[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 114 (Thursday, June 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35654-35656]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14026]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69717; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-60]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to the
Schedule of Fees and Rebates for Execution of Quotes and Orders on
NASDAQ OMX PSX

June 7, 2013.
    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 May 31, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes changes to its schedule of fees and rebates
for execution of quotes and orders on NASDAQ OMX PSX (``PSX''). Phlx
proposes to implement the proposed rule change on June 3, 2013. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/nasdaqomxphlx/phlx, at
the principal office of the Exchange, 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
    Phlx is proposing two modifications to its schedule of fees and
rebates for transactions occurring on PSX.\3\ First, the Exchange
currently charges a fee of $0.00275 per share executed for orders in
securities listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market (``NASDAQ'') or the New
York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') entered through a PSX market participant
identifier (``MPID'') through which a member organization provides an
average daily volume of 10,000 or more shares of liquidity during the
month. On May 1, 2013, Phlx submitted a proposed rule change that would
have, among other things, set the applicable fee for this volume tier
at $0.0028 per share executed.\4\ When that proposed rule change was
rejected for unrelated reasons, Phlx submitted another proposed rule
change to modify fees on May 3, 2013.\5\ Because, however, the change
filed on May 3 did not apply retroactively to May 1, Phlx determined
that it would be advisable to set the applicable fee at $0.00275 per
share executed for the month of May, to reflect the fact that member
organizations qualifying for the tier would be paying the pre-existing
higher rate of $0.0030 per share executed for transactions occurring on
May 1 and 2. Phlx is now proposing to set the applicable fee at the
originally intended rate of $0.0028 per share executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The changes apply to securities priced at $1 or more per
share.
    \4\ SR-Phlx-2013-47 (May 1, 2013).
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69588 (May 15, 2013), 78
FR 29801 (May 21, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-51).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to modify its rebate tier of $0.0028
per share executed for displayed quotes/orders entered by a member
organization that provides an average daily volume of 2 million or more
shares of liquidity during the month by also requiring that (i) the
quote/order is entered through an MPID through which the member
organization displays, on average over the course of the month, 100
shares or more at the national best bid and/or national best offer at
least 25% of the time during regular market hours \6\ in the security
that is the subject of the quote/order, or (ii) the member organization
displays, on average over the course of the month, 100 shares or more
at the national best bid and/or national best offer at least 25% of the
time during regular market hours in 500 or more securities. A member
organization is not required to register as a PSX Market Maker in order
to qualify for the pricing tier. Rather, the trading data compiled by
the Exchange's systems on an ongoing basis allow it to determine which
member organizations and MPIDs satisfy the requirements for the tier,
and Phlx will use this information to determine the applicable rebate
rate to reflect in each member organization's monthly bill. To the
extent that a member organization satisfies the requirements for the
tier

during a particular month, the rebate will apply throughout that month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Phlx is adding a footnote to the fee schedule defining
regular market hours to mean ``9:30 a.m. through 4:00 p.m. Eastern
Time, or such shorter period as may be designated by the Exchange on
a day when PSX closes early'' (e.g., the day after Thanksgiving).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The overall purpose of this change is to use financial incentives
to encourage member organizations to increase the extent to which they
choose to offer displayed liquidity at the inside market through
PSX.\7\ In doing so, the Exchange hopes to increase the attractiveness
of PSX as a trading venue and benefit all of its market participants by
increasing the extent to which liquidity is available on PSX at or near
the national best bid and/or national best offer. This pricing tier is
similar to programs that are in effect at NASDAQ and NASDAQ OMX BX
(``BX'') as well as similar programs for options that have been in
effect at other national securities exchanges, under which the
availability of a particular fee or rebate is conditioned upon the
extent to which quotes/orders are at or near the inside market.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In its ``Recommendations Regarding Regulatory Responses to
the Market Events of May 6, 2010'' (February 18, 2011) (available at
http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@aboutcftc/documents/file/jacreport_021811.pdf), the Joint CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee on
Emerging Regulatory Issues recommend that the Commission ``consider
encouraging, through incentives or regulation, persons who regularly
implement market maker strategies to maintain best buy and sell
quotations which are `reasonably related to the market,' '' noting
that such ``measures could certainly include differential pricing.''
Phlx believes that this proposed rule change expands on this
recommendation by providing incentives for all member organizations,
whether or not registered as market makers, to maintain buy and sell
quotations at the inside market for a significant portion of the
trading day.
    \8\ See NASDAQ Rule 7014(g) and BX Rule 7018(a). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62507 (July 15, 2010), 75 FR
42802 (July 22, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-68); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 65076 (August 9, 2011), 76 FR 50525 (August 15, 2011)
(SR-BATS-2011-024). Phlx also notes that to the extent that the
proposed modification to the tier takes account of a member
organization's time at the inside market, it requires the Exchange
to perform calculations similar to those performed in connection
with its Excess Order Fee, which weights orders differently for
purposes of calculating a fee depending on the extent to which the
price of an order deviates from the inside market. See NASDAQ OMX
PHLX Pricing Schedule, Section VIII, paragraph (c). See also NASDAQ
Rule 7018(m), BX Rule 7018(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Phlx believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and with Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which Phlx operates or controls, and is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal to condition the availability of a rebate tier of
$0.0028 per share executed upon the satisfaction of stipulated
requirements for volume and extent of time with quotes/orders at the
national best bid and/or national best offer is reasonable because it
will condition the availability of a higher rebate tier on the extent
to which a member organization makes significant contributions to PSX
and its market quality by providing liquidity in the aggregate and by
maintaining trading interest at prices favorable to market participants
on the opposite side of the market. Moreover, the proposed change is
consistent with an equitable allocation of fees because the rebate is
provided to member organizations that benefit other market participants
through high levels of liquidity provision and consistent quoting at
the NBBO. In instances where a member organization's contribution to
PSX's time at the inside is limited to a small number of securities,
the rebate is allocated solely to transactions in the securities where
the member organization achieves time at the inside requirements.
Conversely, where the member organization makes notable market quality
contributions across 500 securities, the rebate is allocated to all of
the member organization's displayed quotes/orders, to reflect the more
significant contribution of the member organization to supporting
transactions at best prices and PSX's overall attractiveness as a
trading venue. The proposal is not unreasonably discriminatory because
the rebate is consistent with the benefits provided by market
participants receiving it, and because the Exchange offers alternative
means to receive a rebate that is only slightly lower ($0.0026 per
share executed) and that has very modest liquidity requirements
associated with it. The change does not result in any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate; rather, the change
will promote competition by using pricing incentives to encourage
market participants to quote at the inside market to a greater extent,
thereby increasing the attractiveness of PSX as a trading venue.
Although the tier allows members qualifying for it to receive a higher
rebate than other market participants, this does not unduly burden
competition because the difference between the applicable rebate and
the next lowest rebate is only $0.0002 per share executed, and Phlx
believes that the difference is commensurate with the benefits provided
through satisfaction of the tier's volume and quoting requirements.
    The change with respect to the fee charged for orders in securities
listed on NASDAQ or NYSE that are entered through a PSX MPID through
which a member organization provides an average daily volume of 10,000
or more shares of liquidity during the month is reasonable because it
reflects a small increase of $0.00005 per share executed. Moreover, the
fee in question is consistent with the requirements of SEC Rule 610(c)
under Regulation NMS.\11\ In adopting that rule, the Commission found
that fees not in excess of $0.0030 per share executed would promote the
objective of equal regulation and preventing excessive fees.\12\ The
change is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees because the
modified fee applicable to the volume tier in question remains lower
than the fee charged to member organizations not achieving the tier,
and therefore continues to provide a financial incentive for member
organizations to achieve higher volume levels at PSX. The change is not
unfairly discriminatory because the resulting fee is not higher than
the fee that other members may achieve through the use of routable
orders. Finally, the fee change does not unduly burden competition
because affected member organizations will continue to pay an access
fee that is lower than the base rate of $0.0030 per share executed, and
therefore their ability to compete will not be impacted; rather, they
will continue to pay a comparatively lower fee that reflects a volume-
based discount, conceptually similar to volume-based pricing incentives
that are provided by numerous other trading venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 242.610(c).
    \12\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37596 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.\13\ Phlx notes that
it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, Phlx must
continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other

exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted
from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and
because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, Phlx believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In
this instance, Phlx is instituting a small increase to one fee and
imposing conditions upon the availability of an enhanced rebate tier.
If the changes are unattractive to market participants, it is likely
that PSX will fail to increase its share of executions above its
current low level. Accordingly, Phlx does not believe that the changes
will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order
execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or 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) of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-Phlx-2013-60 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-60. 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 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 Web site 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-60 and should be
submitted on or before July 5, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14026 Filed 6-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37957-37959]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16701]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2019 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0255; Product Identifier 2019-NM-018-AD; Amendment
39-19687; AD 2019-14-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of cracked flexible hoses of the oxygen crew and
courier distribution system (OCCDS) on A330 freighter airplanes. This
AD requires repetitive detailed inspections, including functional
testing, of the OCCDS and replacement of affected part(s) if necessary,
as specified in a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is
incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 9, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 9,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0255.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0255; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model
A330-200 Freighter series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on May 7, 2019 (84 FR 19891). The NPRM was prompted by reports
of cracked flexible hoses of the OCCDS on A330 freighter airplanes. The
NPRM proposed to require repetitive detailed inspections, including
functional testing, of the OCCDS and replacement of affected part(s) if
necessary.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracked oxygen hoses. This
condition, if not addressed, could lead to oxygen leakage in the
flexible hose of the OCCDS, which, in combination with in-flight
depressurization, smoke in the flight deck, or a smoke evacuation
procedure, could result in crew injury and reduced control of the
airplane.
    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0027, dated February 4, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0027'') (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Several occurrences were reported of finding cracked flexible
hoses [part number] P/N 32209-series of the OCCDS on A330 freighter
aeroplanes. These flexible hoses are steel braided hoses with
polyurethane (PUR) inner tubes and steel inner springs. On A330
freighter aeroplanes, these hoses are located in the courier area
and are not pressurized during normal operation.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
oxygen leakage in the flexible hose of the OCCDS, which, in
combination with in-flight depressurization, smoke in cockpit or
smoke evacuation procedure, could possibly result in cockpit crew
injury and reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the SB
[service bulletin] to provide inspection instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive detailed inspections (DET), including functional testing,
of the OCCDS and, depending on findings, replacement of affected
part(s).

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0255.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0027 describes procedures for repetitive inspections
and replacement of OCCDS flexible

hoses. This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs For Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on  U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,190........................              $0           $1,190           $5,950
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-14-09 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19687; Docket No. FAA-2019-0255;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-018-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 9, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A330-223F and -243F
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracked flexible hoses of the
oxygen crew and courier distribution system (OCCDS) on A330
freighter airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracked
oxygen hoses. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to oxygen
leakage in the flexible hose of the OCCDS, which, in combination
with in-flight depressurization, smoke in the flight deck, or a
smoke evacuation procedure, could result in crew injury and reduced
control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-
0027, dated February 4, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0027'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0027

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where EASA AD 2019-0027 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0027 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved

by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch,
FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0027 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0027, dated
February 4, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2019-0027, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 6017; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this EASA AD at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. EASA AD
2019-0027 may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2019-0255.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
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: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 18, 2019.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-16701 Filed 8-2-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


FILE NAME:   Valent USA.wpt   (11/15/2007) (xml)

Template Number P25

COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE

(1/1/2005)

EPA Registration Division contact: David A. Wustner,<PHONE_NUMBER>

TEMPLATE:

Valent U.S.A. Corporation

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition [insert petition number] from
Valent U.S.A. Company, 1600 Riviera Ave., Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA
94596-8025 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
180.617 by establishing a tolerance for residues of metconazole,
5-[(4-chlorophenyl)-methyl]-2,2-dimethyl-1-(1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-ylmethyl)
cyclopentanol, measured as the sum of cis- and trans- isomers in or on
the raw agricultural commodity canola seed of 0.04 parts per million
(ppm).

EPA has determined that the petitions contain data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the
petitions.  Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
petitions.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. Nature of the residue studies (OPPTS Harmonized
Guideline 860.1300) were conducted in wheat, canola, banana, peas, and
mandarin oranges as representative crops in order to characterize the
fate of metconazole in all crop matrices. Two radiocarbon labeling
positions were studied in each crop. In all crops triazole ring labeling
was used, and the other label was positioned either in the
p-chlorophenyl or the cyclopentyl rings In all five crops the
metconazole Residue of Concern was identified as parent metconazole.
Confined and field rotational crop studies have determined that no
significant metconazole-unique residues occur in following crops.

	2. Analytical method. Independently validated analytical methods have
been submitted for analyzing parent metconazole residues with
appropriate sensitivity for all canola crop and processed commodities
for which a tolerance is being requested.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Field trials were carried out in canola to
determine the magnitude of the residue in/on canola seed and in
processed products canola meal and canola refined oil. The number and
locations of field trials are in accordance with OPPTS Guideline
860.1500. Field trials were carried out on canola using the maximum
label rate, a single application, and the minimum pre-harvest interval
(PHI). Detected residues of metconazole in canola seed and processed
products support the proposed tolerance.

B. Toxicological Profile

A complete, valid and reliable database of mammalian and genetic
toxicology studies has been submitted to EPA that supports the proposed
tolerance for metconazole on canola seed. Two geometric isomers of
metconazole exist. The technical material is a mixture of cis- and
trans- isomers in an 85 to 15 ratio (85:15). The fungicidal activity of
metconazole is associated primarily with the cis-isomer. Toxicology
studies submitted in support of this petition were conducted on the
metconazole technical material composed of the 85:15 isomer mixture.
Additional studies using test material composed of a more purified
sample of the cis-isomer (greater than 95%, WL 136184) provide
additional toxicological support for this tolerance.

1. Acute Toxicity. Metconazole technical is considered to be slightly
toxic (Toxicity Category III) to the rat by the oral route of exposure.
In an acute oral study in rats, the LD50 value of metconazole technical
was 727 milligrams per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg b.w.) for males
and 595 mg/kg b.w. for females. The oral LD50 for combined sexes was 660
mg/kg b.w. Metconazole technical demonstrates no acute toxicity via the
dermal route of exposure [LD50 value >2000 mg/kg (highest dose tested)]
(Toxicity Category III) or inhalation route of exposure [LC50 >5.6 mg/L]
(Toxicity Category IV). The material is mildly irritating to the eye
(Toxicity Category III) and is not irritating to the skin (Toxicity
Category IV), nor is it a skin sensitizer.

2. Genotoxicity.  Both metconazole technical and  WL 136184 technical
(greater than 95% cis isomer) have been tested in an extensive battery
of in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays measuring several different
endpoints of potential genotoxicity. Collective results from these
studies indicate that metconazole does not pose a genotoxic risk, and
therefore, is not likely to be a genotoxic carcinogen.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Several developmental
toxicity studies in rats conducted with metconazole technical and WL
136184 showed no evidence of teratogenic effects in fetuses, and no
evidence of developmental toxicity in the absence of maternal toxicity.
Thus, metconazole is neither a selective developmental toxicant nor a
teratogen in the rat. Two rat developmental toxicity studies have been
conducted with metconazole technical. In the first study, the
no-observable-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) for maternal toxicity was 12
mg/kg b.w./ day, based on decreased body weight gain at 30 mg/kg
b.w./day, the next highest dose tested, and the NOAEL for developmental
toxicity was also 12 mg/kg b.w./day, based on decreased fetal body
weights and an increased incidence of skeletal ossification variations
at 30 mg/kg b.w./day. In the second study, the maternal and fetal NOAEL
was 16 mg/kg/day based on findings similar to the first study at the
next higher dose level of 65 mg/kg/day. In the rat developmental
toxicity study conducted with WL 136184 technical, the NOAEL for
maternal toxicity was 24 mg/kg b.w./day based on decreased body weight
gain at 60 mg/kg b.w./day, the highest dose tested, and the NOAEL for
developmental toxicity was also 24 mg/kg b.w./day, based on an increase
in the total number of resorptions, reductions in fetal body weights and
an increased incidence of skeletal ossification variations at 60 mg/kg
b.w./day.

Results from a developmental toxicity study in rabbits metconazole
technical also indicated no evidence of teratogenicity or developmental
toxicity in the absence of maternal toxicity. Thus, metconazole
technical is neither a selective developmental toxicant nor a teratogen
in the rabbit. In this rabbit developmental study, the NOAEL for
maternal toxicity was 20 mg/kg b.w./day based on decreased food
consumption and body weight gain, reductions in hemoglobin, hematocrit
and corpuscular volume, increases in platelet counts and alkaline
phosphatase activity, and increased absolute and relative liver weights
at 40 mg/kg b.w./day (the highest dose tested). The NOAEL for
developmental toxicity was also 20 mg/ kg b.w./day, based on an increase
in the total number and mean number of resorptions and decreased fetal
body weight at 40 mg/kg b.w./day.

Two multi-generation reproduction studies were conducted with
Metconazole Technical -- one with the >95% cis form and one with the
85/15 cis/trans form.  Dose levels and results in both studies were
similar, although the 95% cis study diet was adjusted to maintain a
constant dose.  Dose levels in the >95% cis study were 0, 2, 8, 32 and
48 mg/kg/day and in the 85/15 cis study were 0, 30, 150 and 750 ppm
(approximately 0, 2.1, 10.6 and 52.8 mg/kg/day for pre-mating growth
period).  For the >95% cis study, the results support a NOAEL for
parental toxicity of 8 mg/kg/day based on increased ovarian weight and
increased gestation length at the next highest dose tested (32
mg/kg/day).   The NOAEL for growth and development of the offspring is
also 8 mg/kg/day, based on reductions in live litter size for F2 litters
at 32 mg/kg/day.  The NOAEL for reproductive performance and fertility
was 48 mg/kg/day (the highest dose tested).  In the 85/15 cis/trans
study, the NOAEL identified for parental toxicity, offspring growth and
development and reproductive toxicity was 10.8 mg/kg/day (150 ppm) based
on effects observed at the highest dose tested of 52.8 mg/kg/day (750
ppm).

Results of reproduction and developmental toxicity studies conducted
with metconazole technical show no increased sensitivity to developing
offspring as compared to parental animals.

4. Subchronic toxicity.  Subchronic (90-day) dietary studies in rats
were conducted with metconazole technical.  In the study the NOAEL was
100 ppm (approximately 6.8 mg/kg b.w./day) based on hepatic fatty
vacuolation in males at 300 ppm, the next highest concentration tested.

In a 90-day dietary study in mice conducted with metconazole technical,
the NOAEL was 30 ppm (approximately 5.5 mg/kg b.w./day), based on
increased aspartate and alanine aminotransferase activities in males,
increased absolute and relative weights of the liver and spleen of
females, and increased incidences of hepatocellular vacuolation and
hypertrophy for males and females at 300 ppm, the next highest
concentration tested.

In a 90-day dietary study in beagle dogs with metconazole technical the
NOAEL was 60 ppm (approximately 2.5 mg/kg b.w./day) based on decreased
body weight gain and food consumption for females, and a slight increase
in reticulocyte count for males at 600 ppm, the next highest
concentration tested.

[NOTE: At the 90-day timepoint of the chronic (one-year) toxicity study
in the dog, the NOAEL for decreased body weight gain is 300 ppm
(approximately 11.1 mg/kg b.w./day).]

5. Chronic toxicity.  Findings similar to those observed in the
short-term and subchronic studies were apparent in the long-term dietary
toxicity studies conducted in rats, dogs and mice.

In a chronic toxicity study, long-term (104-weeks) administration of
metconazole technical to rats supported a NOAEL for systemic toxicity of
100 ppm (approximately 4.8 mg/kg b.w./day), based on increased adjusted
liver weight, clinical chemistry changes, and increased incidences of
hepatocellular lipid vacuolation and centrilobular hypertrophy at
interim sacrifice for males at 300 ppm, the next highest concentration
tested.

In a 104-week carcinogenicity study in rats fed diets containing 0, 100,
300 or 1000 ppm metconazole technical, the NOAEL for carcinogenicity was
1000 ppm (50 mg/kg/day) the highest dose tested.  The NOAEL for chronic
systemic toxicity was 100 ppm (5.6 mg/kg/day) based on increased
incidences of centrilobular hypertrophy and pigment disposition in the
liver and increased incidences of cortical vacuolation in the adrenal at
300 ppm.

In a one-year dietary study in beagle dogs, the NOAEL was 300 ppm
(approximately 11.1 mg/ kg b.w./day), based on decreased body weight
gain for males during weeks 1 to 13 and increased alkaline phosphatase
activity for males and females at 1,000 ppm, the next highest
concentration tested.

A 91-week carcinogenicity study in mice with metconazole technical
supports a NOAEL for non-neoplastic effects of 30 ppm (approximately 4.8
mg/kg b.w./ day), based on increased white blood cell count for males,
increased aspartate and alanine aminotransferase activities and
increased absolute and adjusted liver weight for females, and
microscopic changes in the liver, spleen and adrenal gland for males and
females at 300 ppm (the next highest concentration tested). The NOAEL
for carcinogenicity was 300 ppm (approximately 48.3 mg/kg b.w./day)
based on increased incidences of hepatocellular adenomas in males and
females and hepatocellular carcinomas in females at 1,000 ppm, the
highest concentration tested. The increased incidences of hepatic
adenomas and carcinomas at the highest concentration tested are
considered to occur through promotional and non-genotoxic secondary
mechanisms following toxicity and induction of mixed function oxidase in
mice. Consequently, metconazole is not likely to be oncogenic in humans
at the low levels of exposure that will result from its use as a
fungicide.

6. Animal metabolism. The rat metabolism studies show that the
qualitative nature of the fate of metconazole in animals is adequately
understood. In studies conducted with radiolabeled metconazole (85:15
isomer mixture) or radiolabeled WL 136184 radioactivity was rapidly
eliminated in urine and feces within 48 hours of dosing. Biliary
excretion was shown to be a prominent route of elimination. At both high
and low doses of metconazole, male rats generally excreted lower amounts
of radioactivity in the urine, and greater amounts of radioactivity in
the feces as compared to females. The pattern of metabolites detected in
males and females was similar at high and low doses, and little or no
parent compound was found in either feces or urine. Five days following
oral dosing of metconazole at the highest dose, low levels of
radioactivity were detected in the majority of tissues analyzed; however
higher concentrations of radioactivity were found in the adrenal glands,
gastro-intestinal tract and liver. A comparison of radioactivity levels
in the adrenal glands following oral administration of low and high
doses indicates that uptake in the adrenal may be saturable. No
differences in tissue levels were noted between males and females.

7. Metabolite toxicology. The metabolism of metconazole is similar in
plants and mammals with extensive hydroxylation being the predominate
reactions. Due to the similar structural nature of most metabolites, the
toxicity of the plant metabolites is adequately estimated from the
results of studies performed with the technical in various animals. EPA
concern for unique plant metabolites common to most triazole fungicides
is being addressed with research conducted by the U.S. Triazole Task
Force. On the basis of this research, an interim human health risk
assessment for aggregate exposure to 1, 2, 4-triazole was published in
the Federal Register (40 CFR Part 180, Vol. 69 No. 149 Page 47005,
8/4/04) and will be refined once the research is complete.

8. Endocrine disruption The toxicology database for metconazole
technical is current and complete. This includes a thorough evaluation
of the potential effects on reproduction and development, and the
pathology of the endocrine organs following short-term and long-term
exposures. The battery of tests included as part of this petition fully
characterizes potential endocrine-related in vivo effects, clearly
defines NOAEL/LOAEL values, and indicates no increased sensitivity to
developing offspring.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Exposure assessments have been conducted to
evaluate the potential risk due to acute and chronic dietary exposure of
the U.S. population and various subgroups to residues of metconazole.
The proposed tolerance on canola seed is 0.04 ppm, the sum of the limits
of quantitation of the analytical method for each of the metconazole
isomers. The only canola incremental dietary exposure to metconazole is
directly from the processed product refined canola oil, or as secondary
residues from food animals fed canola seed meal. In both cases these
residues are negligible, and incremental exposure will be near zero.
Thus, a previous dietary exposure and risk analysis without canola
commodities added will be used to estimate total dietary exposures.
This exposure analysis considered both the cis -and trans-isomers, in or
on raw agricultural commodities, was expressed as the parent compound.
The analysis included all the proposed tolerance values (except canola)
for soybean, sugar beet, barley, wheat, oats, rye, triticale, cotton,
corn (field, pop, sweet) stone fruit (crop group 12), tree nuts (crop
group 14), peanuts, bananas, milk, meat, and eggs.

	i. Food.

Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment

Acute dietary exposure estimates were based on proposed tolerance
values, default process factors with the exception of a determined
process factor for sugar beet molasses, and 100% of all crops treated.
Canola commodities are not included. The consumption data was from the
USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII 1994 - 1996,
1998) and the EPA Food Commodity Ingredient Database (FCID) using
Exponent's Dietary Exposure Evaluation Module (DEEM-FCID) software.

The resulting exposure estimates were compared against the metconazole
acute Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD) of 0.16 mg/kg b.w./day for females
13-49 years of age.  This endpoint is based on the NOAEL from a rat
developmental toxicity study of 16 mg/kg/day with an FQPA safety factor
of 1. An acute oral toxicological endpoint could not be determined for
all other sub-populations. Considering the exposure assumptions
discussed above, metconazole acute dietary exposure from food is only
1.00 % aPAD for females 13-49 years of age. The results of the acute
dietary assessment are presented in Table 1.

 ADVANCE \d6

 ADVANCE \d6 Table 1.	Results for Metconazole Acute Dietary Exposure
Analysis Considering all Proposed Tolerances using DEEM-FCID at the 95th
Percentile

Population

Exposure Estimate

%aPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)*

U.S. Population

0.003046

NA

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.005407	NA

Children (1-2 years old)	0.005796	NA

Children (3-5 years old)	0.00463	NA

Children (6-12 years old)	0.002858	NA

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.001688	NA

Females (13-49 years old)	0.0016	1.00

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.002776	NA

Adults (50+ years old)	0.001738	NA

The results of the analysis show that for females 13-49 years of age,
the estimated exposure is well below the Agency's level of concern (<
100% aPAD).  Additional refinements in the dietary risk assessment (i.e.
utilizing anticipated residue values, percent crop treated values) would
further reduce the estimated exposure values.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

Chronic dietary exposure estimates were based on proposed tolerance
values, default process factors with the exception of a determined
process factor for sugar beet molasses, and 100% crop treated values for
all commodities. Canola commodities are not included. The consumption
data was from the USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII 1994 - 1996, 1998) and the EPA Food Commodity Ingredient Database
(FCID) using Exponent's Dietary Exposure Evaluation Module (DEEM-FCID)
software.

The chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD) used for U.S. population and
all sub-populations is 0.048 mg/kg bw/day. This endpoint is based on the
NOAEL values from both a 104-week rat chronic toxicity study and a mouse
78-week carcinogenicity study of 4.8 mg/kg/day with an FQPA safety
factor of 1. Considering the exposure assumptions discussed above,
metconazole chronic dietary exposure from food for the U.S. population
was 2.0 % of the cPAD.  The most highly exposure population sub group
was children 1-2 years of age at 5.6 % cPAD   The results of the chronic
dietary assessment are presented in Table 2.

 ADVANCE \d6 Table 2. Results for Metconazole Chronic Dietary Exposure
Analysis Considering all Proposed Tolerances using DEEM-FCID

Population

Exposure Estimate

%cPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

U.S. Population

0.000953

2.0

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.001556	3.2

Children (1-2 years old)	0.002672	5.6

Children (3-5 years old)	0.002124	4.4

Children (6-12 years old)	0.001306	2.7

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.000734	1.5

Females (13-49 years old)	0.000837	1.7

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.000636	1.3

Adults (50+ years old)	0.000617	1.3

 The results of the analysis show that for all sub-populations, the
exposures are below a level of concern (< 100% cPAD).  Additional
refinements in the chronic dietary risk assessment (i.e. utilizing
anticipated residue values and percent crop treated values) would
further reduce the estimated exposure values.

	ii. Drinking water. Potential drinking water exposure was estimated
using PRZM/EXAMS and SCI-GROW models. The concentrations were determined
based on the most intense use pattern, that is the maximum number of
applications at the maximum label rate and minimum interval for turf.
The chronic EDWC has been adjusted for the mitigated use pattern in turf
(a yearly maximum of 3 lb ai/a reduced to 2 lb ai/a). The turf use still
allows for the highest single application rate and greatest seasonal
amount of metconazole to be applied of any proposed use.

The acute Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWC)  for
metconazole exposure are estimated to be 48.22 ug/L (ppb) in surface
water and 0.42 ug/L in shallow ground water. The chronic EDWC=s for
exposure are estimated to be 16.21 ug/L in surface water and 0.28 ug/L
in shallow ground water.

Drinking water contributions were assessed based on the maximum
estimated metconazole water concentrations (acute - 48.22 ug/L, chronic
16.21 ug/L), and water consumption and body weights reported in CSFII,
using DEEM-FCID software.  The acute and chronic estimated water
exposure values are summarized in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.  Minimal
exposure of metconazole occurs through drinking water with 1.47% of the
aPAD for females 13-49 years of age and less than 2.33% of the cPAD for
all other subpopulations.

 ADVANCE \d6  ADVANCE \u6 Table 3. Results for Metconazole Acute Water
Exposure Analysis Considering the Maximum Estimated Acute Drinking Water
Concentration using DEEM-FCID

Population

Water Exposure Estimate

% aPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

U.S. Population

0.002519

NA

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.009497	NA

Children (1-2 years old)	0.003952	NA

Children (3-5 years old)	0.003611	NA

Children (6-12 years old)	0.002514	NA

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.002044	NA

Females (13-49 years old)	0.002347	1.47

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.002334	NA

Adults (50+ years old)	0.002108	NA

 ADVANCE \d6

 ADVANCE \d6 Table 4. Results for Metconazole Chronic Water Exposure
Analysis Considering the    Maximum Estimated Chronic Drinking Water
Concentration using DEEM-FCID

Population

Water Exposure Estimate

%cPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

U.S. Population

0.000341

0.71

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.00112	2.33

Children (1-2 years old)	0.000507	1.06

Children (3-5 years old)	0.000475	0.99

Children (6-12 years old)	0.000327	0.68

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.00037	0.51

Females (13-49 years old)	0.000317	0.66

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.000319	0.66

Adults (50+ years old)	0.000335	0.70

cPAD = chronic  population adjusted dose

Based on estimated chronic surface water value of 16.21 ug/L

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)

The aggregate acute risk includes residues of metconazole from food and
water (Table 5). Exposures from residential uses are not included in the
acute aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate that there are no
safety concerns for any subpopulation based on the proposed uses and the
results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no
harm.

 ADVANCE \d6  ADVANCE \u6 Table 5. 	Estimated Acute Aggregate Exposure
and Risk of Metconazole

Population Subgroup

aPAD (mg/kg/day)

Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)

Water Exposure (mg/kg/day)

Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)

% aPAD

U.S. Population	NA	0.003046	0.002519	0.005565	NA

All Infants (< 1 yr old)	NA	0.005407	0.009497	0.014904	NA

Children 1-2 years	NA	0.005796	0.003952	0.009748	NA

Children 3-5 years	NA	0.00463	0.003611	0.008241	NA

Children 6 B 12 years	NA	0.002858	0.002514	0.005372	NA

Youth 13-19 years	NA	0.001688	0.002044	0.003732	NA

Females 13-49 years	0.16	0.0016	0.002347	0.003947	2.47

Adults 20-49 years	NA	0.002776	0.002334	0.00511	NA

Adults + 50	NA	0.001738	0.002108	0.003846	NA

Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)

The aggregate chronic risk includes residues of metconazole from food
and water (Table 6). Exposures from residential uses are not included in
the chronic aggregate assessment. For the U. S. Population at 2.70 % of
the cPAD or for the most highly exposed population subgroup, Children
1-2 years at 6.62 % of the cPAD, the results demonstrate there are no
safety concerns for any subpopulation based on the proposed uses and the
results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no
harm.

  Table 67. 	Estimated Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk of
Metconazole

Population Subgroup

cPAD (mg/kg/day)

Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)

Water Exposure (mg/kg/day)

Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)

% cPAD

U.S. Population	0.0483	0.000953	0.000341	0.001294	2.70

All Infants (< 1 yr old)	0.0483	0.001556	0.00112	0.002676	5.58

Children 1-2 years	0.0483	0.002672	0.000507	0.003179	6.62

Children 3-5 years	0.0483	0.002124	0.000475	0.002599	5.41

Children 6 B 12 years	0.0483	0.001306	0.000327	0.001633	3.40

Youth 13-19 years	0.0483	0.000734	0.00037	0.000981	2.04

Females 13-49 years	0.0483	0.000617	0.000317	0.000934	1.95

Adults 20-49 years	0.0483	0.000837	0.000319	0.001156	2.41

Adults + 50	0.0483	0.000636	0.000335	0.000838	1.75

μg/cm2, present immediately after the spray treatment has dried (Time
0).  The exposure and risk estimates for the residential exposure
scenarios are assessed for the day of application because adults and
toddlers could contact treated turf immediately after application.  All
short-/intermediate term MOE were greater than 100 which indicates that
exposure from all residential scenarios result in exposures below a
level of concern.

D. Cumulative Effects

Metconazole is a triazole fungicide. There are several triazole
fungicides registered for use within the United States. Although
metconazole and other triazole fungicides may have similar modes of
action, no data areis available to determine if these compounds have
common mechanisms of mammalian toxicity or information on how to include
metconazole in a cumulative risk assessment.  Therefore, for the
purposes of this tolerance petition no assumption has been made with
regard to cumulative exposure with other compounds having a common mode
of action.

Further, triazole fungicides, including metconazole, have a common
primary metabolite, 1,2,4-triazole, with secondary metabolites
triazolylalanine and triazolacetic acid. EPA=s concern with these common
metabolites is being addressed with research conducted by the US
Triazole Task Force.  On the basis of this research, an interim human
health risk assessment for aggregate exposure to 1, 2, 4-triazole was
published in the Federal Register (40 CFR Part 180, Vol. 69 No. 149 Page
47005, 8/4/04) and will be refined once the research is complete.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Based on this risk assessment, Valent USA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the
general population from the aggregate exposure to metconazole from the
pending and proposed use on canola.

	2. Infants and children. Based on this risk assessment, Valent USA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to infants or children from the aggregate exposure to metconazole from
the pending and proposed use on canola.

F. International Tolerances

There are no CODEX maximum residue levels established or proposed for
residues of metconazole in canola.


[Federal Register: March 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 16673-16674]
[DOCID:fr28mr08-72]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0164; FRL-8355-6]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment or modification of regulations for
residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0164 and the pesticide petition number (PP
7F7310), 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
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., 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 Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2008-0164. 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 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
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket
Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
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 Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., 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 Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeannine Kausch, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 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 under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

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 notice of the filing 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 modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petition described in this notice 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 supports 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, is included in a docket EPA
has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this petition is
available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.

New Exemption from Tolerance

    PP 7F7310. BioNext sprl, Passage des deportes, 2, B-5030 Gembloux,
Belgium (submitted by SynTech Global, LLC, P.O. Box 640, Hockessin, DE
19707), proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the microbial pesticide, candida oleophila
strain O in or on the food commodities apples and pears. Because this
petition is a request for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without numerical limitations, no analytical method is
required.

List of Subjects

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

    Dated: March 19, 2008.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-6413 Filed 3-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 57 (Friday, March 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17084-17085]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6983]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0164]

National Boating Safety Advisory Council

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC) will meet
on April 13-14, 2012, in Arlington, Virginia, to discuss issues
relating to recreational boating safety. The meetings will be open to
the public.

DATES: NBSAC will meet Friday, April 13, 2012, from 8 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
and Saturday, April 14, 2012, from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. The
Recreational Boating Safety Strategic Planning Subcommittee will meet
on Friday, April 13, 2012 from 1:30 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., the Boats and
Associated Equipment Subcommittee will meet on Friday, April 13, 2012
from 3:45 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. and on Saturday, April 14, 2012 from 8:10
a.m. to 10 a.m., and the Prevention through People Subcommittee will
meet on Saturday, April 14, 2012 from 10:15 a.m. to 12 p.m. Please note
that the meetings may conclude early if NBSAC has completed all
business.
    All written materials, comments, and requests to make oral
presentations at the meeting should reach Mr. Jeff Ludwig, Assistant
Designated Federal Officer (ADFO) for NBSAC by March 28, 2012. Any
written material submitted by the public will be distributed to the
committee and become part of the public record.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Ballroom at the Holiday Inn
Arlington, 4610 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203. The hotel's Web
site is: http://www.hiarlington.com/.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Mr. Jeff Ludwig as soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the
``Agenda'' section below. Comments must be submitted in writing no
later than March 28, 2012, and must be identified by (USCG-2010-0164)
and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may review a Privacy Act notice regarding public dockets in the January
17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments
related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and use
``USCG-2010-0164'' as your search term.
    A public comment period will be held during the meeting concerning
the matters being discussed. Public comments will be limited to three
minutes per speaker. Please note that the public comment period may end
before the time indicated, following the last call for comments.
Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Ludwig, ADFO for NBSAC, COMDT
(CG-54221), 2100 2nd Street, SW., Stop 7581, Washington, DC 20593;
(202) 372-

1061<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2. Congress
established NBSAC in the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 (Pub. L. 92-
75). NBSAC currently operates under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 13110,
which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commandant
of the Coast Guard by delegation, to consult with NBSAC in prescribing
regulations for recreational vessels and associated equipment, and on
other major safety matters. See 46 U.S.C. 4302(c) and 13110(c).

Meeting Agenda

    The agenda for NBSAC meeting is as follows:

Friday, April 13, 2012

    (1) Opening Remarks--Mr. James P. Muldoon, NBSAC Chairman and CAPT
Paul Thomas, USCG Director of Prevention Policy (Acting);
    (2) Receipt and discussion of the following reports:
    (a) Chief, Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety Update on NBSAC
Resolutions and Recreational Boating Safety Program report.
    (b) Assistant Designated Federal Officer's report concerning
Council administrative and logistical matters.
    (3) Presentation on Progress Made on Recommendation Regarding the
Development of New Life Jacket Standards and Approval Processes for
Life Jackets.
    (4) Presentation on the Uniform Certificate of Title Act for
Vessels (model state legislation on vessel registration).
    (5) Presentation on the initial results of the National
Recreational Boating Survey.
    (6) Public comment.

Saturday, April 14, 2012

    (1) Receipt and Discussion of the Strategic Planning, Boats &
Associated Equipment, and Prevention Through People Subcommittee
reports.
    (2) Public comment.
    A more detailed agenda can be found at: http://homeport.uscg.mil/NBSAC, no later than March 28, 2012.

    Dated: March 16, 2012.
Paul F. Thomas,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Director of Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-6983 Filed 3-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 67 (Thursday, April 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 17929]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8025]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Vaccines and Related Biological Products
Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 7, 2010, from 8 a.m.
to approximately 4:30 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Hotel Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, 620 Perry
Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877.
    Contact Person: Christine Walsh or Denise Royster, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-71), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-
0572 in the Washington, DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice
in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On May 7, 2010, in the morning, the committee will review
and discuss available data regarding the unexpected finding of DNA
originating from porcine circovirus type 1 (PCV 1) in Rotarix, a U.S.
licensed vaccine manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline and indicated for the
prevention of rotavirus gastroenteritis in infants. The committee will
discuss what additional steps should be considered to address this
finding. In the afternoon, the committee will discuss and make
recommendations on the use of advanced analytical detection methods not
currently applied for the characterization of cell substrates, viral
seeds, and other biological materials used in the production of viral
vaccines for human use.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before May
4, 2010. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 10:50 a.m. and 11:20 a.m. and 2:45 p.m. and 3:15 p.m.
Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before April 29, 2010. Time
allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by April 30, 2010.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Christine Walsh or
Denise Royster at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: April 2, 2010.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-8025 Filed 4-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: January 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5831-5833]
[DOCID:fr31ja08-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-032-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Herscher-
Galesville Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues

January 25, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Herscher-Galesville Expansion
Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Natural
Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) in Kankakee County,
Illinois.\1\ These facilities would consist of new water withdrawal
wells, new and extended water disposal wells, new water pipelines, one
new compressor station addition, and extension of five existing natural
gas injection/withdrawal wells. This EA will be used by the Commission
in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in
the public convenience and necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Natural's application was filed with the Commission under
section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and part 157 of the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help determine which issues
need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period
will close on February 4, 2008. Details on how to submit comments are
provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice Natural provided to landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://
www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Natural proposes to add new and modify existing natural gas storage
facilities, and add new compression, at its existing Herscher Gas
Storage Field near the town of Herscher, Illinois. The purpose of this
project is to increase the storage field's working gas capacity by 10
billion cubic feet and increase the peak day withdrawal capacity.
Natural would achieve this increased capacity by constructing
facilities to remove water from the Galesville formation part of the
storage field. Reworking of five existing withdrawal/injection wells,
and construction of the new compressor station addition within its
existing adjacent Compressor Station 201, would enable Natural to
increase peak day withdrawal capacity. Natural proposes to:
     Install 15 new water withdrawal wells with pumps;
     Install 11 new water disposal wells;
     Install five water booster pumps at existing water
disposal wells;
     Conduct up to four lateral extensions at existing water
disposal wells;
     Conduct workover/extensions on five existing natural gas
injection/withdrawal wells;
     Replace, loop or extend 12 waterlines with 8 13-inch-
diameter plastic pipe; and
     Construct a new 8,180 horsepower (hp) gas-fired engine
compressor station addition.
    Natural requests certification by July 1, 2008, and expects to have
the new water wells and associated water lines in service by April 1,
2009, followed by compressor services in September of 2009.
    The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's website at
the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would require disturbance
of 125 acres

of land widely scattered around the western, southern and eastern
outskirts of the Town of Herscher. This includes 107 acres under
construction right-of-way that would be restored to previous land use
following construction, and 18 acres under new permanent easement or
ownership.
    Natural would use eight existing well pads and 11 new well pads as
staging for horizontal directionally-drilling (HDD) 15 new water
withdrawal wells and 11 new disposal wells (11.3 acres of construction
work area). Natural would use the HDD method for the four lateral
extensions of water disposal wells, staged from existing well pad sites
(0.9 acres of construction work area). Extension of the five natural
gas injection/withdrawal wells would be performed at existing well
sites (1.2 acres of construction work area). Natural would construct
three new booster pumps at three existing water disposal wells (1.4
acres of construction work area).
    Natural would require virtually the entire 83-acre Compressor
Station 201 property as construction work areas, including staging, for
installation of the compressor station facility additions. Natural
plans to use a 50-foot-wide construction right-of-way for installation
of the waterlines, and would retain the full 50 feet as permanent
right-of-way for operation. This right-of-way would occur as looping,
replacement, or along new alignments, and would require 27 acres of
construction work area.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we \3\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and soils;
     Water resources;
     Wetlands and fisheries;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Threatened and endangered species;
     Land use;
     Cultural resources;
     Air quality and noise;
     Reliability and safety; and
     Cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative
locations/routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments
are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas 2.
     Reference Docket No. CP08-032-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before February 25, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments. See 18
Code of Federal Regulations 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on
the Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the
``eFiling'' link and the link to the User's Guide. Prepare your
submission in the same manner as you would if filing on paper and save
it to a file on your hard drive. Before you can file comments you will
need to create an account by clicking on ``Login to File'' and then
``New User Account.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing
you are making. This filing is considered a ``Comment on Filing.''
    As described above, we may publish and distribute the EA for
comment. If you are interested in receiving an EA for review and/or
comment, please return the Environmental Mailing List Form (Appendix
3). If you do not return the Environmental Mailing List Form, you will
be taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding, or ``intervenor''. To
become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to
Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically
submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov.
Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies
of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address
indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before
the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to
the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted
after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all
other intervenors identified on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding. Persons on the service list with e-mail addresses may be
served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding

which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do
not need intervenor status to have your environmental comments
considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. By this
notice we are also asking governmental agencies, especially those in
Appendix 2, to express their interest in becoming cooperating agencies
for the preparation of the EA.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary
link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits (i.e., enter PF06-
398) in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such
as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-1737 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 62927]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22428]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2022-0096]

Enhancing the Safety of Vulnerable Road Users at Intersections;
Request for Information; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice; Request for information (RFI); extension of comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: On September 16, 2022, the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Research and Technology (OST-R) of the Department of Transportation
(DOT) published in the Federal Register a request for information
seeking comments on improving the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists,
and other vulnerable road users (VRUs) at roadway intersections. That
request established a 30-day comment period closing on October 17,
2022. DOT is extending the public comment period until November 15,
2022.

DATES: The comment period for the notice published on September 16,
2022 (87 FR 57019) is extended. The due date for submitting comments is
November 15, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Please submit any written comments to Docket Number DOT-
OST-2022-0096 electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://regulations.gov. Go to https://regulations.gov and select
``Department of Transportation (DOT)'' from the agency menu to submit
or view public comments. Note that, except as provided below, all
submissions received, including any personal information provided, will
be posted without change and will be available to the public on https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477) or at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Mr.
Timothy A. Klein, Director, Technology Policy and Outreach, Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology<PHONE_NUMBER>) or
by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOT published a request for information in
the Federal Register on September 16, 2022 (87 FR 57019) seeking
comments on improving the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, and other
vulnerable road users (VRUs) at roadway intersections. The public
comment period is extended to November 15, 2022. All other information
in the notice from September 16, 2022 remains the same.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 11, 2022.
Robert C. Hampshire,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2022-22428 Filed 10-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P