[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39638-39640]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0568]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Barbara Harder Wedding Fireworks, Lake Erie, Lake
View, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Lake Erie, Lake View, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict
vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Barbara Harder Wedding
Fireworks. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect
spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks
display.

DATES: This rule will be effective from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 7,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2012-0568]. 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.'' You may
visit the Docket Management Facility, Department of Transportation,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email LT Christopher Mercurio, Chief of
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-
843-9343, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, 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 Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were
not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time
remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the
effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would
be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it
would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and
vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display,
which are discussed further below.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for 30 day notice period run would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Between 9:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on July 7, 2012, a fireworks
display will be held on Lake Erie near Lake View, NY. The Captain of
the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a
gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and
property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations,
dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

C. Discussion of Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port
Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Barbara Harder
Wedding Fireworks. This zone will be effective and enforced from 9 p.m.
until 11 p.m. on July 7, 2012. This zone will encompass all waters of
Lake Erie, Lake View, NY within a 560 foot radius of position
42[deg]43'17.8'' N and 78[deg]57'54.2'' W (NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or 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 that Order. Executive Order
12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of
Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is
not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will
have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other
agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan
recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The
safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced
for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to
minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone
has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus,
restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are
expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may
still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of
the Port.

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 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 a portion of the Lake Erie on the evening of July
7, 2012.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for
only two hours late in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through
the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of
the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of
the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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
section 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. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Technical Standards

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

13. 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 and,
therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. 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. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public
Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-00568 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0568  Safety Zone; Barbara Harder Wedding Fireworks, Lake
Erie, Lake View, NY.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake
Erie, Lake View, NY within a 560 foot radius of position
42[deg]43'17.8'' N and 78[deg]57'54.2'' W (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This regulation is effective
and will be enforced on July 7, 2012 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the

Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: June 21, 2012.
S.M. Wischmann,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2012-16452 Filed 7-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Meeting with NAVSEA and OSHA

July 29, 2010

Department of Labor

Washington, DC

On Thursday July 29, 2010, a meeting was held with representatives of
the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and the U.S. Navy’s Naval Sea Systems Command
(NAVSEA) at the Department of Labor.  The purpose of the meeting was to
discuss the control of hazardous energy at landside shipyard facilities
and on vessels and vessel sections that will be regulated by Subpart F
(29 CFR 1915.80 et seq., “General Working Conditions in Shipyard
Employment”) upon its effective date.  That date will be specified
when the final standard is published in the Federal Register, currently
anticipated for the end of 2010.  The meeting was attended by the
following people:

Adams, Stewart (NAVSEA)

Biersner, Robert (DOL/Solicitor’s Office)

Brice, Jim (NAVSEA)

Brinkerhoff, Susan (DOL/Solicitor’s Office)

Colahan, Paul (NAVSEA)

Daddura, Joe (OSHA)

Dougherty, Dorothy (OSHA)

Maddux, Jim (OSHA)

McKenzie, John (NAVSEA)

Taylor, Kim (NAVSEA)

Wallis, David (OSHA)

Watson, Danielle (OSHA)

Watson, Dave (NAVSEA)

The NAVSEA representatives gave OSHA a presentation on the Navy’s
procedures in controlling hazardous energy in complex conditions that
exist at Navy shipyards.  The complexity of the conditions arises from
employees concurrently working on various vessel systems that share
power sources, and from groups of employees working on the same system
at the same time.

The Navy’s system involves several layers of oversight and
coordination, which were described as set forth in Exhibit 1, attached
hereto.  The Navy discussed the path through which documentation of a
work task involving lockout/tagout (LOTO) makes its way in a shipyard,
from the initial Work Control Group, which coordinates all LOTO
applications, to the work force.  NAVSEA also described that individual
employees in the work force ensure their own protection from hazardous
energy by visually accounting for the presence, in their specific work
area, of the package containing the documentation (“Official Work
Package”).  The Official Work Package is under the physical control,
at all times, of a lead employee, and it serves as visual evidence that
a system has been locked out or tagged out and is safe to work on.  If
the lead employee does not have the Official Work Package in his
possession, employees working under him must not begin work.

After a brief description by OSHA of the pending final rule, OSHA and
NAVSEA discussed a comparison of the Navy system to OSHA’s group LOTO
systems in general industry and in the electric power generation
industry.  OSHA’s regulations require that each employee authorized to
service a system under LOTO take two affirmative steps – one at the
beginning of the work process, and one at the end.  These affirmative
steps serve as the employee’s acknowledge that:  (1) the system he or
she is servicing has been locked out or tagged out; and (2) the system
has been reenergized, and he or she may not continue servicing it.

NAVSEA also offered OSHA examples of regulatory text that the Navy
thought would be helpful as OSHA prepares the final standard for
publication.  That document is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23540-23541]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09847]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0811; FRL 9926-56-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Disclosure Requirements (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has submitted the following information collection request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA):
``Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Disclosure Requirements
(Renewal),'' identified by EPA ICR No. 1710.07 and OMB Control No.
2070-0151. The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other
related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection
activities and the burden estimate that is briefly summarized in this
document. EPA did not receive any comments in response to the
previously provided public review opportunity issued in the Federal
Register on July 24, 2014 (79 FR 71603). With this submission, EPA is
providing an additional 30 days for public review.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0811, to both EPA and OMB as follows:
     To EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     To OMB via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address
comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
docket without change, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Lintner, Environmental
Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Mail
code: 7408-M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
202-564-8251; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Docket: Supporting documents, including the ICR that explains in
detail the information collection activities and the related burden and
cost estimates that are summarized in this document, are available in
the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202)
566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on April 30,
2015. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB.
    Under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers are displayed either by publication in the
Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB
control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR
part 9.
    Abstract: Section 1018 of the Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act (42 U.S.C. 4852d) requires that sellers and lessors of
most residential housing built before 1978 disclose known information
on the presence of lead based paint and lead based paint hazards, and
provide an EPA approved pamphlet to purchasers and renters before
selling or leasing the housing. Sellers of pre-1978 housing are also
required to provide prospective purchasers with ten days to conduct an
inspection or risk assessment for lead based paint hazards before
obligating purchasers under contracts to purchase the property. The
rule does not apply to rental housing that has been found to be free of
lead-based paint, zero-bedroom dwellings, housing for the elderly,
housing for the handicapped, or short term leases.
    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40
CFR part 745, subpart F, and 24 CFR part 35, subpart H). Respondents
may claim all

or part of a response confidential. EPA will disclose information that
is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted
by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40
CFR part 2.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Persons engaged in selling or
leasing certain residential dwellings built before 1978, or who are
real estate agents representing such parties.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 39,645,600.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 6,467,176 hours per year. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $125,683,576 per year, includes $0 annualized
capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is a decrease of 470,154 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in
the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease reflects a gradual
reduction in the annual number of real estate sales involving target
housing subject to the rule's requirements and an overall decrease in
real estate sales. There has also been a notable decrease in the
overall growth of the real estate agent profession which reduces the
number of new entrants who have start-up burden and cost related to
this ICR activity. While the number of property rentals increased over
the past year, fewer parties are involved in those transactions so the
increases in the rental market were not enough to offset the decrease
in the sales market in terms of burden and cost related to this ICR.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-09847 Filed 4-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 63060-63061]
[DOCID:fr27oc06-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54636; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Exchange's Generic Listing
Standards for Index-Linked Securities

October 20, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 2, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange''), through its wholly-
owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities'' or
the ``Corporation''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(6) to extend the maximum duration of index-linked securities
(``Index-Linked Securities'') from ten (10) years to thirty (30) years.
The text of the proposed rule change appears below. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *
NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 5.2(j)(6). Index-Linked Securities
    Index-linked securities are securities that provide for the payment
at maturity of a cash amount based on the performance of an underlying
index or indexes. Such securities may or may not provide for the
repayment of the original principal investment amount. The Corporation
may submit a rule filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') to permit the listing and trading of
index-linked securities that do not otherwise meet the standards set
forth below in paragraphs (a) through (k). The Corporation will
consider for listing and trading pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the
Act, index-linked securities provided:
* * * * *
    (b) The issue has a minimum term of one (1) year but no greater
than [ten (10)] thirty (30) years.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange states that the purpose of the proposed rule change is
to amend the Exchange's rules to extend the maximum duration of Index-
Linked Securities from ten (10) years to thirty (30) years.
    Pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6), the Exchange may
approve for listing and trading securities that cannot be readily
categorized under the listing criteria for common and preferred
securities, bonds, debentures, or warrants. In August 2005, the
Commission approved the Exchange's proposal to add NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 5.2(j) (which was a PCX rule at the time) to the NYSE Arca
Equities rule for the purpose of adopting generic listing standards
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) \3\ in connection with Index-Linked
Securities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52204 (August 3,
2005), 70 FR 46559 (August 10, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-63). Telephone
Conference on October 20, 2006 between John Carey, Assistant General
Counsel, Exchange, and Hong-anh Tran, Special Counsel, Division of
Market Regulation (``Division''), Commission (Telephone Conference).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) sets forth criteria that the
issue and the issuer must meet in order to list and trade Index-Linked
Securities at the Exchange.\5\ Currently, one of the criteria the
Exchange considers for the listing and trading of Index-Linked
Securities, pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6), is that the
term of the issue must be a minimum term of one (1) year but not
greater than ten (10) years. The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(b) to extend the duration of the term of the
issue from ten (10) years to thirty (30) years. The Exchange believes
this amendment to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(b) is appropriate
due to the increase demand from issuers to list and trade Index-Linked
Securities that are greater than ten (10) years in duration. In
addition, the Exchange notes that corporate bonds and other fixed-
income products have historically been issued with terms of up to, or
greater than, thirty (30) years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) permits the Exchange to
submit a rule filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act to
allow the listing and trading of Index-Linked Securities that do not
otherwise meet the generic listing criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes expanding the duration for Index-Linked
Securities, subject to generic listing standards in NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 5.2(j)(6), will help to foster competition and promote enhanced
efficiency in the marketplace. Incorporating these guidelines into the
Exchange's generic listing standards for Index-Linked Securities will
allow Index-Linked Securities that satisfy the listing standards to
begin trading pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e), without constituting a
proposed rule change within the meaning of Section 19(b) of the Act and
Rule 19b-4, for which notice and comment and Commission approval is
necessary.\6\ The Exchange's ability to rely on Rule 19b-4(e) to list
such Index-Linked Securities potentially reduces the time frame for
bringing these securities to the market, thereby promoting competition
and making such products available to investors more quickly. The
Exchange also notes that the Commission has approved amendments to the
generic listing standards for equity-linked notes that removed the
maximum term limits for those securities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Telephone Conference on October 19, 2006 between John Carey,
Assistant General Counsel, Exchange, and Hong-anh Tran, Special
Counsel, Division, Commission.
    \7\ Telephone Conference. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 42110 (November 5, 1999), 64 FR 61677 (November 12, 1999) (SR-
Amex-99-33); 41992 (October 7, 1999), 64 FR 56007 (October 15, 1999)
(SR-NYSE-99-22); and 42313 (January 4, 2000), 65 FR 2205 (January
13, 2000) (SR-Chx-99-19).

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\9\ in particular, in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change; or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-70 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-70. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filings will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File number SR-NYSEArca-2006-70 and should be submitted by November 17,
2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-17996 Filed 10-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


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

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I and many of my friends and colleagues have already spent many hours researching these issues, but it is a very difficult and time consuming undertaking.  It is my understanding that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I feel it is only fair to allow the public and individual consumers a mere six months to research and effectively comment on it.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. I have been using e-cigarettes for almost two years after switching from combustible cigarettes which I had smoked for 39 years.  I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all those who chose to do so, have the opportunity to research the issue thoroughly so we are able to provide effective comments on this proposed regulation.

Thank you for your time and attention to my request.  I am happy to discuss this issue with you further and am providing my contact information.

Sincerely

Claudia H. Linse


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 42526]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16973]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0254]

Salmonella Contamination of Dry Dog Food; Withdrawal of
Compliance Policy Guide

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; Withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
withdrawal of the compliance policy guide (CPG) entitled ``Sec. 690.700
Salmonella Contamination of Dry Dog Food.'' This CPG is obsolete.

DATES: The withdrawal is effective July 16, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane D. Jeang, Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville,
MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA issued the CGP entitled ``Sec. 690.700
Salmonella Contamination of Dry Dog Food (CPG 690.700)'' on October 1,
1980. CPG 690.700 was issued as a result of a human case of
salmonellosis traced to dry dog food; a subsequent FDA-conducted survey
of dry dog food; a risk analysis; and the development of an appropriate
sampling technique to test dry dog food for salmonella organisms.
    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is announcing
the availability of a new CPG to address all food for animals that may
contain salmonella organisms, including dry dog food. This new CPG,
entitled ``Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 690.800 Salmonella in Food for
Animals,'' supersedes CPG 690.700 and makes CPG 690.700 obsolete. The
notice of availability for CPG ``Sec. 690.800 Salmonella in Food for
Animals'' is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
    FDA is withdrawing CPG 690.700, in its entirety, to eliminate
obsolete compliance policy.

    Dated: July 10, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-16973 Filed 7-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 26, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31386-31389]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10483]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0384; FRL-9995-89]

Indoxacarb; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of the
insecticide indoxacarb in or on corn, pop, grain at 0.02 parts per
million (ppm) and corn, pop, stover at 15 ppm. FMC Corporation
requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective May 26, 2020. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 27, 2020, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0384 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. 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
(703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0384 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 27, 2020. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b). Addresses for mail
and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40
CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0384, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 25, 2020 (85 FR 10642) (FRL-
10000-85), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3),
21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a revised pesticide
petition (PP 8F8708) by FMC Corporation, 2929 Walnut Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19104. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.564 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide
indoxacarb, [(S)-methyl 7-chloro-2,5-dihydro-2-[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-
(trifluoromethoxy)-phenyl]amino]carbonyl]indeno[1,2e][1,3,4]oxadiazine-
4a(3H)-carboxylate], and its R-enantiomer [(R)-methyl 7 chloro-2,5-
dihydro-2[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]
amino]carbonyl]indeno [1,2-e][1,3,4]oxadiazine-4a(3H)-carboxylate], in
or on corn, pop, grain at 0.02 parts per million (ppm) and corn, pop,
stover at 15 ppm. That document referenced a corrected summary of the
petition prepared by FMC Corporation, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.
    EPA published this document in response to a comment received from
FMC Corporation in response to a previously published notice of filing
of August 2, 2019. In a comment submitted in response to that August 2,
2019 document, FMC Corporation noted that the August 2, 2019 notice
indicated that E.I. du Pont de Nemours had filed the petition and that
the incorrect petition summary was contained in the docket. EPA also
noticed that the originally submitted petition did not actually request
tolerances for residues of indoxacarb in or on popcorn commodities,
despite the intent to do so. As a result, FMC Corporation submitted a
revised petition, including a corrected summary of the petition, to
correct the original notice error. One public comment was received in
response to the corrected notice of filing. EPA's response to this
comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the referenced petition,
EPA is establishing a tolerance for residues of indoxacarb in or on
corn, pop, grain and corn, pop, stover.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for indoxacarb in or on corn, pop,
grain and corn, pop, stover.
    In the Federal Register on December 8, 2017 (82 FR 57860) (FRL-
9970-39), EPA published a final rule establishing a tolerance for
residues of the insecticide indoxacarb in or on corn, field, forage;
corn, field, grain; and corn, field, stover based on the Agency's
determination that aggregate exposure to indoxacarb is safe for the
U.S. general population, including infants and children. Because the
toxicity profile for indoxacarb has not changed since that last rule
was published, EPA is incorporating the discussion of that profile
(Unit III.A.) and the identified toxicological endpoints (Unit III.B.)
as part of this rulemaking.
    EPA's 2017 exposure assessment remains current in providing an up-
to-date assessment of indoxacarb, as that assessment included exposures
to indoxacarb in or on popcorn commodities as reflected in this
document. Based on the current and newly proposed uses of indoxacarb in
or on corn, pop, grain and corn, pop, stover, exposures can occur both
from dietary sources (food + water) and in residential settings. For
aggregate risk assessment, risk estimates resulting from food, drinking
water, and residential uses are combined. Acute, short-and
intermediate-term, and long-term (chronic) aggregate assessments were
performed for indoxacarb. Further information about EPA's risk
assessment and determination of safety supporting the tolerances
established in the

December 8, 2017 Federal Register action, as well as the new indoxacarb
tolerances can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the documents
entitled ``Indoxacarb: Human Health Risk Assessment for Indoxacarb to
Support the Proposed New Uses on Corn (Field, Pop, and Grown for
Seed),'' dated October 24, 2017 (docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0095), and
``Indoxacarb. Section 3 Registration for the New Use of Indoxacarb on
Popcorn. Abbreviated Residue Chemistry Review,'' dated September 16,
2019 (docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0384), respectively.
    The acute dietary risk estimates determined for indoxacarb (food +
water) were found not to be of concern at the 99.9th exposure
percentile for the U.S. general population and all population subgroups
and are below the Agency's LOC (<100% of the acute population adjusted
dose (aPAD)). In addition, the chronic dietary risk estimates
determined for indoxacarb (food + water) were found not to be of
concern for the U.S. general population and all population subgroups
and are below the Agency's LOC (<100% of the chronic population
adjusted dose (cPAD)). As indicated in the supporting documents, the
acute and chronic dietary risks are below the Agency's level of
concern: 56% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the group with the
highest exposure level; 35% of the cPAD for all infants (less than 1
year old), the group with the highest exposure level.
    The acute aggregate assessment is based on food + drinking water
exposures only, because there are no acute residential exposures
expected. For the short-, intermediate- and long-term (chronic)
aggregates, the highest non-dietary exposure scenarios were selected as
being protective of all other potential exposure scenarios--these were
from spot treatments to carpets [coarse and pin stream] for short-term
exposures, and from spot-on treatments of dogs for intermediate- and
long-term exposures. There are no acute, short-term, intermediate-term,
or long-term (chronic) aggregate risk estimates of concern for adult or
child aggregate exposure to indoxacarb as a result of the current and
proposed uses (short-term aggregate margin of exposure (MOE) = 120;
intermediate-/long-term aggregate MOE = 260) because EPA considers MOEs
of less than 100 to be of concern for aggregate risk.
    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the U.S. general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to indoxacarb residues. More detailed information on
the subject action to establish tolerances in or on corn, pop, grain
and corn, pop, stover can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the
document entitled ``Indoxacarb. Section 3 Registration for the New Use
of Indoxacarb on Popcorn. Abbreviated Residue Chemistry Review.'' This
document can be found in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0384.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    For the enforcement of tolerances established on crops, two High
Performance Liquid Chromatograph/Ultraviolet Detection (HPLC/UV)
methods, DuPont protocols AMR 2712-93 and DuPont-11978, are available
for use. The limits of quantitation (LOQs) for these methods range from
0.01 to 0.05 ppm for a variety of plant commodities. A third procedure,
Gas Chromatograph/Mass-Selective Detection (GC/MSD), DuPont method AMR
3493-95 Supplement No. 4, is also available for the confirmation of
residues in plants.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

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

C. Response to Comments

    EPA received one public comment in response to the corrected notice
of filing, generally opposed to any indoxacarb residues in or on corn,
pop, grain and corn, pop, stover. Although the Agency recognizes that
some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on
agricultural crops, the existing legal framework provided by section
408 of the FFDCA states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking
such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide
meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. This comment appears
to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation
of it; the comment provides no information relevant to the Agency's
safety determination.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide indoxacarb in or on corn, pop, grain at 0.02 parts per
million (ppm) and corn, pop, stover at 15 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject
to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 7, 2020.
Michael L. Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.564, add alphabetically the entries ``Corn, pop,
grain'' and ``Corn, pop, stover'' to the table in paragraph (a) to read
as follows:

Sec.  180.564  Indoxacarb; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Corn, pop, grain........................................            0.02
Corn, pop, stover.......................................              15

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-10483 Filed 5-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 111)]
[Notices]
[Page 32568-32569]
[DOCID:fr09jn08-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL08-67-000]

Maryland Public Service Commission, Complainant, v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C., Respondent; Notice of Complaint

June 2, 2008.
    Take notice that on May 30, 2008, the Maryland Public Service
Commission, the Delaware Public Service Commission, the Pennsylvania
Public Utility Commission, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities,
the Public Power Association of New Jersey, the Maryland Office of
People's Counsel, the Office of the People's Counsel of the District of
Columbia, the Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc., Blue Ridge
Power Agency, Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc., Office of the

Ohio Consumers' Counsel, New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate,
Division of Rate Counsel, the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate,
PJM Industrial Customer Coalition, the American Forest and Paper
Association, the Portland Cement Association, the Duquesne Light
Company, and the United States Department of Defense and other affected
Federal Executive Agencies (collectively, the RPM Buyers) filed a
formal complaint against PJM Interconnection L.L.C. (PJM) pursuant to
section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, and Rule 206 of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 835.206. The RPM Buyers allege that the PJM's
implementation of the Reliability Pricing Model during the transition
period is unjust and unreasonable because it has produced excessive
capacity prices, has failed to prevent suppliers from exercising market
power, and has not produced benefits commensurate with its costs.
    The Maryland Commission certifies that copies of the complaint were
served on the contacts for PJM as listed in the Commission's Corporate
Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of Respondent's
answer, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the
``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest
or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 23, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-12849 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P