                   mg/kg/day

                                   mg/kg/day

              Mixer/Loader at Baseline (No Gloves, No Respirator)
                                 Strawberries
               Mixing/Loading Liquids for Groundboom Application
                                      220
                                     0.219
                                     0.019
                                      80
                                   0.0000488
                                     2,500
                                  0.00000486
                                    25,000
                                     2,300
                                    Cotton
               Mixing/Loading Liquids for Groundboom Application
                                      220
                                     0.219
                                     0.019
                                      200
                                   0.000122
                                      980
                                   0.0000121
                                     9,900
                                      890
                                    Cotton
                 Mixing/Loading Liquids for Aerial Application
                                      220
                                     0.219
                                     0.019
                                     1200
                                   0.000732
                                      160
                                   0.0000729
                                     1,600
                                      150
         Mixer/Loader with PPE (Single Layer + Gloves, No Respirator)
                                    Cotton
                 Mixing/Loading Liquids for Aerial Application
                                     37.6
                                     0.219
                                     0.019
                                     1200
                                   0.000125
                                      960
                                   0.0000729
                                     1,600
                                      600
               Applicator at Baseline (No Gloves, No Respirator)
                                 Strawberries
                   Applying Sprays via Groundboom Equipment
                                     78.6
                                     0.34
                                     0.019
                                      80
                                   0.0000174
                                     6,900
                                  0.00000755
                                    16,000
                                     4,800
                                    Cotton
                   Applying Sprays via Groundboom Equipment
                                     78.6
                                     0.34
                                     0.019
                                      200
                                   0.0000436
                                     2800
                                   0.0000188
                                     6,400
                                     1,900
                                    Cotton
                              Applying Sprays via
                              Aerial Equipment[*]
                                       5
                                     0.068
                                     0.019
                                     1200
                                   0.0000167
                                     7200
                                   0.0000226
                                     5,300
                                     3,100
                Flagger at Baseline (No Gloves, No Respirator)
                                    Cotton
                                 Flagging for
                              Aerial Application
                                      11
                                     0.35
                                     0.019
                                      350
                                   0.0000107
                                    11,000
                                   0.0000339
                                     3,500
                                     2,700
a	All estimates are at baseline mitigation except for aerial applicator which includes the engineering control of enclosed cockpits.
b	Unit Exposures based on PHED Version 1.1. Baseline = no gloves, no respirator.  [*]Baseline aircraft = engineering controls.
c	Based on proposed label amendments (Reg. Nos. 100-1351 and 100-1408).
d	Acres Treated Per Day is taken from Exposure Science Advisory Council (ExpoSAC) Policy No. 9.1.
e	Dermal Dose = Dermal Unit Exposure (μg/lb ai) x Conversion Factor (0.001 mg/μg) x Application Rate (lb ai/acre) x Area Treated or Amount Handled (A) x DAF (%) / BW (69 kg). Dermal absorption factor = 1%.
f	Dermal MOE = Dermal NOAEL (mg/kg/day)/Dermal Dose (mg/kg/day). ST/IT Dermal NOAEL = 0.12 mg/kg/day. LOC = 300.
g	Inhalation Dose = Inhalation Unit Exposure (μg/lb ai) x Conversion Factor (0.001 mg/μg) x Application Rate (lb ai/acre) x Area Treated (A) / BW (69 kg).
h	Inhalation MOE = Inhalation NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / Inhalation Dose (mg/kg/day). ST/IT Inhalation NOAEL = 0.12 mg/kg/day. LOC = 300.
i	Total MOE = NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / (Dermal Dose + Inhalation Dose). ST/IT NOAEL = 0.12 mg/kg/day. LOC = 300.

9.2	Short-/Intermediate-Term Post-Application Exposures and Risks

The post-application MOEs do not exceed HED's LOC of 300 (MOEs ranged from 1,800 to 28,000) on day 0 (12 hours after application).

Table 9.2.  Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Occupational/Commercial Post-Application Risk Estimates for Abamectin.
                                     Crop
                                  Activities
                        Transfer Coefficient (cm[2]/hr)
                                    DFR[1]
                                 Dermal Dose
                                (mg/kg/day)[2]
                                    MOE[3]
                              Cotton/Strawberries
                                   Scouting
                                      70
                                    0.0533
                                  0.00000433
                                    28,000

                                 Hand Weeding
                                      210

                                   0.0000130
                                     9,200
                                 Strawberries
                          Scouting, Canopy Management
                                      70

                                  0.00000433
                                    28,000

                                 Hand Weeding
                                      210

                                   0.0000130
                                     9,200

                                 Transplanting
                                      230

                                   0.0000142
                                     8,500

                                Hand Harvesting
                                     1,100

                                   0.0000680
                                     1,800
a	DFR = Application Rate x F x (1-D)t x 4.54E8 ug/lb x 2.47E-8 acre/cm[2]; where F = 0.25 and D = 0.10 per day.
b	Daily Dermal Dose = [DFR (ug/cm[2]) x Transfer Coefficient x 0.001 mg/ug x 8 hrs/day x dermal absorption (1%)]  BW (69 kg).
c	MOE = NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / Daily Dermal Dose.  Daily Dermal Dose = [DFR/TTR (ug/cm[2]) x TC x 0.001 mg/ug x 8 hrs/day x dermal absorption]  BW (69 kg). ST/IT Dermal NOAEL = 0.12 mg/kg/day. LOC = 300.

Restricted Entry Interval
The REI specified on the proposed label is based on the acute toxicity of abamectin.  Abamectin is classified as Toxicity Category III via the dermal route and Toxicity Category III for skin irritation potential.  It is not a skin sensitizer.  Short- and intermediate-term post-application risk estimates were not a concern on day 0 (12 hours following application) for all post-application activities.  Under 40 CFR 156.208 (c) (2) (iii), active ingredients classified as Acute Toxicity Category III or IV for acute dermal, eye irritation and primary skin irrigation are assigned a 12-hour REI.  Therefore, the [156 subpart K] Worker Protection Statement interim REI of 12 hours is adequate to protect agricultural workers from post-application exposures to abamectin.

Occupational Post-Application Inhalation Exposure
Based on the Agency's current practices, a quantitative post-application inhalation exposure assessment was not performed for abamectin at this time primarily because of the low proposed use rate (0.019 lb ai/A) and low vapor pressure (1.13 x 10[-9] mmHg at 25ºC).  However, there are multiple potential sources of post-application inhalation exposure to individuals performing post-application activities in previously treated fields.  These potential sources include volatilization of pesticides and resuspension of dusts and/or particulates that contain pesticides.  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, and received the SAP's final report on March 2, 2010. The Agency is in the process of evaluating the SAP report as well as available post-application inhalation exposure data generated by the the Agricultural Reentry Task Force (ARTF) and may, as appropriate, develop policies and procedures, to identify the need for and, subsequently, the way to incorporate occupational 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 occupational post-application inhalation exposure assessment for abamectin.

Although a quantitative occupational post-application inhalation exposure assessment was not performed, an inhalation exposure assessment was performed for occupational/commercial handlers.  Handler exposure resulting from application of pesticides outdoors is likely to result in higher exposure than post-application exposure.  Therefore, it is expected that these handler inhalation exposure estimates would be protective of most occupational post-application inhalation exposure scenarios.

10.0	References

N. Dodd, 8/24/11, DP No. D393232, Abamectin.  Amendment to the Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on the Bulb Onion Subgroup 3-07A, Chives, and Dry Beans to include Cowpea in the Dry Bean Tolerance.

N. Dodd, 7/18/11, DP No. D380523, Abamectin.  Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on the Bulb Onion Subgroup 3-07A, Chives, and Dry Beans.

N. Dodd, 12/17/12, DP No. D401832, Abamectin.  Petition to Increase the Established Permanent Tolerances on Strawberry and Cotton and to Add Uses on Strawberry and Cotton to Agri-Mek(R)  SC and Epi-Mek(TM) SC Labels.  Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data.

N. Dodd, 12/19/12, DP No. D403715, Abamectin.  Acute and Chronic Aggregate Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Section 3 Registration Action for Use of a Suspension Concentrate (SC) Formulation on Cotton and Strawberry.

	N. Tsaur, 12/20/2012, DP No. D405841,  Abamectin.  Occupational Exposure Assessment for a Label Amendment for Use on Cotton and Strawberries with An Updated Residential Exposure Assessment of All Existing Residential Uses (Lawns/Turf and Indoor Environments).

G. Orrick, 1/31/11, DP No. D380524, Abamectin.  Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Proposed Section 3 New Uses on Chives, Dried Beans, and the Bulb Onion Subgroup 3-07A.
Appendix A.  Toxicology Profile and Executive Summaries

A.1	Toxicology Data Requirements
The requirements (40 CFR 158.340) for [Type of Use (e.g., food vs. non food)] for abamectin are in Table 1. Use of the new guideline numbers does not imply that the new (1998) guideline protocols were used.

                                     Study
                                   Technical

                                   Required
                                   Satisfied
870.1100    Acute Oral Toxicity
870.1200    Acute Dermal Toxicity
870.1300    Acute Inhalation Toxicity
870.2400    Acute Eye Irritation
870.2500    Acute Dermal Irritation
870.2600    Skin Sensitization
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
870.3100    90-Day Oral Toxicity in Rodents
870.3150    90-Day Oral Toxicity in Nonrodents
870.3200    21/28-Day Dermal Toxicity
870.3250    90-Day Dermal Toxicity
870.3465    90-Day Inhalation Toxicity
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      CR
                                      CR
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                       a
                                       -
                                      yes
870.3700a  Prenatal Developmental Toxicity (rodent)
870.3700b  Prenatal Developmental Toxicity (nonrodent)
870.3800    Reproduction and Fertility Effects
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
870.4100a  Chronic Toxicity (rodent)
870.4100b  Chronic Toxicity (nonrodent)
870.4200a  Carcinogenicity (rat)
870.4200b  Carcinogenicity (mouse)
870.4300    Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity
                                      yes
                                      no
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
870.5100    Mutagenicity -- Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test
870.5300    Mutagenicity -- Mammalian Cell Gene Mutation Test
870.5xxx    Mutagenicity -- Structural Chromosomal Aberrations
870.5xxx    Mutagenicity -- Other Genotoxic Effects
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
870.6200a  Acute Neurotoxicity Screening Battery (rat)
870.6200b  90-Day Neurotoxicity Screening Battery (rat)
870.6300    Developmental Neurotoxicity
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
870.7485    Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics
870.7600    Dermal Penetration
870.7800    Immunotoxicity
                                      yes
                                      CR
                                      Yes
                                      yes
                                      yes
                                      no
[a]: This study was waived.
A.2	Toxicity Profiles

Table A.2.1.  Acute Toxicity Profile of Abamectin Technical
Guideline No.
Study Type
MRID #
Results
Toxicity Category
870.1100
Acute Oral - rat
(sesame oil vehicle)
006894
LD50 = 13.6 mg/kg
 I
870.1100
Acute Oral - rat
(methyl cellulose vehicle)
45607202
LD50=214-232 mg/kg
 II
870.1200
Acute Dermal - rabbit
00255978
LD50 = 2000 mg/kg
 III
870.1300
Acute Inhalation - rat
45623501
LC50 =<0.21 mg/L (nose only)
 I
870.2400
Primary Eye  Irritation
45063501
not an irritant
 IV
870.2500
Primary Skin Irritation
41123904
slight irritation
 III
870.2600
Dermal Sensitization
00139564
negative in Buehler
 Negative
870.6200a
Acute Neurotoxicity
none
none
 none

Table A.2.2.  Toxicity Profile of Abamectin Technical for Repeated Dosing and Genotoxicity Studies
                           Guideline No./ Study Type
                    MRID No. (year)/ Classification /Doses
                                    Results
870.3100
Subchronic feeding study-rats
00131081 (1982)
Acceptable/Non-guideline
0, 0.10, 0.20, 0.40 mg/kg/day
NOAEL > 0.40 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = not established
870.3150
Subchronic toxicity
Dogs (18 week gavage study)
00131082 (1982)
Acceptable/Guideline
0, 0.25, 0.5, 2.0, 8.0 mg/kg/day
NOAEL = 0.25 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 0.50 mg/kg/day based on body tremors, one death, liver pathology, decreased body weight. Mydriasis was seen during week one in one dog.
870.3150
12-Week dose range finding study-dogs (feeding)
 00164152 (1982)
0.25, 0.50, 1.0, and 4.0/2.0 mg/kg/day (during week 4, 4.0 mg/kg/day was reduced to 2.0 mg/kg/day  due to tremor, weakness, incoordination, and disorientation)
The report stated that mydriasis was seen in 1.0 and 4.0 mg/kg/day dogs during week 1.The effect was not seen at each examination day for any dog, but it was generally noted from 1 to 5 times a week. However, mydriasis was never noted at 0.5 and 0.25 mg/kg/day.
870.3200
21/28-Day dermal toxicity
Study not available.
Study requirement was waived due to very low dermal absorption (<1%).
870.3465
30-Day inhalation tox.-rats
46921502 (2006)
Acceptable/Guideline
NOAEL = >2.5 μg/L (0.0025 mg/L) (HDT) (≈0.68 mg/kg/day)

870.4300a
Combined Chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity- rats
 40069601, 40375511, 40517801  (1985)
Acceptable/Guideline
0, 0.75, 1.5, 2.0 mg/kg/day

NOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 2.0 mg/kg/day based on tremors
No evidence of carcinogenicity
870.4100b
Chronic toxicity dogs
40375510 (1987)
Acceptable/Guideline
0, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 mg/kg/day
NOAEL = 0.25 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 0.5 mg/kg/day based on mydriasis during week one, death at 1.0 mg/kg/day
870.4300b
Combined Chronic toxicity/Carcinogenicity- mice
40069602, 40375512, 40517801 (1985)
Acceptable/Guideline
0, 2, 4, 8 mg/kg/day
NOAEL = 4.0 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 8.0 mg/kg/day based on increased mortality in males, tremors, body weight decreases in females, dermatitis in males, extramedullary hematopoiesis in spleen of males
No evidence of carcinogenicity
870.3700a
Prenatal developmental
in rodents-rats
Accession: 00130819 (1982)
Acceptable/guideline
0, 0.4, 0.8, 1.6 mg/kg/day
Maternal NOAEL > 1.6 mg/kg/day
Maternal LOAEL = not established
Developmental NOAEL > 1.6 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = not established
870.3700a
Prenatal developmental in rodents-CD-1 mouse
44179901 (1999)
Acceptable/Non-Guideline
0, 0.75, 1.5, 3.0 mg/kg/day
Maternal NOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/day
Maternal LOAEL = 3.0 mg/kg/day based on hind limb splay

Developmental NOAEL < 0.75 mg/kg/day
Developmental LOAEL = 0.75 mg/kg/day based on hind limb extension
870.3700b
Prenatal developmental
in nonrodents-rabbits

Accession: 00130819 (1982)
Acceptable./Guideline
0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 mg/kg/day
Maternal NOAEL = 1.0 mg/kg/day
Maternal LOAEL = 2.0 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight, food consumption and water consumption
Developmental NOAEL = 1.0 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 2.0 mg/kg/day based on cleft palate, clubbed foot, delayed ossification of sternebrae, metacarpals, phalanges
870.3800a
2-Generation Reproduction and fertility effects-rat
00164151 (1984)
Acceptable/Guideline
0, 0.05, 0.12, 0.40 mg/kg/day
Parental/Systemic NOAEL = 0.40 mg/kg/day
LOAEL =not established
Reproductive NOAEL = 0.40 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = not established
Offspring NOAEL = 0.12 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 0.40 mg/kg/day based on increased retinal folds, increased dead pups at birth, decreased viability and lactation indices, decreased pup body weight
870.3800b
1-Generation Reproduction and fertility effects-rat
00096450
Unacceptable/Non-Guideline
0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5/2.0 mg/kg/day
Parental/Systemic NOAEL = 1.0 mg/kg/day.
LOAEL=1.5/2.0 based on whole body tremors, ataxia, ptyalis, ocular/nasal discharges and mortality
Reproductive NOAEL = 3.0 mg/kg/day
Offspring NOAEL < 0.5 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 0.5 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup survival and body weight between days 1-21 and delay in opening of eyes
870.3800c
1-Generation Reproduction and fertility effects- rat
00096451
Unacceptable/Non-guideline

0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 mg/kg/day
Parental/Systemic NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = not established
Reproductive NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kg/day
Offspring NOAEL =0.1 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 0.2 mg/kg/day based on spastic movements and, delayed incisor eruption
870.3800c
1-Generation Reproduction and fertility effects- rat
40713404 (1988)
Acceptable/Non-guideline
0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 mg/kg/day
with delta-8,9 isomer
0, 0.06, 0.12, 0.40 mg/kg/day
Parental/Systemic NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = not established
Reproductive NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kg/day
Offspring NOAEL =0.4 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = not established
Gene Mutation
870.5100
Ames/Salmonella
E.coli/mammalian gene mutation assay
Accession: 246894, 265568, 265569 (1986)
Acceptable/Guideline
Three studies: (1) 0, 3, 10, 30, 100, 1000 ug/plate, (2) 0, 100, 300, 1000, 3000, 10,000 ug/plate both with and without S-9, (3) doses not specified.
negative both with and without S-9
870-6100
Acute neurotoxicity in rats (gavage)
46959202 (2006)
Acceptable/guideline
0.5, 1.5, and 6.0 mg/kg
NOAEL = 0.5 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/day based on reduced splay reflex in males and females. At high dose, decreased motor activity, reduced splay reflex, & tip toe gait were seen. No death or histopathological changes in nervous system were found.
870-6200
Subchronic neurotoxicity in rats (gavage)
46959201 (2006)
Acceptable/guideline
0.4, 1.6, and 4.0 mg/kg/day
NOAEL = 1.6 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 4.0 mg/kg/day based on upward curvature of the spine,
tip-toe gate, decreased fore- and hind-limb grip strength. Decreased body was also seen. This dose group was terminated prematurely  at week 7.
870-630
Developmental neurotoxicity study in rats

46727403, 46727402, 46727401 (2005)
Acceptable/nonguideline
0.12, 0.20, and 0.40 mg/kg/day. Pups were not directly dose.
Maternal NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kg/day (HDT)
Offspring NOAEL = 0.2 mg/kg/day.
Offspring LOAEL= 0.4 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight in males and females..
870-6200
Developmental neurotoxicity study in rats

47116201 (2007)
Acceptable/nonguideline
0.12, 0.20, and 0.40 mg/kg/day.  Pups were not directly dosed.
Maternal NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kg/day (HDT)
Offspring NOAEL =0.12 mg/kg/day.
Offspring LOAEL = 0.2 mg/kg/day based on slight but statistically significant decrease in pup body weight.
Gene Mutation
870.5100
Ames/Salmonella
E.coli/mammalian gene mutation assay
40713402 (1988)
Acceptable/Guideline
doses not specified up to 3000 ug/plate both with and without S-9 using delta-8,9 isomer
negative both with and without S-9 up to 3000 ug/plate
Gene Mutation
870.5100
Ames/Salmonella
E.coli/mammalian gene mutation assay
40713405 (1988)
Acceptable/Guideline
doses up to 10,000 ug/plate both with and without S-9 using polar degradates
negative both with and without S-9
Gene Mutation
870.5300
CHO/HGPRT
Forward Mutation Assay
265570 (1986)
Acceptable/Guideline
both with and without S-9
Negative
Gene Mutation
870.5300
Mammalian cells in culture in V79 cells
MRID Unavailable
1983
Acceptable/Guideline

Not mutagenic for V79 cells in absence of S-9, but in the presence of S-9 appeared to have a mutagenic potential, provided the test cells had an appropriate level of sensitivity
Cytogenetics
870.5395
in vivo micronucleus assay -male mice
MRID Unavailable
Acceptable/non-Guideline
0, 1.2, 12.0 mg/kg  i.p.
No chromosomal aberrations in male mice, but females not tested
Other Effects
870.5550
MRID Unavailable
(1983)
0.3 and 0.6 mM
single strand DNA breaks at 0.3 and 0.6 mM in rat hepatocytes in vitro, but negative when hepatocytes from rat at LD50 dose level was used
Metabolism
Accession: 252114
Unacceptable/Non-Guideline
69-82% of label is excreted in feces by day 7; T(1/2)=1.2 days.  The reliability of these data is questionable.
Metabolism
No MRID
(1985)
Nonguideline
Avermectin B1a did not bioaccumulate in rat tissues.  Half-life slightly longer in females than in males for several tissues.
Metabolism
No MRID
(1985)
Nonguideline
The metabolism of avermectin B1 in rats results in the formation of 24-OH-Me-B1a and accounts for most of the radiolabeled residues.  Avermectin B1a does not bioaccumulate.
870.7600
Dermal penetration
 Accession: 265590 (1986)
Acceptable/
Nonguideline in Monkeys
The result showed the dermal absorption to be <1% of the applied dose. For risk assessment, a dermal penetration factor of 1% was recommended.

     Table A.2.3.  Toxicity Profile of Abamectin Technical - for CF1 Mice
                           Guideline No./ Study Type
                       MRID No. / Classification /Doses
                                    Results
870.3700a
Prenatal developmental in rodents- CF1 mouse
44160501 (1996)
Acceptable/Non-Guideline
0, 1.5 mg/kg/day on gestation days (GD) 6-15 to females which were heterozygous (+/-) and homozygous (-/-, +/+) for p-glycoprotein and then mated to heterozygous and homozygous males
Maternal NOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/day
Maternal LOAEL = not established
97% of (-,-) fetuses, 40% of (+,-) fetuses, and 0% of (+,+) fetuses had cleft palate.  It was determined that the observed increase in cleft palate in CF-1 mice following treatment appears to be a consequence of fetal P-glycoprotein genotype.
870.3700a
Prenatal developmental
in rodents-CF1 mouse
Accession: 265564 (1986)
Acceptable/Guideline
0, 1.5, 3.0, 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50 mg/kg/day with delta-8,9 isomer
Maternal NOAEL < 1.5 mg/kg/day
Maternal LOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/day (mortality)
Developmental NOAEL < 1.5  mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/day based on increased cleft palate
870.3700a
Prenatal developmental in rodents-CF1 mouse
Accession: 265564 (1986)
Acceptable/Guideline
0, 0.03, 0.1, 0.5  mg/kg/day with delta-8,9 isomer
Maternal NOAEL = 0.1 mg/kg/day
Maternal LOAEL = 0.5 mg/kg/day (mortality)
Developmental NOAEL = 0.03  mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 0.1 mg/kg/day based on increased cleft palate
870.3700a
Prenatal developmental in rodents-CF1 mouse
Accession: 265564 (1985)
Acceptable/Guideline
0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0 mg/kg/day with deta-8,9 isomer
Maternal NOAEL = 0.1 mg/kg/day
Maternal LOAEL = 0.5 mg/kg/day (mortality)
Developmental NOAEL = 0.05  mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 0.1 mg/kg/day based on increased cleft palate
870.3700a
Prenatal developmental in rodents-CF1 mouse
Accession: 40912701 (1988)
Acceptable/Guideline
0, 0.25, 0.50, 1.0 mg/kg/day with citrus derived polar degradates
Maternal NOAEL > 1.0 mg/kg/day
Maternal LOAEL = not established
Developmental NOAEL > 1.0  mg/kg/day
LOAEL =not established
870.3700a
Prenatal developmental in rodents-CF1 mouse
Accession: 073759, 073761 (1984)
Acceptable/Non-Guideline
0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.6 mg/kg/day
Maternal NOAEL = 0.1 mg/kg/day
Maternal LOAEL = 0.3 mg/kg/day (mortality, tremors)

870.3700a
Prenatal developmental in rodents-CF1 mouse
00096446 (1986)
Acceptable/Guideline
0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8  mg/kg/day
Maternal NOAEL < 0.1 mg/kg/day
Maternal LOAEL = 0.1 mg/kg/day (mortality)
Developmental NOAEL = 0.2  mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 0.4 mg/kg/day based on increased cleft palate
870.3700a
Prenatal developmental in rodents-CF1 mouse
Accession: 265564 (1985)
Acceptable/Guideline
0, 0.01, 0.03, 0.06 mg/kg/day with delta-8,9 isomer
Maternal NOAEL > 0.06 mg/kg/day
Maternal LOAEL = not established
Developmental NOAEL > 0.06  mg/kg/day
LOAEL = not established
870.3700a
Prenatal developmental in rodents-CF1 mouse
Accession: 40713406 (1986)
Acceptable/Guideline
0, 0.25, 0.50, 1.0 mg/kg/day with polar degradates of abamectin
Maternal NOAEL > 1.0 mg/kg/day
Maternal LOAEL = not established
Developmental NOAEL > 1.0  mg/kg/day
LOAEL = not established

Appendix B.  Toxicology Literature References

Dawson GR, Wafford KA, Smith A, Marshall GR, Bayley PJ, Schaeffer JM, Meinke PT,
	McKernan RM. (2000) Anticonvulsant and adverse effects of avermectin analogs in mice
	are mediated through the gama-aminobutyric acid (A) receptor. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.
      295: 1051-1060.

Huang J, Casida JE. (1997) Avermectin B1a	binds to high- and low-affinity sites with dual
	effects on the gama-aminobutyric acid-gated chloride channel of cultured cerebellar
	granule neurons. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 281: 261-266.

Kerb R (2006) Implication of genetic polymorphism in drug transporters for pharmacotherapy.
	Cancer Lett. 234: 4-33.

Kerr DI and Ong J. (1986) Gama-aminobutyric acid-dependent motility induced by avermectin B1a in the isolated intestine of the guinea pigs. Neurosci. Lett. 65: 7-10.

Lankas GR, Cartwright ME, and Umbenhauer D (1997) P-Glycoprotein deficiency in a
	subpopulation of CF-1 mice enhances avermectin-induced neurotoxicity. Toxicol. and Appl. Pharmacol. 143: 357-365.

Marzolini C, Paus E, Buclin T, and Kim RB (2004) Polymorphism I human MDR1 (P-
	glycoprotein): Recent advances and clinical relevance. Clin. Pharmacol. and Ther.
	75: 13-33.

Meister B. (2007) Neurotransmitters in key neurons of the hypothalamus that regulate feeding
      behavior and body weight. Physiol. Behav. 92: 263-271.

Niles, AT and Keppler, D (2007) The apical conjugate efflux pump ABCC2 (MRP2). Pfluger
	Arch-Eur J Physiol (2007) 453: 643-659.

Nguyen L, Rigo JM, Rocher V, Belachew S, Malgrange B, Rogister B, Leprince P, Moonen G.
	(2001) Neurotransmitters as early signals for central nervous system development. Cell
	Tissue Res. 305: 187-202.

Pong SS, DeHaven R, Wang CC. (1982) A comparative study of avermectin B1a and other
	modulators of the gama-aminobutyric receptor- chloride ion channel complex. J.
	Neurosci. 2: 966-971.

Represa A, Ben-Ari Y. (2005) Trophic actions of GABA on neuronal development. Trends
	Neurosci. 28: 278-283.

Habashi, SL (2006) Dubin-Johnson Syndrome. http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic 588.htm

Wang CC, Pong SS. (1982) Actions of avermectin B1a on GABA nerves. Prog. Clin. Biol. Res.
		97: 373-395.

Appendix C.  Physical/Chemical Properties

Table C.  Physicochemical Properties of the Technical Grade of Abamectin
Parameter
Value
Reference[1]
Molecular weight (g/mole)
873.11

Melting point/range (°C)
155-157°C
Accession No. 260785
pH
Not available

Density (g/cm[3])
1.16 g/cm[3] at 21°C
Accession No. 260785
Water solubility (20°C)
< 0.01 mg/mL in distilled water
< 0.001 mg/mL in tap water
< 0.001 mg/mL in buffer system pH 6, 7.4 & 9.0
< 0.001 mg/mL in 0.9% NaCl
Accession No. 260785
Solvent solubility (20°C to 25°C)
> 3 mg/mL in ethanol; >2 mg/mL in isopropyl myristate, chloroform, dimethylacetamide, dimethylformamide, glycerol formal & polyethylene glycol 400.
Accession No. 260785
Vapor pressure (25°C)
1.5 x 10[-9] hPa
Accession No. 260785
Dissociation constant, pKa
Not available

Octanol/water partition coefficient, Log(KOW)
9.9 x 10[-3]
Accession No. 260785
Aerobic soil metabolism half-life
Not available
DP No. D380524, G. Orrick, 1/31/11
1   Product Chemistry data were reviewed by Leung Cheng (Accession No. 260785, RCB No. 388, 5/1/1986).

Appendix D.  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 data, which include studies from PHED 1.1; the Agricultural Reentry Task Force (ARTF) database; and the Residential SOPs (Lawns/Turf and Indoor Environments) are (1) subject to ethics review pursuant to 40 CFR 26, (2) have received that review, and (3) are compliant with applicable ethics requirements.  For certain studies, the ethics review may have included review by the Human Studies Review Board.  Descriptions of data sources, as well as guidance on their use, can be found at the Agency website.

Appendix E.  International Residue Limits Table

                        Abamectin (122804; 11/01/2012)
Summary of US and International Tolerances and Maximum Residue Limits
Residue Definition:
US
Canada
Mexico[2]
Codex[3]
40 CFR §180.449: avermectin B1 [a mixture of avermectins containing greater than or equal to 80% avermectin B1a (5- O -demethyl avermectin A1 ) and less than or equal to 20% avermectin B1b (5- O -demethyl-25-de(1-methylpropyl)-25-(1-methylethyl) avermectin A1 )] and its delta-8,9-isomer
avermectin B1 (a mixture of avermectins containing greater than or equal to 80% avermectin B1a (5-O-demethyl avermectin A1a) and less than or equal to 20% avermectin B1b (5-O-demethyl-25-de(1-methylpropyl)-25-(1-methylethyl) avermectin A1a) and its delta-8,9-isomer)

Plants: sum of avermectin B1a, avermectin B1b, 8,9-Z-avermectin B1a and 8,9-Z-avermectin B1b.
Animal commodities: sum of avermectin
B1a and 8,9-Z-avermectin B1a.
Commodity[1]
Tolerance (ppm) /Maximum Residue Limit (mg/kg)

US
Canada
Mexico[2]
Codex[3]
Cotton, undelinted seed
0.02

0.01 (*)
Cotton, gin by-products
1.0

Strawberry
0.05
0.02

0.02
Completed:  M. Negussie; 11/01/2012
[1] Includes only commodities of interest for this action.  Tolerance values should be the HED recommendations and not those proposed by the applicant.
2 Mexico adopts US tolerances and/or Codex MRLs for its export purposes.

3 * = absent at the limit of quantitation; Po = postharvest treatment, such as treatment of stored grains.  PoP = processed postharvest treated commodity, such as processing of treated stored wheat. (fat) = to be measured on the fat portion of the sample. MRLs indicated as proposed have not been finalized by the CCPR and the CAC.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2450-2452]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00578]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74035; File No. SR-NYSE-2014-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Amending Rules 311 and 313 To Add
Limited Liability Companies as Eligible Member Organizations and
Delineate the Information Limited Liability Companies Must Submit to
the Exchange as Part of the Membership Process; Eliminate the
Requirement That a Member Corporation Be Created or Organized, and
Maintain Its Principal Place of Business, in the United States; and
Make Additional Related Amendments To Update Its Membership Rules

January 12, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On November 12, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') 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\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposal
to amend NYSE Rules 311 and 313 to add limited liability companies
(``LLCs'') to the types of eligible member organizations and delineate
the information LLCs must submit to the Exchange as part of the
membership process; eliminate the requirement that a member corporation
be created or organized, and maintain its principal place of business,
in the United States; and make additional related amendments to update
its membership rules. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on November 28, 2014.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73672 (Nov. 21,
2014), 79 FR 70909 (Nov. 28, 2014) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

A. Rule 311

    NYSE Rule 311 governs the formation and approval of member
organizations. The Exchange proposes to revise Rule 311 to explicitly
provide for LLCs to apply to become member organizations and eliminate
the requirement that a member corporation be created or organized, and
maintain its principal place of business, in the United States.
    The Exchange's membership rules currently provide for member
organizations to be corporations or partnerships, but have not
explicitly provided for LLCs.\4\ The Exchange proposes to add LLCs to
the types of potential member organizations and require LLCs to meet
the same requirements currently applicable to partnerships and
corporations set forth in Rule 311(b). As part of the proposed
revision, the Exchange seeks to add a new section (4) to Rule 311(b)
requiring every member of an LLC to be a member, principal executive,
or approved person.\5\ The Exchange also proposes to amend current Rule
311(b)(6) to reflect that proposed LLC member organizations must, like
corporations and partnerships, also comply with any additional
requirements as the rules of the Exchange may prescribe. In addition,
the Exchange proposes to add new Supplementary Material .16 to Rule 311
to specify that LLC applicants for Exchange membership are subject to
Rule 313.24 regarding the submission of copies of proposed or existing
limited liability company documents and other agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Current Rule 311(f) permits the Exchange to approve
``entities that have characteristics essentially similar to
corporations, partnerships, or both'' as a member organization ``on
such terms and conditions as the Exchange may prescribe.''
    \5\ Rule 311(b)(2) and (b)(3) currently impose the same
requirement on the relevant control persons at corporations and
partnerships, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 311(f) to eliminate the
geographic limitation on incorporation and domicile of corporation
members and delete the related interpretations of Rule 311(f). The
first sentence of Rule 311(f) currently provides that every member
corporation be a corporation ``created or organized under the laws of,
and shall maintain its principal place of business in, the United
States or any State thereof.'' \6\ The Exchange does not believe that
the Exchange's restriction on whether foreign entities may be a member
organization is consistent with either federal rules or those of other
self-regulatory organizations (``SRO''). The Exchange states that rules
promulgated pursuant to the Act require, under certain circumstances, a
foreign broker-dealer to register with the Commission.\7\ The Exchange
also states that other SROs, including the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), do not require their members to
be domiciled in the United States.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The first sentence of Rule 311(f) also provides that every
member firm organization shall be a partnership or corporation. This
statement is redundant to Rule 311(b), which the Exchange is
amending to add LLCs. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete
the first sentence of Rule 311(f) in its entirety.
    \7\ See 17 CFR 240.15a-6 and Commission Guide to Broker-Dealer
Registration, Division of Trading and Markets, available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/bdguide.htm (foreign broker-dealers
that, from the outside of the United States, induce or attempt to
induce securities transactions by any person in the United States,
or that use the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce in
the United States for this purpose, must register as broker-dealers
with the Commission).
    \8\ See, e.g., NASD Membership and Registration Rules (1000
Series). NASD Rule 1090 imposes specific requirements on members
that do not maintain an office in the United States responsible for
preparing and maintaining financial and other reports required to be
filed with the SEC and the Exchange, which the Exchange proposes to
import into Rule 313. See infra note 9 and accompanying text. See
also BATS Exchange, Inc. Rules 2.3, 2.5 and 2.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the current restriction in Rule 311(f)
puts it at a competitive disadvantage because it restricts foreign
broker-dealers that are registered with the Commission and are members
of another SRO from also becoming Exchange member organizations. The
Exchange notes that its rules already require member organizations to
meet prerequisites as specified in Rule 2(b). Specifically, regardless
of corporate form, all member organizations must be registered broker-
dealers that are members of FINRA or another registered securities
exchange. If a registered broker-dealer transacts business with public
customers or conducts business on the Floor of the Exchange, such
member organization must be a member of FINRA.
    The Exchange further notes that a member organization will be
subject to regulatory examination and jurisdiction for misconduct
whether or not it is based in the United States. However, for the
avoidance of doubt, as discussed below, the Exchange proposes to add
supplementary material to Rule 313 based on NASD Rule 1090 that imposes
certain requirements on foreign members that do not maintain an office
in the United States.

B. Rule 313

    NYSE Rule 313 sets forth certain corporate or partnership documents
that each member organization must submit to enter into and continue in
NYSE membership. The Rule also sets forth certain restrictions on
capital withdrawals and distributions applicable to member corporations
and partnerships. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 313 to delineate
the types of documents that LLCs must submit that, as noted, mirror the
requirements currently in place for member corporations and
partnerships.
    First, the Exchange proposes to add a subsection (d) to Rule 313
requiring all

articles of organization and operating documents for LLCs to be
submitted for Exchange approval prior to becoming effective. Relatedly,
the Exchange proposes to add Supplementary Material .24 setting forth
that existing LLCs must promptly submit certified copies (to the extent
possible) of articles of organization and operating agreements to the
Exchange.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to add Supplementary Material .25
providing restrictions on capital withdrawals by LLC members that are
substantially the same as those applicable to corporations and
partnerships. The Supplementary Material would provide that the capital
contribution of any LLC member may not be withdrawn on less than six
months' written notice of withdrawal given no sooner than six months
after such contribution was first made without the prior written
approval of the Exchange. The Supplementary Material would also specify
that each member firm shall promptly notify the Exchange of the receipt
of any notice of withdrawal of any part of a member's capital
contribution or if any withdrawal is not made because prohibited under
the provisions of Rule 15c3-1 under the Act.
    Third, the Exchange proposes to add Supplementary Material .26
providing that LLCs not organized under the laws of New York State must
subject themselves to the following restrictions: No distributions
shall be declared or paid that impair the LLC's capital; and no
distribution of assets shall be made to any member unless the value of
the LLC's assets remaining after such payment or distribution is at
least equal to the aggregate of its debts and liabilities, including
capital. These proposed restrictions are based on existing restrictions
applicable to member corporations and partnerships.
    In addition, as noted above, the Exchange proposes to add new
Supplementary Material .27 to Rule 313 specifying the requirements
applicable to Foreign Member Organizations. The proposed new rule text
would adopt, without substantive change, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)
of NASD Rule 1090 (Foreign Members), which impose specific requirements
on FINRA members that do not maintain an office in the United States
responsible for preparing and maintaining financial and other reports
required to be filed by the SEC and FINRA.\9\ As proposed, foreign
member organizations that do not maintain an office in the United
States responsible for preparing and maintaining financial and other
reports required to be filed with the Commission and the Exchange would
be required to: (1) Prepare all such reports, and maintain a general
ledger chart of account and any description thereof, in English and
U.S. dollars; (2) reimburse the Exchange or its representatives for
expenses incurred in connection with examinations of the member
organization to the extent that such expenses exceed the cost of
examining a member organization located within the continental United
States in the geographic location most distant from the Exchange's
principal office or, in such other amount as the Exchange may deem to
be an equitable allocation of such expenses; and (3) ensure the
availability of an individual fluent in English and knowledgeable in
securities and financial matters to assist representatives of the
Exchange during examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange is not proposing to adopt a rule similar to
NASD Rule 1090(d), which requires foreign members to ``utilize,
either directly or indirectly, the services of a broker/dealer
registered with the Commission, a bank or a clearing agency
registered with the Commission located in the United States in
clearing all transactions involving members of the Association,
except where both parties to a transaction agree otherwise.'' The
Exchange agrees with FINRA, which similarly recommended skipping
paragraph (d) as part of its contemplated adoption of NASD Rule
1090, that the provision is ``outdated'' and that clearing
arrangements are better addressed by FINRA Rule 4311 (Carrying
Agreements). See FINRA Regulatory Notice 13-29 at 27 (Sept. 2013).
FINRA Rule 4311 governs the requirements applicable to members when
entering into agreements for the carrying of any customer accounts
in which securities transactions can be effected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate certain restrictions, which
the Exchange considers redundant, on member organizations and
prospective member organizations organized as partnerships and
corporations. The Exchange proposes to eliminate the requirement in
Rule 313.11 that the partnership articles of each member firm provide
that capital withdrawals by partners cannot be made without the prior
written approval of the Exchange. Rule 313.11 already requires the
Exchange's prior written approval for any such capital withdrawals, and
member organizations need to monitor for and comply with the
prohibition, including whether particular withdrawals violate net
capital requirements. The Exchange believes that because Exchange rules
already govern this behavior, a partnership seeking approval as a
member organization would not need to amend its partnership articles to
reflect this existing rule requirement.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See also infra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the requirement in Rule
313.20 that prospective member corporations submit an opinion of
counsel stating, among other things, that the corporation is duly
organized and existing, that its stock is validly issued and
outstanding, and that the restrictions and provisions required by the
Exchange on the transfer, issuance, conversion and redemption of its
stock have been made legally effective. Corporate members are required
under the Rule to submit relevant corporate documents, including
articles of incorporation, that contain the same information required
in the opinion of counsel. The Exchange represents that requiring a
legal opinion attesting to facts contained in a corporation's public
filings is redundant and, given the expense, potentially a disincentive
to smaller entities applying for Exchange membership.
    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to remove the requirement in Rule
313.23 that the opinion of counsel submitted to the Exchange at the
time the corporation applies for approval under Rule 313.20 state the
extent to which the corporation has made the following prohibitions
legally effective: The prohibition on declaring or paying a dividend
that impairs the capital of the corporation and the prohibition on
distributing assets to any stockholder unless the value of the
corporate assets remaining after such payment or distribution is at
least equal to the aggregate of its debts and liabilities, including
capital. Rule 313.23 would continue to prohibit corporation members
from declaring or paying dividends or distributing corporate assets
that impair the corporation's capital, and member corporations would
not be relieved of the obligation to monitor and enforce these
prohibitions. The Exchange believes that requiring these
representations in a separate legal opinion is redundant and serves no
necessary regulatory or other purpose.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FINRA Rule 4110 (Capital Compliance) contains similar
prohibitions on capital withdrawals by FINRA members without
requiring that the prohibitions be reflected in a firm's partnership
articles or requiring a legal opinion that the member has made the
prohibitions legally effective. See FINRA Rule 4110(c)(1) (``No
equity capital of a member may be withdrawn for a period of one year
from the date such equity capital is contributed, unless otherwise
permitted by FINRA in writing.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make certain miscellaneous
amendments to Rule 313. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to replace
outdated references to ``Regulation and Surveillance'' with ``the
Exchange'' in

Rules 313.10 and 313.20.\12\ Similarly, the Exchange proposes to
replace outdated references to ``photostatic'' copies in Rules 313.10
and 313.20 in connection with the submission of documents to the
Exchange and replace them with ``electronically or mechanically
reproduced.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Under Rule 0, references to the Exchange also refer to
FINRA staff and FINRA departments acting on behalf of the Exchange
pursuant to a Regulatory Services Agreement (``RSA''). FINRA
currently provides member application proceedings services to the
Exchange pursuant to an RSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Commission received no comments on the proposed
rule change.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After carefully considering the proposal, 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.\13\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission agrees with the Exchange that adding LLCs to the
list of eligible member organizations would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system by expanding the types of organizational forms a member
organization may take. The Exchange also believes that permitting LLCs
to become member organizations subject to the same restrictions and
requirements currently applicable to corporations and partnerships also
protects investors and the public interest by holding LLCs to the same
high standards.
    In addition, permitting non-United States-based registered broker-
dealers that are members of FINRA or another registered securities
exchange and that do not have their principal place of business in the
United States to become Exchange member organizations would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by
removing geographic restrictions on Exchange membership that are not
required by FINRA or other exchanges. Broadening the Exchange
membership pool by facilitating the participation of additional
foreign-based U.S. registered broker-dealers would benefit investors
and the public interest by increasing market participation and depth at
the Exchange. Moreover, adoption of specific requirements for foreign
members that do not maintain an office in the United States based on
NASD Rule 1090 would further assure that foreign Exchange members, once
approved, remain subject to regulatory examination and jurisdiction.
    In addition, updating the Exchange's rules to remove requirements
that the Exchange believes are redundant--that a member firm's
partnership articles provide that capital withdrawals by partners
cannot be made without the prior written approval of the Exchange, that
prospective member corporations submit an opinion of counsel reciting
facts contained in its public filings, and that certain prohibitions
have been made legally effective--would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system by ensuring that potential member organizations, persons subject
to the Exchange's jurisdiction, regulators, and the public could more
easily navigate the Exchange's rulebook and better understand what
obligations attach and when. Further, updating the Exchange's rules to
remove what the Exchange considers redundant requirements also would
protect investors as well as the public interest by providing
transparency and reducing potential confusion regarding the Exchange
membership process that may result from having what the Exchange
characterizes as obsolete rules and outdated guidelines in the
Exchange's rulebook. For the same reasons, updating the Exchange's
rules to remove requirements that the Exchange considers outdated would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and is equally designed to protect
investors as well as the public interest.
    Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2014-63) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00578 Filed 1-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 7755-7756]
[DOCID:fr14fe06-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 459-128]

Union Electric Company, dba AmerenUE; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

February 7, 2006.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects' staff has reviewed the application for new license
for the Osage Project, located on the Osage River in south central
Missouri, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
project. In the EA, Commission staff analyzed the potential
environmental effects of relicensing the project and concluded that
issuing a new license for the project, with appropriate environmental
measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the EA are available for review in the Public Reference
Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number,

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. You may register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or any other pending projects. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this
notice and should be addressed to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. Please affix Project No. 459-128 to all comments. Comments may
be filed electronically via the Internet, in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions

on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-filing'' link. Based on the
comments filed, Commission staff may elect to revise the EA and issue a
final environmental document. For further information, please contact
Allan Creamer by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-2038 Filed 2-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


3/16/07

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD (HSRB)

PUBLIC TELECONFERENCE MEETING

APRIL 10, 2007

1:00 pm -3:00 pm (Eastern Time)

HSRB MEETING FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF

DRAFT JANUARY 24, 2007 HSRB MEETING REPORT *

HSRB WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/

Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0998

Meeting location via telephone only

Members of the public may obtain the call in number at<PHONE_NUMBER>

( 1:00 PM	Introduction and Identification of Board Members – Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 1:15 PM	Welcome – Warren Lux, MD (Human Studies Research Review Official, Office of the Science Advisor, [OSA])

( 1:20 PM	Meeting Administrative Procedures - Paul Lewis, Ph.D. (Designated Federal Officer, HSRB, OSA, EPA)

( 1:25 PM	Meeting Process – Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 1:30 PM	Public Comments

( 1:45 PM	Board Discussion and Decision on Report - Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

Completed Insect Repellent Completed Efficacy Studies

	EMD-003

	EMD-004

Insect Repellent Efficacy Protocol SCI-001

( 2:45 PM	Summary and Next Steps - Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair) and Paul Lewis, Ph.D. (Designated Federal Officer, HSRB, EPA)

( 3:00 PM 	Adjournment

*  Please be advised that agenda times are approximate. For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Officer for this meeting, Paul Lewis via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email: <EMAIL_ADDRESS>

  PAGE  1


[Federal Register: February 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 10241-10242]
[DOCID:fr26fe08-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No.: 2677-019]

City of Kaukauna, Wisconsin; Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments

February 5, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2677-019.
    c. Date Filed: August 29, 2007.
    d. Applicant: City of Kaukauna, Wisconsin.
    e. Name of Project: Badger-Rapide Croche Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Fox River in Outagamie County, near the city of
Kaukauna, Wisconsin. The project does not affect federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mike Pedersen, Kaukauna Utilities, 777 Island
Street, P.O. Box 1777, Kaukauna, WI 54130-7077,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Arie
DeWaal, Mead & Hunt, Inc., 6501 Watts Road, Madison, WI 53719, 608-273-
6380.
    i. FERC Contact: John Smith<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for Filing Scoping Comments: March 6, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Scoping comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in
lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The existing project works consist of the following two
developments:
    As licensed, the existing Badger Development utilizes the head
created by the 22-foot-high Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Kaukauna
dam and consists of: (1) A 2,100-foot-long, 100-foot-wide power canal
that bifurcates into a 260-foot-long, 200-foot-wide canal and a 250-
foot-long, 80-foot-wide canal leading to; (2) the Old Badger powerhouse
containing two 1,000-kilowatt (kW) generating units for a total
installed capacity of 2,000 kW; and (3) the New Badger powerhouse
containing two 1,800-kilowatt (kW) generating units for a total
installed capacity of 3,600 kW; and (4) appurtenant facilities.
    As licensed, the existing Rapide Croche Development utilizes the
head created by the 20-foot-high Corps Rapide Croche dam, located
approximately 4.5 miles downstream from the Badger Development and
consists of: (1) A powerhouse, located on the south end of the dam,
containing four 600-kW generating units for a total installed capacity
of 2,400 kW; (2) the 5-mile-long, 12-kV transmission line (serving both
developments); and (3) appurtenant facilities.
    The license application also indicates that flashboards are used at
the Kaukauna (6-inch-high) and Rapide-Croche (30-inch-high) dams to
provide additional head for project generation.
    The proposed project would include decommissioning the Old Badger
and New Badger developments and constructing a new 7-MW powerhouse
about 150 feet upstream from the existing New Badger plant site.
Proposed project works would consist of: (1) A modified power canal
leading to; (2) a new powerhouse with integral intake; and (3) two
identical 3.5- to 3.6-MW horizontal Kaplan ``S'' type turbines. The Old
Badger development would be converted to an alternative use. The New
Badger development would be decommissioned, demolished, and removed.
The existing service road would be demolished and removed. The tailrace
area associated with the existing Old Badger development would be
filled with soil. A new service road would be constructed over the
filled area. No significant changes are proposed for the Rapide Croche
development.
    The existing Badger and Rapide Croche developments currently
operate in run-of-river mode and as proposed, the new project would
continue to operate in a run-of-river mode.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    n. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    o. Scoping Process
    The Commission staff intends to prepare a single environmental
assessment (EA) for the Badger-Rapide Croche Hydroelectric Project in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will
consider both site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and
reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.
    Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping
meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments,
recommendations, and information, on the scoping document issued on
February 5, 2008.
    Copies of the scoping document outlining the subject areas to be
addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's
mailing list and the applicant's distribution list. Copies of the
scoping document may be viewed on the web at http://

www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or for TTY, (202)
502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-3550 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P