[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56362-56364]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24627]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1860]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before February 11, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1860, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the

floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

David I. Maurstad,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Jefferson County, Alabama and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 12-04-1070S Preliminary Date: April 26, 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Argo...........................  Argo City Hall, 100 Blackjack
                                          Road, Trussville, AL 35173.
City of Bessemer.......................  City Hall, 1700 3rd Avenue
                                          North, Bessemer, AL 35020.
City of Birmingham.....................  Department of Planning,
                                          Engineering, and Permits, 710
                                          North 20th Street, 5th Floor,
                                          Birmingham, AL 35203.
City of Brighton.......................  City Hall, 3700 Main Street,
                                          Brighton, AL 35020.
City of Clay...........................  Clay City Hall, 2441 Old
                                          Springville Road, Birmingham,
                                          AL 35215.
City of Helena.........................  Municipal Building, 816 Highway
                                          52 East, Helena, AL 35080.
City of Homewood.......................  City Hall, 2850 19th Street
                                          South, Homewood, AL 35209.
City of Hoover.........................  City Hall, 100 Municipal Lane,
                                          Hoover, AL 35216.
City of Irondale.......................  City Hall, 101 20th Street
                                          South, Irondale, AL 35210.
City of Leeds..........................  Department of Inspection
                                          Services, 1404 9th Street
                                          Northeast, Leeds, AL 35094.
City of Lipscomb.......................  Lipscomb City Hall, 5512 Avenue
                                          H, Lipscomb, Bessemer, AL
                                          35020.
City of Mountain Brook.................  City Hall, 56 Church Street,
                                          Mountain Brook, AL 35213.
City of Trussville.....................  City Hall, 131 Main Street,
                                          Trussville, AL 35173.
City of Vestavia Hills.................  City Hall, 1032 Montgomery
                                          Highway, Vestavia Hills, AL
                                          35216.
Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson        Jefferson County Land
 County.                                  Development Office, 716
                                          Richard Arrington Jr.
                                          Boulevard North, Room 260,
                                          Birmingham, AL 35203.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Shelby County, Alabama and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 12-04-1070S Preliminary Date: April 26, 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Birmingham.....................  Department of Planning,
                                          Engineering, and Permits, 710
                                          North 20th Street, 5th Floor,
                                          Birmingham, AL 35203.
City of Helena.........................  Municipal Building, 816 Highway
                                          52 East, Helena, AL 35080.
City of Hoover.........................  City Hall, 100 Municipal Lane,
                                          Hoover, AL 35216.
City of Pelham.........................  City Hall, 3162 Pelham Parkway,
                                          Pelham, AL 35124.
City of Vestavia Hills.................  City Hall, 1032 Montgomery
                                          Highway, Vestavia Hills, AL
                                          35216.
Town of Indian Springs Village.........  Town Hall, 2635 Cahaba Valley
                                          Road, Indian Springs Village,
                                          AL 35124.
Unincorporated Areas of Shelby County..  Shelby County Engineer's
                                          Office, 506 Highway 70,
                                          Columbiana, AL 35051.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            St. Clair County, Alabama and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 12-04-1070S Preliminary Date: April 26, 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Leeds..........................  Department of Development
                                          Services, 1404 9th Street
                                          Northeast, Leeds, AL 35094.
City of Moody..........................  City Hall, 670 Park Avenue,
                                          Moody, AL 35004.
City of Trussville.....................  City Hall, 131 Main Street,
                                          Trussville, AL 35173.
Unincorporated Areas of St. Clair        St. Clair County Road
 County.                                  Department, 31588 U.S. Highway
                                          231, Ashville, AL 35953.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metropolitan Government of Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky and
                           Incorporated Areas
        Project: 10-04-7840S Preliminary Date: February 28, 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Government of Louisville    Louisville/Jefferson County
 and Jefferson County.                    Metropolitan Sewer District,
                                          700 West Liberty Street,
                                          Louisville, KY 40203.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Brazoria County, Texas and Incorporated Areas
 Project: 16-06-1963S Preliminary Date: June 30, 2017 and June 29, 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Alvin..........................  Public Services Facility
                                          Building Engineering
                                          Department, 1100 West Highway
                                          6, Alvin, TX 77511.
City of Angleton.......................  City Secretary's Office, 121
                                          South Velasco Street,
                                          Angleton, TX 77515.
City of Brazoria.......................  City Hall, 201 South Main
                                          Street, Brazoria, TX 77422.
City of Brookside Village..............  City Hall, 6243 Brookside Road,
                                          Brookside Village, TX 77581.
City of Clute..........................  City Hall, 108 East Main
                                          Street, Clute, TX 77531.
City of Danbury........................  City Hall, 6102 5th Street,
                                          Danbury, TX 77534.
City of Freeport.......................  City Hall, 200 West 2nd Street,
                                          Freeport, TX 77541.
City of Hillcrest Village..............  Hillcrest Village City Hall,
                                          106 West Blackstone Lane,
                                          Alvin, TX 77511.
City of Iowa Colony....................  City Hall, 12003 County Road
                                          65, Rosharon, TX 77583.
City of Lake Jackson...................  City Hall, 25 Oak Drive, Lake
                                          Jackson, TX 77566.
City of Liverpool......................  City Hall, 8901 Calhoun Street,
                                          Liverpool, TX 77577.
City of Manvel.........................  City Hall, 20025 Highway 6,
                                          Manvel, TX 77578.
City of Oyster Creek...................  City Hall, 3210 FM 523, Oyster
                                          Creek, TX 77541.
City of Pearland.......................  Engineering and Capital
                                          Projects Department
                                          Engineering Division, 3519
                                          Liberty Drive, Pearland, TX
                                          77581.
City of Richwood.......................  City Hall, 1800 Brazosport
                                          Boulevard North, Richwood, TX
                                          77531.
City of Sandy Point....................  Brazoria County West Annex
                                          Building, 451 North Velasco
                                          Street, Suite 210, Angleton,
                                          TX 77515.
City of Surfside Beach.................  City Hall, 1304 Monument Drive,
                                          Surfside Beach, TX 77541.
City of Sweeny.........................  City Hall, 102 West Ashley
                                          Wilson Road, Sweeny, TX 77480.
City of West Columbia..................  City Hall, 512 East Brazos
                                          Avenue, West Columbia, TX
                                          77486.
Town of Holiday Lakes..................  City Hall, 195 North Texas
                                          Avenue, Holiday Lakes, TX
                                          77515.
Town of Quintana.......................  Town Hall, 814 North Lamar
                                          Street, Quintana, TX 77541.
Unincorporated Areas of Brazoria County  Brazoria County West Annex
                                          Building, 451 North Velasco
                                          Street, Suite 210, Angleton,
                                          TX 77515.
Village of Bailey's Prairie............  Bailey's Prairie Floodplain
                                          Administrator's Office, 201
                                          South Velasco Street,
                                          Angleton, TX 77515.
Village of Bonney......................  Brazoria County West Annex
                                          Building, 451 North Velasco
                                          Street, Suite 210, Angleton,
                                          TX 77515.
Village of Jones Creek.................  City Hall, 7207 Stephen F.
                                          Austin Road, Jones Creek, TX
                                          77541.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Grand County, Utah and Incorporated Areas
           Project: 17-08-0649S Preliminary Date: May 29, 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Grand County...  Grand County Courthouse, 125
                                          East Center Street, Moab, UT
                                          84532.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-24627 Filed 11-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62579-62581]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24530]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93524; File No. SR-MIAX-2021-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

November 4, 2021
    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 22, 2021, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a 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 filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to make non-substantive, clarifying
changes.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to make non-
substantive, clarifying changes to Sections 3)b) and 5)d)ii) for the
monthly Trading Permit fees for Market Makers \3\ and the monthly MIAX
Express Interface (``MEI'') \4\ Port fees for Market Makers. The
Exchange does not propose to amend the amount of Trading Permit fees or
MEI Port fees in this filing. The Exchange also does not propose to
amend the calculation methodology for Trading Permit fees or MEI Port
fees in this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Lead Market Makers,''
``Primary Lead Market Makers,'' and ``Registered Market Makers''
collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ MIAX Express Interface is a connection to MIAX systems that
enables Market Makers to submit simple an [sic] complex electronic
quotes to MIAX. See MIAX Options Fee Schedule, 5) d) ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monthly Market Maker Trading Permit Fee Clarifying Changes
    First, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 3)b) of the Fee
Schedule to amend the text below the table for the monthly Trading
Permit fees applicable to Market Makers. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to add the following two clarifying sentences to begin the
explanatory paragraph following the table for the monthly Trading
Permit fees applicable to Market Makers:

    For the calculation of the monthly Market Maker Trading Permits,
the applicable fee rate is the lesser of either the per class basis
or percentage of total national average daily volume measurement.
The amount of monthly Market Maker Trading Permit Fee will be based
upon the number of classes in which the Market Maker was assigned to
quote on any given day within the calendar month, or upon the class
volume percentages set forth in the above table.

    The Exchange also proposes to remove the following sentence to the
end of the explanatory paragraph, which is currently the first sentence
of the explanatory paragraph below the table for the monthly Trading
Permit fees applicable to Market Makers:

    For the calculation of the monthly Market Maker Trading Permit
Fees, the number of classes is defined as the greatest number of
classes the Market Maker was assigned to quote in on any given day
within the calendar month and the class volume percentage is based
on the total national average daily volume in classes listed on MIAX
in the prior calendar quarter.

    In place of the deleted sentence described above, the Exchange
proposes to insert the following two sentences, which will become
sentences three and four of the revised explanatory paragraph:

    The Exchange will assess MIAX Market Makers the monthly Market
Maker Trading Permit Fee based on the greatest number of

classes listed on MIAX that the MIAX Market Maker was assigned to
quote in on any given day within a calendar month. The class volume
percentage is based on the total national average daily volume in
classes listed on MIAX in the prior calendar quarter.

    The Exchange notes that these two sentences are a combination of
sentences already included in the explanatory paragraph. In connection
with all of the changes described above, the Exchange proposes to
delete the following sentence:

    The Exchange will assess MIAX Market Makers the monthly Market
Maker Trading Permit Fee based on the greatest number of classes
listed on MIAX that the MIAX Market Maker was assigned to quote in
on any given day within a calendar month and the applicable fee rate
that is the lesser of either the per class basis or percentage of
total national average daily volume measurement.

    The Exchange notes that all of these changes, when taken together,
do not alter the calculation methodology for how the Exchange currently
calculates monthly Trading Permit fees for Market Makers. These changes
are being made solely to clarify the explanatory paragraph below the
table of fees for monthly Trading Permit fees for Market Makers. The
Exchange believes that these revised sentences summarize that the
monthly Market Maker Trading Permit fee rate is the lesser of the per
class basis or the percentage of total national average daily volume
measure and better clarifies how the MIAX Market Maker Trading Permit
fee will continue to be calculated and applied each month. The Exchange
does not propose to amend the amount or calculation of the monthly
Trading Permit fee for Market Makers.
MEI Port Fee Clarifying Changes
    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 5)d)ii) of the Fee
Schedule to make non-substantive, clarifying changes to the explanatory
paragraph below the table of MEI Port fees applicable to Market Makers.
The Exchange proposes to move the current first sentence of the
explanatory paragraph below the table of MEI Port fees applicable to
Market Makers in Section 5)d)ii) to now be the final sentence. In its
place, the Exchange proposes to add the following sentence: ``The
applicable fee rate is the lesser of either the per class basis or
percentage of total national average daily volume measurement.'' In
connection with this change, the Exchange proposes to amend the
sentence that will now follow the new first sentence of the explanatory
paragraph. In particular, the Exchange proposes to move footnote 26 to
the second sentence of the explanatory paragraph to contain the defined
term in footnote 26 for ``MIAX Express Interface (`MEI')'' Port.\5\ The
final sentence of the explanatory paragraph will now read as follows:
``MIAX will assess monthly MEI Port Fees on Market Makers in each month
the Member has been credentialed to use the MEI Port in the production
environment and has been assigned to quote in at least one class.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Fee Schedule, footnote 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange proposes to amend the second sentence of the
explanatory paragraph to remove the word ``and'' that connects the two
clauses describing how the Exchange calculates the monthly MEI Port fee
for Market Makers. In place of the word ``and,'' the Exchange proposes
to clarify that the amount of the monthly MEI Port fee will be based
upon the number of classes in which the Market Maker was assigned to
quote on any given day within the calendar month, or upon the class
volume percentages set forth in the MEI Port fee table.
    The Exchange further proposes to remove the fifth sentence of the
explanatory paragraph below the table of MEI Port fees in Section
5)d)ii) and move it up in the paragraph, immediately following the
second sentence. With this change, the third sentence of the
explanatory paragraph will be as follows: ``The Exchange will assess
MIAX Market Makers the monthly MEI Port Fee based on the greatest
number of classes listed on MIAX that the MIAX Market Maker was
assigned to quote in on any given day within a calendar month.'' This
phrase is currently contained in the fifth sentence of the explanatory
paragraph and the Exchange now proposes to make the phrase its own
sentence and move it earlier in the paragraph. The Exchange believes
that these revised sentences summarize that the monthly MEI Port fee
rate is the lesser of either the per class basis or percentage of total
national average daily volume measurement and better clarifies how the
monthly MEI Port fee for Market Makers will continue to be calculated
and applied. The Exchange does not propose to amend the amount or
calculation of the monthly MEI Port fee for Market Makers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that
it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.
The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general to protect investors and the public interest and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes are consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that they are reasonable, equitable, and
not unfairly discriminatory because they are non-substantive,
clarifying changes regarding the Exchange's monthly Trading Permit and
MEI Port fees applicable to Market Makers and will reduce the risk of
confusion to market participants. The proposed changes promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general protect investors and the public interest by clarifying how
the MIAX Market Maker Trading Permit fee and the MEI Port fee will be
calculated and applied each month. The Exchange believes that these
proposed changes will provide greater clarity to Members and the public
regarding the Exchange's Fee Schedule and that it is in the public
interest for the Fee Schedule to be accurate and concise so as to
eliminate the potential for confusion.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes the proposed change will not impose any burden on intra-market
competition as the proposed rule change will have no impact on
competition as it is not designed to address any competitive issue but
rather is designed to remedy minor non-substantive, clarifying issues
and provide added clarity to the Fee Schedule. In addition, the
Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-
market competition as the proposal does not address any competitive
issues and is intended to protect investors by providing further
transparency regarding the Exchange's Fee Schedule.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \9\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2021-54 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2021-54. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2021-54 and should be submitted on
or before December 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-24530 Filed 11-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 27157]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11406]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the Florida
Reliability Coordinating Council, Inc.

The Florida Reliability Coordinating Council, Inc. (FRCC) Process First
Quarter Meeting.
May 6, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: https://www.frcc.com/Default.aspx.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER13-1932, Tampa Electric Company
Docket No. ER13-1922, Duke Energy Florida (Progress Energy Florida)
Docket No. ER13-1929, Florida Power & Light Company
Docket No. ER13-1928, Duke Energy Carolinas/Carolina Power & Light
Docket Nos. ER13-107, ER13-1935, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
Docket No. ER13-1941, Alabama Power Company et al.
Docket No. ER13-1940, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation

    For more information, contact Rhonda Jones, Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 5, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11406 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


<COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE  (9/21/07)>

<EPA Registration Division contact: [insert name and telephone number
with area code]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance
petition documents.  In cases where the outline element does not apply
please insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline.  The comment
notes that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes
designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document.
Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins,
font, or format in your document. Simply replace the instructions that
appear in italics and brackets, i.e., “[insert company name],” with
the information specific to your action.]>

<TEMPLATE:>

<[E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company, DuPont Crop Protection]>

<[Insert petition number]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from
[E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company, DuPont Crop Protection], [P. O.
Box 30, Newark, DE 19714-0030] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR part 180.>

<(Options (pick one)>

<	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of>

<	>

<	[flusilazole
(1[[bis(4-fluorophenyl)methyl-silyl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole) and its
metabolite IN-F7321 (bis(4-fluorophenyl)methylsilanol) in or on the raw
agricultural commodities [soybean,] at [0.04] parts per million (ppm);
soybean, aspirated grain fractions at 2.6 ppm; soybean, refined oil at
0.1 ppm; wheat, grain at 0.15 ppm; wheat, forage at 25  ppm, wheat,
straw at 7.0 ppm; wheat, aspirated grain fractions at 6.0 ppm; cattle,
fat at 1.5 ppm; cattle, kidney at 5.0 ppm; cattle, liver at 2.0 ppm;
cattle, meat and cattle meat byproducts at 0.40 ppm; goat, fat at 1.5
ppm; goat, kidney at 5.0 ppm; goat, liver, at 2.0 ppm; goat, meat and
goat, meat byproducts at 0.40 ppm; hog, fat at 1.5 ppm; hog, kidney at
5.0 ppm; hog, liver at 2.0 ppm; hog, meat and hog, meat byproducts at
0.40 ppm; horse, fat at 1.5 ppm; horse, kidney at 5.0 ppm; horse, liver
at 2.0 ppm; horse, meat and horse, meat byproducts a 0.40 ppm; milk at
0.20 ppm; milk, fat at 1.3 ppm; sheep, fat at 1.5 ppm; sheep, kidney at
5.0 ppm; sheep, liver at 2.0 ppm; sheep, meat and sheep, meat byproducts
at 0.40 ppm.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or
information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of
the FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the
petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism.>

The metabolic fate of flusilazole in plants is adequately understood.
Plant metabolism studies conducted with apples, bananas, grapes,
soybeans, sugar beets, and wheat show qualitatively similar metabolism
among the crops.  The metabolic pathway in plants involves
hydroxylations, conjugations, and cleavage between the silicon and the
triazole ring.  As the interval between treatment and sampling
increases, there are decreasing residues of unchanged flusilazole and
increased metabolism and conjugation.  A major metabolic route in plants
is cleavage of the Si-CH2 bond to form a silanol (IN-F7321), which may
be further metabolized to two silane diols or to a disiloxane.
Hydroxylation can occur on the phenyl ring of intact flusilazole or
IN-F7321 resulting in phenolic metabolites.  The phenolic groups become
the sites for conjugation reactions.  The major plant metabolite arising
from triazole-labeled flusilazole is triazolyl alanine, which is
subsequently metabolized to triazole acetic acid.  Due to the extensive
degradation of flusilazole by multiple mechanisms to many minor
metabolites, there are no major flusilazole metabolites in plants, other
than triazolyl alanine.  Flusilazole and IN-F7321 are proposed to be
included in the tolerance expression.  Triazolyl amine is not included
as it is a common metabolite to all triazole-containing fungicides.
IN-F7321, while a relatively minor plant metabolite, is unique to
flusilazole and was found to be present in magnitude of the residue
studies in various crops and in livestock feeding studies at low levels.

<	2. Analytical method. [An adequate enforcement method (gas
chromatography/mass-selective detector) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression.  The limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.01 ppm for
flusilazole and IN-F7321 for all applicable wheat and soybean
commodities (except wheat straw where the LOQ is 0.02 ppm).  The
estimated limit of detection (LOD) is 0.003 ppm for both flusilazole and
IN-F7321 for all applicable wheat and soybean commodities (except wheat
straw where the LOD is 0.006 ppm).]>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. [Twenty-three field magnitude of residue
trials (including decline at 2 trials) were conducted on soybeans.
Additional treated plots and larger control plots were included at one
site to produce samples for processing and production of aspirated
grain.  Two applications were made at the use rate of 0.1 lb active
ingredient per acre (ai/A) per application and soybeans were harvested
30 days after the last application (DALA).  The highest average field
trial residue (HAFT) was 0.033 ppm and the average field residue was
0.017 ppm on soybeans for applications at critical label application
parameters.  Aspirated grain fraction (AGF) residues were 0.91 ppm for
flusilazole and 0.12 ppm for IN-F7321.  Processing factors for
flusilazole showed a concentration of residues in soybean oil and AGF of
2.2 and 65 fold, respectively.    Processing factors for IN-F7321 showed
a concentration of residues in soybean oil and AGF of 2.7 and 40 fold,
respectively.

Twenty-two field residue trials were conducted on wheat.   Two
applications were made at the use rate of 0.125 lb ai/A, the first at
flag-leaf expansion and the second at heading.  Wheat was harvested
21-55 days after the last application.  The maximum flusilazole field
residues were 8.7 ppm, 0.078 ppm, and 2.5 ppm in/on forage (0 DALA),
grain (21-55 DALA), and straw (21-55 DALA), respectively.  The
corresponding maximum IN-F7321 field residues were 1.5 ppm, 0.023 ppm,
and 1.8 ppm in/on forage (0 DALA), grain (21-55 DALA), and straw (21-55
DALA), respectively.  There is no concentration of flusilazole or
IN-F7321 residues in wheat bran, middlings, shorts, low grade flour,
patent flour or in bread baked using the patent flour.  Flusilazole
residues concentrated in light impurity and large screenings by
56.55-and 1.69-fold, respectively, in a grain processing study.
IN-F7321 residues concentrated in light impurities by 51.85-fold and did
not concentrate in large screenings.  The light impurities fraction
would best represent a wheat aspirated grain fraction sample.]>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.

[Acute Oral LD50 in Rats		1110 mg/kg M		III>

					  674 mg/kg F

Acute Dermal LD50 in Rabbits	>2000 mg/kg	    		III

Acute Inhalation LC50 in Rats	> 5 mg/L	    		IV

Eye Irritation in Rabbits		Slight	    			IV

Skin Irritation in Rabbits		Mild    			IV

Guinea Pig Skin Sensitization	Not a sensitizer]

<	2. Genotoxicity.

 [Flusilazole was non-genotoxic based on negative results in the
following assays:

	In vitro

	Bacterial gene mutation in with Salmonella typhimurium

		Clastogenicity:  Chromosomal aberrations in cultured human
lymphocytes.

	Mammalian gene mutation assay (CHO/HGPRT)

	Unscheduled DNA Synthesis in cultured rat hepatocytes

	In vivo

	Mouse micronucleus test in mice dosed orally with 375 mg/kg

	No chromosomal aberrations in bone marrow of rats dosed oral up to 150
mg/kg]>

<3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.>

[Developmental toxicity of flusilazole has been evaluated by the oral
(feeding and gavage) and dermal routes in rats and by the oral (feeding
and gavage) routes in rabbits.

The rat maternal and developmental NOAELs in the feeding study were both
100 ppm (9 mg/kg/day) based on reduced weight gain and increased
resorptions and stunted fetuses at the next highest concentration (300
ppm).  There were no increases in malformations at any concentration.

The collective results from several rat gavage studies indicated that
2.0 mg/kg was the lowest maternal NOAEL. This was based on reduced
weight gain and food consumption, clinical signs, and liver and
placental weight increases.  The weight of evidence from these studies
indicated a developmental NOAEL of 2.0 mg/kg/day, based on increased
incidence of skeletal variations at 10 mg/kg/day or above and
malformations at the maternally toxic doses of 50 or 250 mg/kg/day.

In the rat dermal developmental study, the maternal NOAEL was near 2
mg/kg/day since the only effect observed were microscopic placental
changes without accompanying adverse fetal effects. At the next highest
dose, 10 mg/kg/day, maternal effects included minimal to mild
centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy and enlarged placenta. Fetal
effects at 10 mg/kg/day were enlarged livers and increased variations
(rudimentary ribs and unossified sternebra).

In a rabbit dietary developmental study, the NOAEL for the dam was 21.2
mg/kg/day.  The developmental NOAEL was 8.3 mg/kg/day based on decreased
litters and increased resorptions.  The combined results from three
rabbit gavage studies indicated the lowest maternal NOAEL to be 7
mg/kg/day based on increased clinical signs as 15 mg/kg/day.  The lowest
developmental NOAEL was 15 mg/kg/day based on increased resorptions at
higher doses.

The effects of flusilazole on reproductive parameters were investigated
in two multigeneration studies.  The collective results from these
studies indicate a parental NOAEL of 50 ppm (2.85 mg/kg/day) based on
body weight effects at 250 ppm (the highest dose tested). The
reproductive and offspring NOAELs were both 50 ppm (2.85 mg/kg/day)
based on increased gestation length, dystocia and periparturient deaths,
decreased number of pups born alive, and lower pup body weights on
lactation days 14 and 21 at 250 ppm.]

<	4. Subchronic toxicity.

[Subchronic studies were conducted by feeding in rats, mice and dogs and
by dermal application in rabbits.  In a 90-day feeding study in rats,
the NOAEL was 125 ppm flusilazole (9-11 mg/kg/day) based on elevated
serum cholesterol, increased liver weights, mild liver degeneration, and
mild bladder mucosal hyperplasia at higher doses.

The combined results of two 90-day feeding studies in mice resulted in a
NOAEL of 25 ppm (4-5 mg/kg/day), based on effects on body weight, food
efficiency, mild hematologic changes, increased liver weights, reduced
kidney weights, and histopathologic changes of the liver and/or urinary
bladder at higher doses.

In the 90-day study in dogs the NOAEL was 25 ppm (0.9 mg/kg/day).
Effects observed at higher dose were body weight, clinical chemistry and
liver weight changes and evidence of cellular proliferation in the
urinary bladder.

In a 21-day dermal study in rabbits, the NOAEL for systemic effects was
200 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.  Indicators of dermal irritation
were observed at this dose, but there was no histopathology related to
systemic effects.

>

In summary, in subchronic studies, the targets identified were blood,
liver, and urinary bladder.  The most sensitive species was the dog,
with a NOAEL of 0.9 mg/kg/day.]

<	5. Chronic toxicity.

[Chronic studies with flusilazole have been conducted in rats, mice, and
dogs and again the dog was the most sensitive species.  The NOEL of
flusilazole in the one-year dog feeding study was 5 ppm (0.2 mg/kg/day)
based on minimal effects at the next higher dose, 20 ppm (0.7
mg/kg/day).  Because these effects primarily reflected a reversible,
adaptive response of the liver, it was concluded that the NOAEL was 0.7
mg/kg/day.  A mechanistic study conducted to define the nature of these
liver effects supports this assignment.  Effects at higher doses in the
chronic dog study were mild to moderate hepatotoxicity, mild
leucocytosis (inflammatory) response, and changes in clinical chemistry.

Two 2-year feeding studies were conducted in rats. Target organs were
consistent with the subchronic administration studies, i.e., liver and
bladder.  At higher doses, bladder transitional cell neoplasia was
increased in both sexes and testicular Leydig cell adenomas in males.
There was evidence for proliferative effect of the test substance in the
bladder transitional epithelium.  Therefore, it can be concluded that
the urinary bladder tumors were caused by an epigenetic,
threshold-associated mechanism.  Mechanistic studies indicated
interference of flusilazole with hypothalmic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG)
axis is a possible mechanism of testicular tumor induction.  Thus it is
reasonable to conclude that a threshold exists for the induction Leydig
cell adenomas by flusilazole.  The NOAEL for neoplasms was 125 ppm in
males (5.03 mg/kg/day) and 375 ppm (20.5 mg/kg/day) in females.  The
NOAEL for chronic toxicity (non-neoplastic hepatotoxicity) is 50 ppm (2
mg/kg/day).

Based on two chronic feeding studies in mice, target organs were the
liver, kidney, urinary bladder, and urethra.  Increased incidences of
liver tumors (hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas) occurred at doses
in excess of the MTD.  Significant histopathological changes were
observed in the liver at doses below those resulting in oncogenicity.
The NOAEL for oncogenicity was 200 ppm (36 mg/kg/day) in females and 500
ppm (73.1 mg/kg/day) for males. Histopathological changes consistent
with hepatotoxicity were observed at lower doses and considered to be
precursors to tumor development.  Considering these observations and the
lack of genotoxic potential, it is reasonable to conclude that the
induction of such tumors was associated with cytotoxicity and
subsequently increased cell turnover.  These events suggest a threshold
for flusilazole-induced mouse liver tumors.  The NOAEL for chronic
effects (non-neoplastic hepatotoxicity) in mice is 100 ppm (14.3/19.4
mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively).]

>

<	6. Animal metabolism.

[Flusilazole is extensively metabolized and excreted in the rat.  In a
metabolism study, male and female rats were given either a single dose
of phenyl- or triazole-labeled flusilazole.  Excretion was high in all
groups, 78% -99%.  Excretion of the phenyl label was divided between
feces and urine, with a greater proportion in the feces.  With the
triazole-label, excretion was primarily urinary, 72-81%. Tissue
retention was low, ranging from 1.3-3.5%.

A considerable proportion of administered flusilazole was found to be
excreted from the GI tract unchanged (from 2-10%).  Eight metabolites
were identified.  Cleavage and rapid excretion of the triazole moiety is
the primary step in the proposed metabolic pathway for flusilazole.  The
silane molecule may then be excreted or further metabolized to non-polar
fatty acid conjugates (males>females), ((-D-glucopyranuronic acid
conjugate (females), and may in addition further degrade to more polar
molecules.  The metabolites found in goats and hens indicated a similar
metabolic pathway to the rat, with little evidence of tissue
retention.]>

<7. Metabolite toxicology. The major flusilazole metabolites in plant
and animal tissue components of the human diet were also significant
mammalian metabolites and were intrinsically assessed for relative
safety in the flusilazole toxicology tests.  In addition, some of these
metabolites were also process impurities and were present in toxicology
test samples of flusilazole.  Therefore, the impact of trace dietary
residue exposures to flusilazole metabolites has been indirectly
assessed during the development of the toxicology database for this
active ingredient.>

<	8. Endocrine disruption.

[The effects of flusilazole have been evaluated in a battery of
subchronic, chronic, developmental, and reproduction studies.  Endocrine
organs have been evaluated on those studies and appropriate NOAELS
determined.  When needed, studies were conducted to define the
mechanisms of action and the threshold exposures for flusilazole-induced
effects of concern.  These mechanistic studies included targeted
assessments of hormone-mediated modes of action for tumor induction,
which follows the best currently available practices and facilitates a
risk-based approach to safety assessment.  An endocrine disrupter
screening program is being developed and validated.  When the
appropriate screening and/or testing protocols have been are available,
flusilazole may be subjected to additional screening and or testing.]>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

Flusilazole is a fungicide with proposed uses in the United States on
soybeans and wheat.  This tolerance petition proposes the following new
uses in the United States: soybean and wheat. There are no residential
uses.

<	1. Dietary exposure. [The chronic dietary RfD (cRfD) of 0.007
mg/kg/day is based on a NOAEL of 0.7 mg/kg/day from the two-year dog
feeding study and an uncertainty factor of 100.  EPA selected an acute
dietary RfD (aRfD) of 0.02 mg/kg for females 13-50 based on a NOAEL of
2.0 mg/kg/day in a rat developmental study.  An aRfD was not established
for other populations since an effect attributable to a single exposure
was not observed in the oral toxicity studies.]>

<	i. Food. [a. Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

Chronic dietary flusilazole exposure risk resulting from the proposed
use of flusilazole on soybean and wheat was estimated using the Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model with the Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM-FCIDTM, Exponent, Inc.). The analysis employed overall-mean
field-trial values and employed projections of the 5-year annual average
percent crop treated values.  The results of the chronic dietary
exposure analysis indicate that the predicted exposure to the general
U.S. population is 0.000089 mg/kg/day, or 1% of the cRfD.  The predicted
exposure to the most sensitive population, children 1-2 years old, was
0.000366 mg/kg/day, or 5% of the cRfD.  This chronic dietary risk
estimate for flusilazole shows that an adequate margin of safety exists
for all population subgroups, and that no effects would result from
dietary exposure to flusilazole.

The chronic module of the DEEM-FCIDTM software was also used to assess
lifetime risk of cancer.  A Q* value of 2.84x10-3 was applied to the
predicted chronic exposure for the general U.S. population; the
resulting lifetime cancer risk was 2.5x10-7, which is below the level of
concern.

b. Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment

The Tier 3 acute dietary exposure analysis resulting from the proposed
use of flusilazole on soybean and wheat was conducted with the acute
module of the DEEM-FCIDTM software.  The acute dietary analysis used
field trial residue data for soybean and wheat and considered meat and
milk in a probabilistic assessment, which also employed processing
factors and projected 5-year maximum annual percent crop treated values.

The acute exposure analysis demonstrates that an adequate margin of
safety exists for the only population group of interest, adult females.
The results of the acute dietary exposure analysis for flusilazole
indicate that the predicted exposure to the only relevant population
group, females 13-50 years, is 0.000803 mg/kg/day, 4% of the aRfD at the
99.9th percentile.  Flusilazole clearly meets the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.]>

<	ii. Drinking Water. [Surface water exposure was estimated using the
FIRST screening model version 1.0.  Ground water exposure was estimated
using SCI-GROW version 2.3.  These are screening level models used for
determining upper bound concentrations of pesticides in surface water
and ground water. Results indicate that a reasonable certainty exists
that flusilazole residues in drinking water will not contribute
significantly to the acute and chronic human risk.

The predicted chronic concentration for flusilazole under worst-case
conditions was 0.021 parts per billion (ppb) in ground water and 1.85
ppb in surface water.  When the higher surface water concentration is
included in the chronic dietary risk assessment, the predicted exposure
to the general U.S. population is 0.000128 mg/kg/day, or 2% of the cRfD.
The predicted exposure to the most sensitive population, children 1-2
years old, is 0.000424 mg/kg/day, or 6% of the cRfD.  This chronic
aggregate risk estimate for flusilazole shows that an adequate margin of
safety exists for all population subgroups, and that no effects would
result from chronic aggregate (food and water) exposure to flusilazole.
The lifetime cancer risk was considered with the inclusion of drinking
water.  A Q* value of 2.84x10-3 was applied to the predicted chronic
exposure including drinking water for the general U.S. population; the
resulting lifetime cancer risk was 3.6x10-7, which is below the level of
concern.

The predicted acute concentration for flusilazole under worst-case
conditions was 0.021 parts per billion (ppb) in ground water and 4.126
ppb in surface water.  When the higher surface water concentration was
included in the acute dietary risk assessment, the predicted exposure at
the 99.9th percentile for the only relevant population, females (13-50
years), is 0.000867 mg/kg/day, 4% of the aRfD.  Since the % aRfD for the
only relevant population group is well below 100%, the acute dietary
safety of flusilazole, including the contribution of drinking water,
clearly meets the standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.]>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. [Flusilazole products are not labeled for
residential non-food uses, thereby eliminating the potential for
residential exposure. Non-occupational, non-dietary exposure for
flusilazole has not been estimated because the proposed products are
limited to commercial crop production. Therefore, the potential for
non-occupational exposure is insignificant.]>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	[Flusilazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of
pesticides.  Although triazole pesticides act similarly in plants
(fungi) by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily
a relationship between this pesticidal activity and their mechanism of
toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common
mechanism of toxicity.  Evidence is needed to establish that the
chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same sequence of major
biochemical events (EPA, 2002). In triazoles a variable pattern of
toxicological responses is found. Some are hepatotoxic and
hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some
induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in rodents.
Furthermore, the triazoles produce a diverse range of biochemical events
including altered cholesterol levels, stress responses, and altered DNA
methylation. It is not clearly understood whether these biochemical
events are directly connected to their toxicological outcomes. Thus,
there is currently no evidence to indicate that triazoles share common
mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is not following a cumulative risk
approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for the triazole
pesticides. For information regarding EPA’s procedures for cumulating
effects from substances found to have a common mechanism of toxicity,
see EPA’s website at http://  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative"
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative .

Flusilazole is a triazole-derived pesticide. This class of compounds can
form the common metabolites 1,2,4-triazole conjugates (triazole alanine
and triazole acetic acid). To support existing tolerances and to
establish new tolerances for triazole-derived pesticides, EPA conducted
a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole, triazole
alanine, and triazole acetic acid resulting from the use of all current
and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide. The risk assessment
is highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in terms of hazards
associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a maximum combination
of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and non-dietary exposures
(i.e., high end estimates of both dietary and non-dietary exposures).

In addition, on the assessment involving the 1,2,4-triazole metabolites,
the Agency retained the additional 10X FQPA safety factor for the
protection of infants and children. The assessment includes evaluations
of risks for various subgroups, including those comprised of infants and
children. The Agency’s complete risk assessment may be found at
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/tetraHHRA.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/tetraHHRA.pdf .

In that risk assessment, EPA concluded that, based upon the available
information and on conservative estimates of hazard and exposure, there
are no human health risk issues associated with 1,2,4-triazole or its
metabolites that would preclude re-registration of the
triazole-derivative fungicides registered to date or conditional
registrations of the  triazole derivative fungicides that have been
proposed as of September 1, 2005, which included the use of flusilazole
on soybean.]>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population.

[This chemical has not yet been evaluated by the Cancer Peer Review
Committee.  In the interim EPA has selected a conservative Q* of 2.84 x
10-3 mg/kg/day based on female mouse liver adenoma and carcinoma
combined tumor rate.  For an acute dietary exposure EPA has selected an
ARfD of 0.02 mg/kg/day for females 13 or older based on an NOAEL of 2
mg/kg/day on rat developmental studies and an uncertainty factor of
100x.  No acute reference dose was selected for the general population,
since no endpoint of concern attributable to a single dose was
identified for the general population.  EPA has selected an incidental
short-term oral/inhalation NOAEL of 2.85 mg/kg/day and a short-term
dermal NOAEL of 2.85 mg/kg/day from the rat reproduction studies and an
uncertainty factor of 100 to be used in residential and occupational
risk assessment.  Based on the completeness and reliability of the
toxicity data and the conservative exposure assessments, there is
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the aggregate
exposure of residues of flusilazole.  No additional safety factors are
warranted.]>

<	2. Infants and children.

[The endpoints selected are considered protective of infants and
children since short-term endpoints are based on NOAELs for fetal
effects in developmental toxicity studies or offspring effects in
reproduction studies.  The chronic reference doses based on another
endpoint (oncogenicity) is adequately protective because they are lower
than those identified for developmental toxicity.  Based on the
completeness and reliability of the toxicity data base, the lack of
toxicological endpoints of special concern, the lack of any indication
that children are more sensitive than adults to flusilazole, and the
conservative exposure assessment, there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to infants and children from the aggregate exposure
of residues of flusilazole, including all anticipated dietary exposure
and all other non-occupational exposures. Accordingly, there is no need
to apply an additional safety factor for infants and children.]>

<F. International Tolerances>

<[International Codex values are established for apricot; banana;
barley; barley straw and fodder, dry; cattle fat, meat. milk, and edible
offal; chicken eggs, meat, and edible offal; dried grapes (=currants,
raisins and sultanas); grapes; nectarine; peach; pome fruit; rape seed;
rye; rye straw and fodder, dry; sugar beet; wheat; and wheat straw and
fodder, dry.]>


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 54286]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: License
Requirements for Operation of a Launch Site

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on June 21, 2011, Vol. 76, No. 119, page 36172. The
information to be collected includes data required for performing
launch site location analysis. The launch site license is valid for a
period of 5 years. Respondents are licensees authorized to operate
sites.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by September 30, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0644.
    Title: License Requirements for Operation of a Launch Site.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The data requested for a license application to operate
a commercial launch site are required by 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, 701--
Commercial Space Launch Activities, 49 U.S.C. 70101-70119 (1994). The
information is needed in order to demonstrate to the FAA Office of
Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/AST) that the proposed activity
meets applicable public safety, national security, and foreign policy
interest of the United States.
    Respondents: Approximately 1 applicant.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 2,322 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 4,644 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 22, 2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-22247 Filed 8-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67053-67055]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28086]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0577; Airspace Docket No. 18-AAL-9]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Atqasuk, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from
1,200

feet above the surface at Atqasuk Edward Burnell Sr. Memorial Airport,
Atqasuk, AK. This action adds exclusionary language to the legal
description of the airport to ensure the safety and management of
aircraft within the National Airspace System. Also, the geographic
coordinates of the airport are updated.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 28, 2019. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
    For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202) 741-6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Malgarini, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above
the surface at Atqasuk Edward Burnell Sr. Memorial Airport, AK, to
support IFR operations in standard instrument approach and departure
procedures at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (83 FR 46434; September 13, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0577
to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the
surface at Atqasuk Edward Burnell Sr. Memorial Airport, Atqasuk, AK,
and to add exclusionary language to the legal description of the
airport to ensure the safety and management of aircraft within the
National Airspace System. Also, the geographic coordinates of the
airport would be updated. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
above the surface at Atqasuk Edward Burnell Sr. Memorial Airport,
Atqasuk, AK. Also, language has been added to the legal description of
the airport to exclude that airspace extending beyond 12 miles of the
shoreline. This action supports IFR operations in standard instrument
approach and departure procedures at the airport.
    Additionally, an editorial change made to the airport's geographic
coordinates brings them up to date with FAA's aeronautical database.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Atqasuk, AK [Amended]

Atqasuk Edward Burnell Sr. Memorial Airport, AK

    (Lat. 70[deg]28'02'' N, long. 157[deg]26'08'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Atqasuk Edward Burnell Sr. Memorial
Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above
the surface within a 73-mile radius of Atqasuk Edward Burnell Sr.
Memorial Airport, excluding that airspace extending beyond 12 miles
of the shoreline.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 14, 2018.
Byron Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-28086 Filed 12-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 68134]
[DOCID:fr04de07-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-26-000]

Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

November 23, 2007.
    Take notice that on November 13, 2007, Columbia Gulf Transmission
Company (Columbia Gulf), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas
77056, filed in Docket No. CP08-26-000, a prior notice request pursuant
to sections 157.205 and 157.210 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to
construct, own, and operate new natural gas compression facilities,
located in Acadia Parish, Louisiana, all as more fully set forth in the
application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also 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, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,

(202) 502-8659.
    Columbia Gulf proposes to construct two 1,775 horsepower skid-
mounted compressor units, for a total of 3,550 horsepower and
approximately 200 feet of 20-inch diameter station piping and
appurtenances at its existing Rayne Compressor Station in Acadia
Parish, Louisiana. Columbia Gulf proposes to provide an additional 180
MMcf/d of firm delivery capacity into Florida Gas Transmission Company,
LLC's (FGT) system from Columbia Gulf's East Lateral system at the
existing point of delivery to FGT, by increasing the operating pressure
from 840 psig to 1008 psig, which is the authorized Maximum Allowable
Operating pressure (the existing capacity will not increase). In
addition, Columbia Gulf requests authorization to modify its existing
point of delivery to FGT in Lafayette, Louisiana, by constructing an
additional tap on its East Lateral Line 400 and a large meter and
appurtenances. Columbia Gulf estimates the cost of construction to be
$17.5 million.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to
Fredric J. George, Lead Counsel, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company,
P.O. Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 22030-0146, call (304) 357-
2359 or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR
157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the
time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as
an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. 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.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23426 Filed 12-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26989-26990]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 384 and 385

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27659]
RIN 2126-AB02

Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's
Permit Standards

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), (DOT).

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA published a final rule in the Federal Register on
Monday, May 9, 2011, that became effective on July 8, 2011. That final
rule amended the commercial driver's license (CDL) knowledge and skills
testing standards and established new minimum Federal standards for
States to issue the commercial learner's permit (CLP). Since the final
rule was published, FMCSA identified minor discrepancies regarding
section references in existing regulatory text resulting from the final
rule. This document corrects those section references.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 8, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Redmond, Office of Safety
Programs, Commercial Driver's License Division, telephone (202) 366-
5014 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 8:00 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document corrects section references in
a final rule amending the commercial driver's license (CDL) knowledge
and skills testing standards, which was published in the Federal
Register on Monday, May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26853).

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 384

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Motor carriers.

49 CFR Part 385

    Highway safety, Highways and roads, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle
safety, Safety fitness procedures.

    Accordingly, 49 CFR parts 384 and 385 are corrected by making the
following correcting amendments:

PART 384--STATE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE PROGRAM

0
1. The authority citation for part 384 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502; secs. 103
and 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1753, 1767; and 49 CFR 1.73.

0
2. Revise Sec.  384.234 to read as follows:

Sec.  384.234  Driver medical certification recordkeeping.

    The State must meet the medical certification recordkeeping
requirements of Sec.  383.73(b)(5) and (o) of this chapter.

PART 385--SAFETY FITNESS PROCEDURES

0
3. The authority citation for part 385 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b), 5105(e), 5109, 5113,
13901-13905, 31136, 31144, 31148, and 31502; Sec. 350 of Pub. L.
107-87; and 49 CFR 1.73.

0
4. Amend the Table to Sec.  385.321 by revising Violation 7 to read as
follows:

Sec.  385.321  What failures of safety management practices disclosed
by the safety audit will result in a notice to a new entrant that its
USDOT new entrant registration will be revoked?

* * * * *

    Table to Sec.   385.321--Violations That Will Result in Automatic
                 Failure of the New Entrant Safety Audit
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                              * * * * * * *
7. Sec.   383.37(b)-Knowingly allowing,      Single occurrence.
 requiring, permitting, or authorizing an
 employee to operate a commercial motor
 vehicle with a commercial learner's permit
 or commercial driver's license which is
 disqualified by a State, has lost the
 right to operate a CMV in a State or who
 is disqualified to operate a commercial
 motor vehicle.

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

    Issued on: April 19, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-10931 Filed 5-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: July 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 40100-40102]
[DOCID:fr14jy06-72]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0209; FRL-8058-5]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for Establishment of
Regulations for Residues of Rimsulfuron in or on Various Food
Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of in
rimsulfuron (N-((4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)aminocarbonyl)-3-
(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide) in or on almond hulls, citrus/
pome/stone fruit crop groups, grapes, pistachios, and tree nuts crop
group.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 14, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0209 and pesticide petition number (PP)
5F7019 by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0209. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov

website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
,or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vickie Walters, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition
summary of interest.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of a pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that this pesticide petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting
of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA
rules on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov. To locate this information on the home page

of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the OPP
docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking on
the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the docket
for the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerance

    PP 5F7019. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Laurel Run Plaza,
P.O. Box 80038, Wilmington, DE 19880-0038, proposes to establish a
tolerance for residues of the herbicide rimsulfuron (N-((4,6-
dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)aminocarbonyl)-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-
pyridinesulfonamide) in or on almond hulls, citrus/pome/stone fruit
crop group, grapes, pistachios, and tree nuts crop group at 0.01 parts
per million (ppm). An adequate analytical methodology, high-pressure
liquid chromatography with ESI-MS/MS detection is available for
enforcement purposes. The two methods are ``Analytical Method for the
Determination of Rimsulfuron in Watery and Dry Crop Matrices by HPLC/
ESI-MS/MS'' (DuPont Report 15033) and ``Analytical Method for the
Determination of Rimsulfuron in Oily Crop Matrices by HPLC/ESI-MS/MS''
(DuPont Report 15027). The limit of

quantitation for rimsulfuron with these methods in raw agricultural
commodities and in processed fractions is 0.01 ppm.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: July 3, 2006.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E6-11006 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10681-10682]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF15-1-000]

PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Postponement of Public
Scoping Meeting for the Penneast Pipeline Project

    On January 13, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC
or Commission) issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement for the Planned PennEast Pipeline Project, Requests
for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping
Meetings. The notice solicited comments on the potential environmental
impacts of the planned project and announced the time and location of
five public scoping meetings being held for the environmental
proceedings.
    Due to unforeseen circumstances, the Commission staff is postponing
the scoping meeting planned for Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at Bucks
County Community College, Kevin and Sima Zlock Performing Arts Center
Gateway Auditorium, 275 Swamp Road, Newtown, Pennsylvania 18940. Once a
new venue is established and scheduled, the Commission will issue
another notice advising of the new location and time.

    Dated: January 26, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-04049 Filed 2-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P