[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52512-52514]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18737]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0175]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Implantable
Cardioverter Defibrillators

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from eleven
individuals for exemptions from the rules prohibiting operation of a
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) by persons with a current clinical
diagnosis of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, coronary
insufficiency, thrombosis, or any other cardiovascular disease of a
variety known to be accompanied by syncope, dyspnea, collapse, or
congestive heart failure. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals to operate CMVs for up to two years in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2016-0175 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket ID for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov, at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for a two-
year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to
renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period. The eleven
individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from 49
CFR 391.41(b)(4), which applies to drivers who operates CMVs in
interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the
qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the
exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by
statute.
    The physical qualification standard found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(4)
states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that
person

    Has no current clinical diagnosis of myocardial infarction,
angina pectoris, coronary insufficiency, thrombosis, or any other
cardiovascular disease of a variety known to be accompanied by
syncope, dyspnea, collapse, or congestive cardiac failure.

    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to

assist medical examiners in determining whether drivers with certain
medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in interstate
commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL ADVISORY
CRITERIA, section D. Cardiovascular: Sec.  391.41(b)(4), paragraph 4.]
The advisory criteria states that ICDs are disqualifying due to risk of
syncope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e47b48a9ea42dd67d999246e23d97970&mc=true&node=pt49.5.391&rgn=div5#ap49.5.391_171.a and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qualifications of Applicants

Charles R. Allen
    Mr. Allen is a 47 year old commercial motor vehicle driver in
Michigan. A report that he provided from July 2015 from the Veterans
Administration Ann Arbor Healthcare System provider indicates, ``he has
well compensated class-I-II congestive heart failure with and ICD. He
has a normal ejection fraction of 50-55%''.
William Blake
    Mr. Blake is a 57 year old Class A CDL holder in New Hampshire. His
ICD was implanted in June 2015 and has never deployed. A January 5,
2016 cardiologist report indicates; ``No symptoms referable to ICD or
underlying rhythm changes. I believe the risk of recurrent ventricular
tachy-arrhythmias or syncope is very low, however, given the history of
these abnormalities and the family history of arrhythmias I would favor
continued ICD implantation''.
Roosevelt Tyrone Brown
    Mr. Brown is a 54 year old Class A CDL holder in South Carolina. A
March 17, 2016 letter from his cardiologist states that Mr. Brown's ICD
was implanted October 15, 2013, and that recent echocardiography
demonstrated an ejection fraction in the 25-30 percent range and a
calculated ejection fraction of 24% from nuclear stress testing. A
March 10, 2016 report from his electrophysiologist indicates that Mr.
Brown has reported one shock from his device. Overall he feels well and
denies chest pain, shortness of breath, or dyspnea on exertion.
Kevin Coulter
    Mr. Coulter is a 60 year old Class A CDL holder in California. A
June 2016 letter from his cardiologist states that his ICD was
implanted in February 2015. No shock has deployed since implantation.
He has been asymptomatic. He has an ejection fraction of 40-45%, most
recently measured in April 2015.
John Dudar
    Mr. Dudar is a 55 year old Class A CDL holder in Connecticut. An
undated cardiologist report indicates that the ICD has been in place
since 2003. ``He has experienced several shocks from his device and
around that time was upgraded to biventricular ICD. At least back to
2009 he has not received any ICD discharges. His device is stable and
at this point he really has no significant heart failure symptoms. His
last ejection fraction was estimated at 25% in August 2013. His cardiac
issues appear stable. He has had no recent ventricular arrhythmias and
he has a normally functioning Biv-ICD''.
Timothy Godwin
    Mr. Godwin is a 51 year old Class A CDL holder in North Carolina. A
March 30 2016 report from his cardiac electrophysiologist indicates
knowledge of the driver and his condition since 2014 and that (Mr.
Godwin) has not required any therapies before or after ICD implant, nor
has he lost consciousness at any time. ``I consider him to be safer
than most other commercial drives who have undiagnosed or untreated
cardiovascular problems. I feel that rather than the presence or
absence of an ICD in a patient what is most important is the underlying
cardiac condition and risk for loss of consciousness. Treated, Mr.
Godwin is at average risk''.
James Goslee
    Mr. Goslee is a 52 year old driver in Maryland. A May 2016 letter
from his cardiologist states that his ICD was implanted in June 2104.
His ICD has never delivered therapy. He follows up regularly in the
office and is free of cardiac complaints. An April 2016 study shows an
ejection fraction of 65-70% and an exercise tolerance at 10 minutes of
Bruce protocol. The current status of underlying heart condition is low
intermediate cardiovascular risk profile.
Richard Hacker
    Mr. Hacker is 62 year old Class A CDL holder in Maryland. Medical
documents from June 2016 from his cardiologist state that his ICD was
implanted in 2007. The device check in June 2016 indicated no events
for 10.5 years. Mr. Hacker's ejection fraction is 53%. His medical
documentation indicates that he has no symptoms.
Kathryn Kosse
    Ms. Kosse is a 63 year old Class D holder in Arizona. A May 2016
letter from her cardiologist states that her defibrillator was
implanted in October 2014. ``Her ICD has never deployed and her
symptoms have completely resolved. Her left ventricular ejection
fraction is normal. Ms. Kosse appears to be in stable cardiovascular
health''.
Joseph Skrzyniarz
    Mr. Skrzyniarz is a 56 year old Class A CDL holder in Michigan. He
possesses a one-year Michigan waiver dated October 22, 2015 for
intrastate driving. A September 15, 2015 cardiologist-
electrophysiologist report indicates that his ICD has been implanted
since February 2015. He has not received any ICD shocks from his device
at this time. ``He had two episodes of asymptomatic non-sustained
ventricular tachycardia. His condition is stable over the past year and
unchanged. He has not had any ICD shocks or dangerous arrhythmias. He
has been asymptomatic and is safe to operate a commercial vehicle in
accordance to his job description which was provided. I have no
reservations at this time''. A September 17 cardiologist report
provides that, ``To date the device has not been activated and his
underlying cardiac condition has been deemed stable.''
Wylanne Deon Stafford
    Mr. Stafford is a 48 year old driver in Illinois. An April 26, 2016
report from his cardiologist indicates that Mr. Stafford's ICD was
implanted in 2011 and has never fired. His cardiologist indicates that
since ICD placement, his ejection fraction has normalized to 55% and he
is asymptomatic and stable.

II. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.

III. Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket number ``FMCSA-2016-0175'' and
click the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue
``Comment

Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new page,
enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and materials received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination any time after
the close of the comment period.

IV. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert
the docket number FMCSA-2016-0175 and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments
related to this notice.

    Issued on: July 29, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-18737 Filed 8-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES August 1, 2002 CERTIFIED MAIL Cindy Baker Gowan Company 370 S. Main Street PO Box 5569 Yuma, AZ 85366 5569 Dear Ms. Baker:

This is the Environmental Protection Agency's ( hereafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) " Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision ( TRED) for Fenarimol", which was approved on August 1, 2002. A Notice of Availability of this tolerance reassessment decision will be published in the Federal Register ( FR).

The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), as amended by FQPA, requires EPA to reassess all the tolerances for registered chemicals in effect on or before the date of the enactment of the FQPA, which was in August of 1996. In reassessing these tolerances, the Agency must consider, among other things, aggregate risks from non occupational sources of pesticide exposure, whether there is increased susceptibility to infants and children, and the cumulative effects of pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity. Once a safety finding has been made that aggregate risks are not of concern, the tolerances are considered reassessed. Fenarimol was registered prior to FQPA enactment. Therefore, the tolerances need to be reassessed to meet the FQPA standard.

The Agency has evaluated the dietary risk associated with fenarimol and has determined that there is a reasonable certainty, with appropriate mitigation, that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure to fenarimol when considering dietary exposure and all other non occupational sources of pesticide exposure for which there is reliable information.

Residential postapplication exposure was of concern for children and infants from incidental ingestion of fenarimol product applied in residential settings. To mitigate this risk the registrant has agreed to remove the residential uses from their labels until they conduct a special developmental toxicity study that will assess for possible effects of fenarimol on the adult and juvenile rat hormonal systems. Once these data are submitted and reviewed, the Agency will make a determination regarding the acceptability of the residential uses. 2 For chronic drinking water risk from surface water, potential ( average) Estimated Environmental Concentrations ( EECs) of fenarimol ( 84 ppb) exceeds the chronic Drinking Water Level of Comparison ( DWLOC) for all populations. The 84 ppb value includes all residential uses and the golf course use of fenarimol. However, with the residential uses removed from the label a correction factor of .31 can be applied to the 84 ppb surface water number to account for the use of fenarimol only on tees, greens, and fairways on golf courses. This would reduce the chronic EEC to 26 ppb. Infants and children, the most sensitive population subgroups would still exceed the chronic DWLOC of 20. However, the chronic EECs were estimated using Tier I modeling and only slightly exceed the DWLOC. Additional data are being required that will provide important information on the mobility of fenarimol and its degradates. These studies will help to refine the chronic surface and ground water drinking water risk assessments.

FQPA requires that EPA consider " available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and " other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity." The reason for considering other substances is because of the possibility that low level exposures to multiple chemical substances that cause a common toxic effect by a common mechanism could lead to the same adverse health effect, as would a higher level of exposure to any of the other substances individually. EPA did not perform a cumulative risk assessment as part of this review of fenarimol, because the Agency has not determined that there are any other chemical substances that have a mechanism of toxicity common with that of fenarimol. If EPA identifies other substances that share a common mechanism of toxicity with fenarimol, then a cumulative risk assessment will be conducted that includes fenarimol once the final framework EPA will use for conducting cumulative risk assessments is available. Further, EPA is in the process of developing criteria for characterizing and testing endocrine disrupting chemicals and plans to implement an Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Fenarimol will be reevaluated at that time and additional studies may be requested.

The Agency's human health findings for the pesticide fenarimol, are summarized in the enclosed Fenarimol Overview and Fenarimol Summary of the risk assessments. The risk assessments and other documents pertaining to the fenarimol tolerance reassessment decision are available on the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ reregistration/ status. htm and are in the public docket for viewing.

The Agency has reassessed all 42 tolerances for fenarimol and can make a FQPA safety determination. In addition, available residue chemistry data support the establishment of a 0.02 ppm permanent tolerance for fenarimol residues in filberts under 40 CFR 180.421 ( a). The Agency has sufficient residue data for reassessing the tolerances for fenarimol. The chronic dietary exposure assessment for fenarimol is highly refined using anticipated residues based on 1996 1999 Food and Drug Administration ( FDA) monitoring data for apples, bananas, cherries, grapes and pears. Field trial residue data were used for pecans and filberts. Percent crop treated (% CT) information and processing factors, where available, were used in the assessment. There were no PDP monitoring data available for fenarimol. Residues of fenarimol per se were nondetectable ( below the method limit of detection, or LOD) in all 1996 1999 FDA monitoring samples of apples, bananas, grapes, and pears ( a total of more than 3,000 samples). Out of 214 cherry samples, three had detectable residues. Residues of fenarimol per se were nondetectable (< LOD) in/ on all but one pecan nut meat sample from seven trials. There were no detectable residues in filbert samples from four field trials. Chronic dietary risks from exposure do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. 3 Table 1 Tolerance Reassessment Summary For Fenarimol.

Commodity Established Tolerance ( ppm) Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) Comment [ Correct Commodity Definition]

Tolerance Listed Under 40 CFR § 180.421( a)( 1)

Apple pomace ( wet and dry) 2.0 0.3 The available data indicate that the tolerance for wet apple pomace should be reduced. Dry apple pomace is no longer considered a significant livestock feed item. [ Apple, wet pomace]

Apples 0.1 0.1 [ Apple]

Cattle, fat 0.1 0.01 Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.01 ppm ( method limit of quantitation [ LOQ]).

Cattle, meat 0.01 0.01 Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.01 ppm ( method limit of quantitation [ LOQ]).

Cattle, mbyp 0.01 0.05 [ Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney] Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.05 ppm.

Cattle, kidney 0.1 0.01 Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.01 ppm ( method limit of quantitation [ LOQ]).

Cattle, liver 0.1 Revoke [ included in meat byproducts]

Eggs 0.01 Revoke There are no poultry feed items associated with presently registered uses.

Goat, fat 0.1 0.01 Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.01 ppm ( method limit of quantitation [ LOQ]).

Goat, meat 0.01 0.01 Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.01 ppm ( method limit of quantitation [ LOQ]).

Goat, mbyp 0.01 0.05 [ Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney] Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.05 ppm.

Goat, kidney 0.1 0.01 Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.01 ppm ( method limit of quantitation [ LOQ]).

Goat, liver 0.1 Revoke [ included in meat byproducts] Commodity Established Tolerance ( ppm) Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) Comment [ Correct Commodity Definition]

4 Hog, fat 0.1 Revoke There are no hog feed items associated with presently registered uses. Hog, meat 0.01 Revoke Hog, mbyp 0.01 Revoke Hog, kidney 0.1 Revoke Hog, liver 0.1 Revoke Horse, fat 0.1 0.01 Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.01 ppm ( method limit of quantitation [ LOQ]).

Horse, meat 0.01 0.01 Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.01 ppm ( method limit of quantitation [ LOQ]).

Horse, mbyp 0.01 0.05 [ Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney] Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.05 ppm.

Horse, liver 0.1 Revoke [ included in meat byproducts]

Horse, kidney 0.1 0.01 Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.01 ppm ( method limit of quantitation [ LOQ]).

Milk 0.003 Revoke Category 3 of 40 CFR § 180.6( a)

Pears 0.1 0.1 [ Pear]

Pecans 0.1 0.02 [ Pecan] Residue data have been submitted to reassess the established tolerance for pecans.

Poultry, fat 0.01 Revoke There are no poultry feed items associated with presently registered uses. Poultry, meat 0.01 Revoke Poultry, mbyp 0.01 Revoke Sheep, fat 0.1 0.01 Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.01 ppm ( method limit of quantitation [ LOQ]).

Sheep, meat 0.01 0.01 Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.01 ppm ( method limit of quantitation [ LOQ]).

Sheep, mbyp 0.01 0.05 [ Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney] Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.05 ppm. Commodity Established Tolerance ( ppm) Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) Comment [ Correct Commodity Definition]

5 Sheep, kidney 0.1 0.01 Residue data indicate that the tolerance should be reassessed at 0.01 ppm ( method limit of quantitation [ LOQ]).

Sheep, liver 0.1 Revoke [ included in meat byproducts]

Tolerance Listed Under 40 CFR § 180.421( a)( 2)

Bananas 1 0.5 ( Not more than 0.25 ppm shall be present in the pulp after peel is removed) 0.25 [ Banana] Residue data have been submitted to reassess the established tolerance for bananas.

Cherries 1.0 1.0 [ Cherry]

Grape juice 0.6 Revoke Not required based on reexamination of available grape processing data.

Grape pomace ( wet and dry) 2.0 Revoke No longer considered a significant livestock feed item.

Grapes 0.2 0.1 [ Grape] Residue data have been submitted to reassess the established tolerance for grapes.

Raisin waste 3.0 Revoke No longer considered a significant livestock feed item.

Raisins 0.6 Revoke Not required based on reexamination of available grape processing data.

Tolerance to be Established Under 40 CFR § 180.421( a)( 1)

Filberts not applicable 0.02 Residue chemistry data support the establishment of a 0.02 ppm tolerance for filberts.

1 For tolerance reassessment purposes, the banana tolerance is counted as two tolerances to reflect the baseline count determined at the start of FQPA ( bananas and bananas, pulp).

Codex/ International Harmonization The Codex Alimentarius Commission has established several maximum residue limits ( MRLs) for residues of fenarimol in/ on various raw agricultural and processed commodities. The Codex MRLs are expressed in terms of fenarimol per se. A numerical comparison of the Codex MRLs and the corresponding reassessed U. S. tolerances is presented in the Table below. The Table shows that except for cattle liver, cherries, and pecans, the U. S. tolerances and Codex MRLs are not in harmony with respect to numerical levels. 6 Table 2 Codex MRLs and applicable U. S. tolerances for fenarimol. Recommendations are based on conclusions following reassessment of U. S. tolerances.

Codex Reassessed U. S. Tolerance, ppm Recommendation And Comments Commodity, As Defined MRL 1 ( mg/ kg)

Apple pomace, dry 5 wet apple pomace = 0.3 Dry apple pomace is no longer considered a significant livestock feed item.

Artichoke globe 0.1

Banana 0.2 0.25 Cattle kidney 0.02 (*) 0.01 (*)

Cattle liver 0.05 Revoke covered by tolerance for meat byproducts Cattle meat 0.02 (*) 0.01 (*)

Cherries 1 1 Dried grapes ( currants, raisins and sultanas) 0.2 Revoke Grapes 0.3 0.1 Hops, dry 5

Melons, except watermelon 0.05

Peach 0.5

Pecan 0.02 (*) 0.02 (*)

Peppers, sweet 0.5

Pome fruits 0.3 apple/ pear = 0.1 Strawberry 1

1 All MRLs are at CXL step. An asterisk (*) signifies that the MRL or US tolerance was established at or about the limit of detection.

Note that you will be sent a Section 3( c)( 2)( B) Data Call In ( DCI) letter under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) in a separate mailing. If you have questions on this document, please contact the Chemical Review Manager, Tom Myers, at ( 703) 308 8589.

Sincerely,

Lois A. Rossi, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Enclosures: " Fenarimol Overview" and " Fenarimol Summary"


[Federal Register: March 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 9820-9822]
[DOCID:fr05mr07-96]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55339; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Existing Rules for Investment Company
Units

February 23, 2007.
    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 February 8, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange''),
through its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca Equities''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit
comment 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

    NYSE Arca, proposes to modify its listing standards applicable to
Investment Company Units (``Investment Company Units'' or ``ICUs'') by
amending Commentary .01(b)(1) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) to
eliminate the requirement that the calculation methodology for the
index underlying a series of ICUs must be one of those enumerated in
the commentary. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
NYSE Arca, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nysearca.com/regulation/filings.asp
.

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 eliminate the requirement that the
prescribed calculation methodology for the index underlying a series of
ICUs must be one of those enumerated in Commentary .01(b)(1) of Rule
5.2(j)(3). The proposed rule change is based on proposed rule changes
of both the American Stock Exchange and New York Stock Exchange.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55240 (February 5,
2007), 72 FR 06624 (Februrary 12, 2007). See also SR-NYSE-2007-12
(submitted to the Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has adopted listing standards applicable to ICUs which
are consistent with the listing criteria currently used by other
national securities exchanges, and trading standards pursuant to which
the Exchange may either list and trade ICUs or trade such ICUs on the
Exchange on an unlisted trading privileges (``UTP'') basis.\4\ An
Investment Company Unit is defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.1(b)(15) as a security representing an interest in a registered
investment company that could be organized as a unit investment trust,
an open-end management investment company or a similar entity. A
registered investment company is registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In October 1999, the Commission approved NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 5.2(j)(3), which sets forth the rules related to listing and
trading criteria for Investment Company Units. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 41983 (October 6, 1999), 64 FR 56008
(October 15, 1999) (SR-PCX-1998-29). In July 2001, the Commission
also approved the Exchange's generic listing standards for listing
and trading, or the trading pursuant to UTP, of Investment Company
Units under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 44551 (July 12, 2001), 66 FR 37716 (July
19, 2001) (SR-PCX-2001-14).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 80a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``generic'' listing criteria of Commentary .01 to Rule
5.2(j)(3) permits listing or trading pursuant to UTP of ICUs that
satisfy such criteria in reliance upon Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act,\6\
without a separate filing. Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule 5.2(j)(3)
currently requires that where a series of ICUs approved for trading
(including pursuant to UTP) on the Exchange in reliance upon Rule 19b-
4(e) of the Act, the index underlying the series of ICUs must be
calculated based on either the market capitalization, modified market
capitalization, price, equal-dollar or modified equal-dollar weighting
methodology or a methodology weighting components of the index based on
any, some or all of the following: Sales, cash flow, book value, and
dividends.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54490 (September 22,
2006), 71 FR 58034 (October 2, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-61)
(approving underlying index weightings for: sales, cash flow, book
value and dividends).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to delete Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule
5.2(j)(3) and thereby eliminate the calculation methodology limitation.
    In recent years, academics and market professionals have explored
and defined a growing list of innovations in index construction. Most
recently, the Commission approved amendments to the generic listing
criteria to accommodate new index weighting methodologies based on
ranking companies by financial data such as sales, cash flow, book
value and dividends.\8\ The Exchange believes there are multiple ways
for indexes to be constructed to serve useful market purposes.
Additional methodologies are under active development by academics and
market professionals and permitting only certain specified index
weighting methods does not take into account the rapid innovation in
this area. The Exchange believes that, with respect to ICUs listed
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act, applying the numerical
weighting and liquidity criteria and index dissemination requirements
set forth in the remainder of Commentary .01 to Rule 5.2(j)(3), without
imposing constraints on the index methodology, will provide greater
flexibility to indexers and ICU issuers to develop indexes that meet
the investment objectives of investors. In addition, the proposed rule
change would allow ICUs based on a non-traditional weighting
methodology to be brought to market more quickly, thereby reducing
burdens on ICU issuers and other market participants and promoting
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54649 (October 24,
2006); 71 FR 63816 (October 31, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-88).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the numerical criteria in Commentary .01
already define the concentration limits, diversity requirements and
liquidity requirements of the companies in the underlying index. For
example, the generic listing standards for domestic indexes require,
among other things, that an index include at least 13 stocks, that the
most heavily weighted component stock of an index cannot exceed 30% of
the index or portfolio weight, and the five most heavily weighted
component stocks of an index cannot exceed 65% of the index or
portfolio weight. ICUs and their underlying indexes would continue to
be subject to all other requirements of Rule 5.2(j)(3) and Commentary
.01. Under these circumstances, the Exchange believes that removal of
the index weighting requirements of Commentary .01(b)(1) will not
compromise investor protection.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \9\ of the
Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \10\ in
particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to

90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate
and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-
regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed modifications, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    The Exchange has requested accelerated approval of this proposed
rule change. The Commission has determined that a 15-day comment period
is appropriate in this case.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-14. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-14 and should be submitted on or before March
20, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3739 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 51 (Monday, March 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14936-14937]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05309]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC20-4-000.
    Applicants: Tenaska Alabama II Partners, L.P., Alabama Power
Company.
    Description: Response to February 7, 2020 Data Request, et al. of
Tenaska Alabama II Partners, L.P., et al.
    Filed Date: 3/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200309-5248.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG20-91-000.
    Applicants: Oliver Wind II, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Oliver Wind II, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200306-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: EG20-92-000.
    Applicants: Anson Solar Center, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Anson Solar Center, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200309-5232.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: EG20-93-000.
    Applicants: Bluestone Farm Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Bluestone Farm Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200309-5233.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: EG20-94-000.
    Applicants: Whitehorn Solar LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Whitehorn Solar LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200309-5234.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER20-319-000.
    Applicants: Kimball Wind LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Kimball Wind Refund Report Filing to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200310-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-598-001
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Duke
Energy Indiana, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2020-03-09_Duke Indiana Depreciation
Rate Deficiency Filing to be effective 2/12/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200309-5238.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-838-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., American Electric Power Service
Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: DEO-AEP Amendment to Amended IA (PJM
SA No. 1491) to be effective 12/21/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200310-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-864-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2020-03-10_SA 3413 Ameren IL-Cass
County Solar Project Substitute GIA (J859) to be effective 1/8/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200310-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-932-001.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Filing of Executed Service Agreement
No 106 Between Tri-State and ARPA to be effective 1/10/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200310-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1211-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-03-09_Attachment X,
Appendix 1 Online Application Tool Enablement to be effective 5/9/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200309-5209.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1214-000.
    Applicants: CHPE, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authority to Sell Transmission Rights
at Negotiated Rates of CHPE, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200309-5250.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1215-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company, Sierra Pacific Power Company.
    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of Tariff Provision and
Motion for Expedited Consideration of Nevada Power Company, et al.

    Filed Date: 3/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200309-5251.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/13/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1216-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA,
SA No. 2033, Queue No. N07 re: Breach to be effective 3/10/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200310-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1218-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Rate Schedule FERC
No. 269 between Tri-State and YWEA to be effective 3/11/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200310-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1219-000.
    Applicants: Peetz Table Wind, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Peetz Table Wind, LLC
Application for MBR Authority to be effective 5/10/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200310-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1220-000.
    Applicants: Oliver Wind II, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Oliver Wind II, LLC
Application for MBR Authority to be effective 5/10/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200310-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1221-000.
    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of CPV Towantic LLC
to be effective 2/26/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200310-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1222-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Oklahoma.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PSO-WFEC Wardville Delivery
Point Agreement Cancellation to be effective 5/11/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200310-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:
    Docket Numbers: PH20-7-000.
    Applicants: Atlas Capital GP LP, Atlas Capital Resources (P) LP,
Greenidge Generation Holdings LLC.
    Description: Atlas Capital GP LP, et al. submits FERC 65-A
Exemption Notification.
    Filed Date: 3/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200309-5263.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 10, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-05309 Filed 3-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P