[Federal Register: March 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 15770]
[DOCID:fr30mr10-142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fifth Meeting--Special Committee 222: Inmarsat Aeronautical
Mobile Satellite (Route) Services

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 222: Inmarsat Aeronautical
Mobile Satellite (Route) Services meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 222: Inmarsat Aeronautical Mobile
Satellite (Route) Services.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, April 20, 2010 from 9 a.m.-4
p.m. Pacific Daylight Time.
    Important note to SC-222 Participants. The 5th Plenary Session will
be held in conjunction with the Inmarsat Aero Conference in San
Francisco (see below). As of the date of this Meeting Announcement, the
agenda for the 5th Plenary session is sparse. We have already changed
the meeting from two days to one, and the current expectation is that
all productive business may be concluded in less than the allotted
time. As a result, provision for participation by telecon and WebEx
will be provided for committee members who are not attending the
Conference.

ADDRESSES:  Hosted by Inmarsat in conjunction with the Inmarsat Aero
Conference at the Four Seasons Hotel, 757 Market Street, San Francisco,
CA 94103, USA. Rooms may be reserved at the conference rate by
contacting the hotel directly at<PHONE_NUMBER> and referring to the
Inmarsat Aero Conference.
    An RSVP to Chuck LaBerge<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Daryl
McCall<EMAIL_ADDRESS>is requested by close of business
Monday, April 13, 2010. Members who plan to use the telecon/WebEx are
encouraged to reply noting their intention.
    Dress: Business Casual.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 222: Inmarsat Aeronautical
Mobile Satellite (Route) Services.
    The agenda will include:
    Tuesday, April 20, 2010--Telephone bridge available at 8:45 PDT;
details posted to SC-222 Web site by Monday, April 19, 2010.
     Opening Plenary (Introductions and Opening Remarks).
     Review and Approval of SC-222/WP-038, Summary for the 4th
Meeting of Special Committee 222 held at the SkyTerra, Reston, VA.
     Review and Approval of the Agenda for the 5th Meeting of
SC-222, WP-040.
     Old Business.
     Review of/reports for the currently active Action Items
regarding SBB Safety issues per the minutes of the 4th Plenary Meeting.
     Working Papers, Discussions regarding ATCt issues.
     SC-222/WP-039 Analysis of Potential ATCt Interference to
Inmarsat Aeronautical Services.
     Additional working papers as may be provided in advance of
the meeting.
    Note: Working papers posted to the SC-222 Web Site on before April
13 will receive first priority in review. Additional working papers
will be reviewed in the order in which they were received. To obtain a
new WP number, contact Dr. LaBerge at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To
post a new WP to the Web site, provide a PDF version to Mr. McCall at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with a copy to Dr. LaBerge.
     Additional working papers as may be provided at the
meeting.
     Other Business.
     Review and adjustment of document delivery schedule, based
on working paper discussion.
     Review of Assignments and Action Items.
     Date and Location for the 6th Meeting of SC-222.
Tentatively as a joint meeting with AEEC AGCS in Annapolis, MD, August
2-6, 2010.
     Adjourn (no later than p.m.).

    Note: The Inmarsat Aero Conference starts at 6 PM PDT on
Tuesday, April 20, 2010.

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 24, 2010.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-7085 Filed 3-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Page 1 COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE ( 7/ 1/ 2006)

EPA Registration Division contact: [ Joanne I. Miller   PM/ 23   703 305 6224]

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

TEMPLATE:

[ Dow AgroSciences LLC]

[ PP 7F4851]

EPA has received a pesticide petition ([ PP 7F4851]) from [ Dow AgroSciences LLC formerly known as DowElanco], [ 9330 Zionsville Road   Indianapolis, IN 46268 1054] proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.

( Options ( pick one)

1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of 2. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for [ Flumetsulam] in or on the raw agricultural commodity [ dry beans] at [ 0.05] parts per million ( ppm). The proposed analytical method involves homogenization, filtration, partition and cleanup with analysis by high performance liquid chromatography using UV detection. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 ( d)( 2) of the FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry Page 2 1. Plant metabolism 2. Analytical method. [ There is a practical analytical method for detecting and measuring levels of Flumetsulam in or on food with a limit of quantitation ( LOQ) of 0.010 ppm, and a limit of detection of 0.005 ppm that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances. EPA has provided information on this method to FDA. The method is available to anyone who is interested in pesticide residue enforcement.]

3. Magnitude of residues. [ No detectable residues of Flumetsulam were found in any of the dry bean samples obtained from multiple sites and multiple varieties and analyzed using a method with a limit of detection of 0.005 ppm.]

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. [ Flumetsulam has low acute toxicity. The rat oral LD INF 50/ INF is 1.2 mg/ L air ( the highest attainable concentration). In addition, Flumetsulam is not a skin sensitizer in guinea pigs, is not a dermal irritant and is not an ocular irritant. Therefore based on the available acute toxicity data, Flumetsulam does not pose any acute dietary risks.]

2. Genotoxicity. [ Flumetsulam is not genotoxic. The following studies have been conducted and all were negative for genotoxic responses: a dominant lethal assay, an In vivo rat cytogenic study, an In vitro Salmonella and Saccharomyces assay, and In vivo mouse host mediated assay, and an unscheduled DNA synthesis assay in rats.]

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [ In a 2 generation reproduction study in rats, there was no compound related reproductive toxicity. The No Observed Effect Level ( NOEL) was greater than 1,000 mg/ kg/ day. Developmental toxicity was studied using rats and rabbits. The developmental study in rats resulted in a developmental NOEL greater than 1.000 mg/ kg/ day ( highest dose tested) and a maternal NOEL of 500 mg/ kg/ day. A study in rabbits resulted in a developmental NOEL equal to or greater than 700 mg/ kg/ day ( highest dose tested) with a maternal NOEL of 100 mg/ kg/ day, and maternal LOEL ( lowest observed effect level) of 500 mg/ kg/ day evidenced by decreased body weight gain. Based on all of the data for Flumetsulam, there is no evidence of developmental toxicity at dose levels that do not result in maternal toxicity.]

4. Subchronic toxicity. [ In a 13 week oral feeding study in mice at 5,000 mg/ kg/ day, slight effects on the liver, kidney, and cecum appeared to represent adaptive responses to treatment and have questionable toxicological significance. The NOEL was 1,000 mg/ kg/ day ( limit dose). In a 13 week oral feeding study in dogs, the lowest observed effect level ( LOEL) for both male and female dogs was 500 mg/ kg/ day. A NOEL was not established for males or females. In a 13 week Page 3 dietary study in rats, the NOEL was 250 mg/ kg/ day, and the LOEL was 1,000 mg/ kg/ day.]

5. Chronic toxicity. [ In a 1 year dietary study in dogs, the NOEL was 100 mg/ kg/ day, and the LOEL was 500 mg/ kg/ day. The animals were administered feed containing 0, 20, 100, and 500 mg/ kg/ day. Reduced body weights and inflammatory and atrophic changes in the kidneys occurred in the 500 mg/ kg/ day dose groups. In a combined feeding carcinogenicity/ chronic study in mice, there were no treatment related effects, and there was no evidence of a carcinogenic response. Systemic NOEL was greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/ kg/ day ( limit dose); a LOEL was not established. In a combined feeding carcinogenicity/ chronic study in rats, renal pathological alterations were seen in males. No treatment related effects were seen in females at the highest dose ( 1,000 mg/ kg/ day) which is the limit dose. There was no carcinogenic response. The NOELs were 500 mg/ kg/ day in males and 1,000 mg/ kg/ day in females. The LOEL was 1,000 mg/ kg/ day in males; a LOEL was not established in females. Based on the chronic toxicity data, EPA has established the RfD for Flumetsulam at 1.0 milligram ( mg)/ kilogram ( kg)/ day. The RfD for Flumetsulam is based on the 1 year chronic study in dogs with a NOEL of 100 mg/ kg/ day, and an uncertainty ( or safety) factor of 100. Thus, it would not be necessary to require the application of an additional uncertainty factor above the 100 fold factor already applied to the NOEL.]

6. Animal metabolism. [ Disposition and metabolism of Flumetsulam were tested in male and female rats and male mice at an oral dose of 5 and 1,000 mg/ kg for rats and 1,000 mg/ kg for mice. Flumetsulam was rapidly excreted. The majority of a radioactive dose was excreted in 48 hours of all dose groups. The principle route for elimination was the urine, and to a lesser extent by fecal elimination. Detectable levels of residual radioactivity were observed in the carcass and stomach at 72 hours post dose. HPLC and TLC analysis of urine and fecal extracts showed no apparent metabolism of Flumetsulam.]

7. Metabolite toxicology. [ There are no Flumetsulam metabolites of toxicological significance.]

8. Endocrine disruption. [ There is no evidence to suggest that Flumetsulam has an effect on any endocrine system.]

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. [ For purposes of assessing the potential dietary exposure under these tolerances, exposure is estimated based on the Theoretical Maximum Residue Contribution ( TMRC) from the existing and pending tolerances for Flumetsulam on food crops.]

i. Food. [ The TMRC is obtained by multiplying the tolerance level residues by the consumption data which estimates the amount of those food products eaten Page 4 by various population subgroups. Exposure of humans to residues could also result if such residues are transferred to meat, milk, poultry or eggs. The following assumptions were used in conducting this exposure assessment: 100% of the crops were treated, the RAC residues would be at the level of the tolerance, certain processed food residues would be at anticipated ( average) levels based on processing studies, and all current and pending tolerances were included. This results in an overestimate of human exposure and a conservative assessment of risk. Based on a NOEL of 100 mg/ kg/ day in a 1 year chronic feeding study in the dog and a hundredfold safety factor, the reference dose ( RfK) would be 1.0 mg/ kg/ day. The TMRC for the general population would be 4.1 X 10< SUP> 5</ SUP> mg/ kg/ day or 0.0041% of the RfD. For non nursing infants, the TMRC would be 1.37 X 10< SUP> 5/ SUP> mg/ kg/ day or 0.014% of the RfD.]

ii. Drinking Water. [ Another potential source of dietary exposure to residues of pesticides is residues in drinking water. There is no established Maximum Concentration Level for residues of Flumetsulam in drinking water. Although there have been limited detections at ppb levels in some of the specially designed studies under highly vulnerable test conditions, and at elevated non labeled application rates, no ongoing monitoring studies have reported residues of Flumetsulam in ground or surface waters.

Based on the physical and chemical characteristics of Flumetsulam such as water solubility and its stability under hydrolysis and photolysis, it has potential for downward movement through the soil profile. Degradation based on over 20 laboratory studies indicated a half life range of 2 weeks to 4 months with 80% less than 2 months. Degradation is driven primarily by microbial processes. However based on the low application rate and detection in groundwater samples, and only under extremely vulnerable soil conditions at elevated non labeled application rates with detections in single digit ppb levels, Flumetsulam is not anticipated to be a groundwater contaminant.

In summary, these data on potential water exposure indicate insignificant additional dietary intake of Flumetsulam, and any exposure is more than compensated for in the conservative dietary risk evaluation. Therefore, it is concluded that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm even at potential upper limit exposures to Flumetsulam from drinking water.]

2. Non dietary exposure. [ There are no non dietary uses for Flumetsulam registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Potential exposures for children are, therefore, limited to dietary exposure.]

D. Cumulative Effects [ The potential for cumulative effects of Flumetsulam and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity was considered. The mammalian toxicity of Flumetsulam is well defined. However, no reliable information exists to Page 5 indicate that toxic effects produced by Flumetsulam would be cumulative with those of any other chemical compound. Additionally, Flumetsulam does not appear t produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. Therefore, consideration of a common mechanism of toxicity with other compounds is not appropriate at this time. Thus, only the potential exposures to Flumetsulam were considered in the aggregate exposure assessment.]

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. [ Based on a NOEL of 100 mg/ kg/ bwt/ day from a one year dog feeding study with a reduced weight and inflammatory and atrophic kidney effect, and using an uncertainty factor of 100 to account for the interspecies extrapolation and intraspecies variability, a Reference Dose ( RfD) of 1.0 mg/ kg/ bwt/ day was used for this assessment of chronic risk. As indicated, there is no endpoint of concern identified with acute and short or intermediate term exposures. The existing and proposed tolerances would utilize 0.000041 mg/ kg/ bwt/ day, or less than 0.01% of the RfD for the U. S. population. And, as indicated previously, whatever upper limit might be used for drinking water exposure, the exposure estimate for Flumetsulam would not exceed the RfD. Generally, exposures below 100 percent of the RfD are of no concern because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risk to human health. Thus, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to Flumetsulam residues.]

2. Infants and children. [ In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of Flumetsulam, data from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit, and a 2 generation reproduction study in the rat were considered. The developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism during prenatal development resulting from pesticide exposure to one or both parents. Reproduction studies provide pesticide exposure to one or both parents. Reproduction studies provide ( 1) information relating to effects from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating animals and ( 2) data on systemic toxicity.

As indicated previously, reproductive and developmental toxicity was studied using rats and rabbits. The data base is complete, and based on all of the data for Flumetsulam; there is no evidence of reproductive or developmental toxicity at dose levels that do not result in maternal toxicity.

FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA may apply an additional safety factor for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for pre and postnatal effects for children is complete. These data suggest minimal concern for developmental or reproductive toxicity, and do not indicate any increased pre or post natal sensitivity. Therefore, an additional uncertainty factor is not necessary to Page 6 protect the safety of infants and children, and that the RfD at 1.0 mg/ kg/ day is appropriate for assessing aggregate risk to infants and children.

The percent of the RfD that will be utilized by the aggregate exposure from all tolerances to Flumetsulam will be less than 0.1% for non nursing infants and for children ( 1 6 years of age). Therefore, based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data and the conservative exposure assessment, it is concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to Flumetsulam residues.]

F. International Tolerances [ There are no Codex Maximum Residue Levels established for Flumetsulam ( Joanne Miller).]


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54574-54575]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. Ic16-14-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-604 and FERC-
923); Consolidated Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collections and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the requirements and burden \1\
of the information collections described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.

DATES: Comments on the collections of information are due October 17,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC16-14-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Please reference the specific collection number and/or title in
your comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection
requirements for all collections described below with no changes to the
current reporting requirements. Please note that each collection is
distinct from the next.
    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the
burden and cost of the collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

FERC-604, Cash Management Agreements

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0267.
    Abstract: Cash management or ``money pool'' programs typically
concentrate affiliates' cash assets in joint accounts for the purpose
of providing financial flexibility and lowering the cost of borrowing.
    In a 2001 investigation, FERC staff found that balances in cash
management programs affecting FERC-regulated entities totaled
approximately $16 billion. Additionally, other investigations revealed
large transfers of funds (amounting to more than $1 billion) between
regulated pipeline affiliates and non-regulated parents whose financial
conditions were precarious. The Commission found that these and other
fund transfers and the enormous (mostly unregulated) pools of money in
cash management programs could detrimentally affect regulated rates.
    To protect customers and promote transparency, the Commission
issued Order 634-A (2003) requiring entities to formalize in writing
and file with the Commission their cash management agreements. At that
time, the Commission obtained OMB clearance for this new reporting
requirement under the FERC-555 information collection (OMB Control No.
1902-0098). Now, the Commission includes these reporting requirements
for cash management agreements under the FERC-604 information
collection (OMB Control No. 1902-0267). The Commission implemented
these reporting requirements in 18 CFR parts 141.500, 260.400, and
357.5.
    Type of Respondent: Public utilities, natural gas companies, and
oil pipeline companies.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:

                                      FERC-604--Cash Management Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Annual number                    Average burden &        Total annual        Cost per
      Number of         of responses    Total number    cost per  response     burden hours  &      respondent
     respondents       per respondent   of responses            \2\           total annual cost         ($)
(1)                               (2)   (1)*(2) = (3)  (4).................  (3)*(4) = (5)......       (5) / (1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25...................               1              25  1.5 hrs.; $111.75...  37.5 hrs.;                   111.75
                                                                              $2,793.75.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FERC-923, Communication of Operational Information Between Natural Gas
Pipelines and Electric Transmission Operators
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $74.50 per
Hour = Average Cost per Response. The Commission staff believes that
the industry's level and skill set is comparable to FERC's with an
average hourly cost (wages plus benefits) of $74.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0265.
    Abstract: In 2013, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC
or Commission) revised its regulations to provide explicit authority to
interstate natural gas pipelines and public utilities that own,
operate, or control facilities used for the transmission of electric
energy in interstate commerce to voluntarily share non-public,
operational information with each other

for the purpose of promoting reliable service and operational planning
on either the pipeline's or public utility's system. This helps ensure
the reliability of natural gas pipeline and public utility transmission
service by permitting transmission operators to share the information
with each other that they deem necessary to promote the reliability and
integrity of their systems. FERC removed actual or perceived
prohibitions to the information sharing and communications between
industry entities. The communications of information are not and will
not be submitted to FERC. Rather, the non-public information is shared
voluntarily between industry entities. FERC does not prescribe the
content, medium, format, or frequency for the information sharing and
communications. Those decisions are made by the industry entities,
depending on their needs and the situation.
    Type of Respondent: Natural gas pipelines and public utilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $74.50 per
Hour = Average Cost per Response. The Commission staff believes that
the industry's level and skill set is comparable to FERC's with an
average hourly cost (wages plus benefits) of $74.50.
    \4\ The estimate for the number of respondents is based on the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Compliance
Registry as of July 29, 2016, minus the Transmission Operators
within ERCOT.

                  FERC-923--Communication of Operational Information Between Natural Gas Pipelines and Electric Transmission Operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Annual number
                                    Number of     of responses    Total number    Average burden  & cost   Total annual  burden hours  &     Cost per
                                   respondents   per respondent   of responses       per  response \3\           total annual cost        respondent ($)
                                            (1)             (2)   (1)*(2) = (3)  (4).....................  (3)*(4) = (5)................       (5) / (1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Utility Transmission             \4\ 164              12           1,968  0.5 hrs.; $37.25........  984 hrs.; $73,308............             447
 Operator, communications.
Interstate Natural Gas                      155              12           1,860  0.5 hrs.; $37.25........  930 hrs.; $69,285............             447
 Pipelines, communications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................  ..............  ..............           3,828  ........................  1,914 hrs.; $142,593.........  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: August 10, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19469 Filed 8-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 28599-28601]
[DOCID:fr21my10-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

May 11, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC10-64-000.
    Applicants: New Developments Holdings, LLC.
    Description: New Development Holdings, LLC et al. submits Joint
Application for approval under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and
request for expedited treatment and shortened comment period.
    Filed Date: 05/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100510-0014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 7, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: EC10-67-000.
    Applicants: BHE Holdings Inc., Maine & Maritimes Corporation.
    Description: Application of BHE Holdings Inc. and Maine & Maritimes
Corp. under FPA Section 203.
    Filed Date: 05/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100511-5097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 01, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-1214-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits a Small Generator Interconnection
Agreement Facilities Maintenance Agreement with California Public Power
Authority.
    Filed Date: 05/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100510-0217.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1216-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits Engineering and Procurement
Agreement dated 4/22/10 between PacifiCorp Transmission Services et al.
to be designated as Service Agreement 648 under their Seventh Revised
Volume 11 Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 05/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100510-0216.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1217-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits Populus Joint Ownership and
Operating Agreement with Idaho Power Company to be designated as their
Rate Schedule FERC No 659.
    Filed Date: 05/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100510-0215.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1218-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: Indiana Michigan Power Company submits eighth revised
Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement 1262 with Wabash
Valley Power Association, Inc.
    Filed Date: 05/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100510-0214.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1220-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Idaho Power Company submits Hemingway Joint Ownership
and Operating Agreement designated as Rate Schedule FERC No. 154.
    Filed Date: 05/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100511-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1221-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.
    Description: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated submits
tariff filing per 35.12: Open Access Transmission Tariff to be
effective 5/11/2010.
    Filed Date: 05/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100511-5035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1222-000.
    Applicants: DTE East China, LLC.
    Description: DTE East China, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12:
DTE East China--Baseline Filing to be effective 5/14/2010.
    Filed Date: 05/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100511-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1223-000.
    Applicants: DTE Energy Trading, Inc.
    Description: DTE Energy Trading, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.12: DTE Energy Trading--Baseline Filing to be effective 5/14/2010.
    Filed Date: 05/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100511-5061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1224-000.
    Applicants: The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Comp, City of
Cleveland, Ohio.
    Description: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company submits notice
of cancellation of Rate Schedule FERC No 12.
    Filed Date: 05/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100511-0205.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1225-000.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Service Company, City of Cleveland, Ohio,
American Transmission Systems, Inc., Midwest Independent Transmission
System.
    Description: American Transmission Systems, Inc submits Original
Service Agreement No 2190 to FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 05/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100511-0206.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1226-000.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
    Description: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. submits tariff filing per
35.12: Tariff for Sales of Ancillary Service to be effective 5/11/2010.
    Filed Date: 05/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100511-5087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1227-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits letter
agreement with Solar Millennium, LLC.
    Filed Date: 05/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100511-0211.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 01, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:
    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Pacific Gas and
Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 04/26/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100426-5025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 17, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: MS Utilities submits a Report on Sites for New
Generation Capacity Development.
    Filed Date: 04/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100428-5019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: ECP Energy I, LLC et al. Land Acquisition Report (1Q
2010).
    Filed Date: 04/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100429-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: NRG Power Marketing Inc., et al. Order 697-C
Compliance Filing Regarding Site Control.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of ALABAMA ELECTRIC
MARKETING, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5158.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: Land Acquisition Report of CPV Keenan II Renewable
Energy Company, LLC and CPV Liberty, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5213.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services Inc. Order 697-C Quarterly Non-
Material Change in Status Report Compliance Filing on behalf of
Northern States Power Company, Public Service Company of Colorado, and
Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5244.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5507.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.

    Description: Quarterly Report of First Wind Public Utilities.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition report of Astoria
Generating Company, L.P., et al.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Arlington Valley,
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5332.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: Report/Form of San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5280.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: Quarterly Report of Exelon Corporation.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5261.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: Munnsville Wind Farm LLC et al. Notice per 18 CFR
35.42(d).
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5248.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: The Shaw Parties submit Notification of Change in
Status/Quarterly Report for First Quarter 2010.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5237.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: Change in Status Report of Edison International MBR
Affiliates.
    Filed Date: 04/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100428-5016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: Change in Fact Notice Site Report 2010 First Quarter
of Spring Canyon Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: Endure Energy, L.L.C. Notification of Change in
Status/Quarterly Report for First Quarter 2010.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5236.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-1-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 1st Qtr Site Acquisition Report.
    Description: Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. et al. Land Acquisition
Report (1Q 2010).
    Filed Date: 04/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100429-5093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 20, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12244 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41327-41330]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16498]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72572; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule Under Section VIII With Respect to
Execution and Routing of Orders in Securities Priced at $1 or More Per
Share

July 9, 2014.
    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 June 27, 2014, 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 and II 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 to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule
under Section VIII, entitled ``NASDAQ OMX PSX FEES,'' with respect to
execution and routing of orders in securities priced at $1 or more per
share.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, 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
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the certain
fees and rebates for order execution and routing applicable to the use
of the order execution and routing services of the NASDAQ OMX PSX
System (``PSX'') by member organizations for all securities traded at
$1 or more per share.
    The Exchange is proposing to eliminate the distinction in the fees
assessed for order execution and routing based on security type.
Currently, the Exchange has three separate rule sections \3\ that
provide charges and credits for securities that execute on PSX, which
are divided by whether the executed security is listed on The Nasdaq
Stock Market (``Nasdaq''), New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE''), or an
exchange other than Nasdaq or NYSE (collectively, ``Exchange-Listed
Securities''). The three sections are largely identical in terms of the
categories for which charges are assessed and credits given, with the
differences noted in the discussion below. The Exchange is combining
all three sections into one section, which will result in a single
category of credits provided and charges assessed on executions in
quotes/orders on PSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule, Section VIII(a)(1)-
(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Fees for Execution of Quotes/Orders
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the $0.0030 per share charge
currently assessed for orders in Exchange-Listed Securities entered
through a PSX market participant identifier (``MPID'') through which
the member organization provides an average daily volume of 10,000 or
more shares of liquidity during the month. The Exchange is also
proposing to reduce the charge assessed for an order that is designated
as eligible for routing in Exchange-Listed Securities from $0.0030 per
share to $0.0026 per share. Similarly, the Exchange is proposing to
reduce the charge assessed for all other orders in Exchange-Listed
Securities from $0.0030 per share to $0.0026 per share.
Amended Credits for Execution of Quotes/Orders: Displayed Orders
    The Exchange is proposing to provide a new credit for the execution
of displayed quotes and orders in securities listed on Nasdaq, and to
reduce the related credits currently provided for execution of
displayed quotes and orders in securities listed on NYSE and other
exchanges. Currently, for a security listed on NYSE or other exchanges,
the Exchange provides a credit of $0.0030 per share executed for
Quotes/Orders entered by a member organization that provides an average
daily volume of 6 million or more shares of liquidity during the month;
provided that (i) the Quote/Order is entered through a 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 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. The Exchange is proposing to reduce this credit to $0.0025
per share executed. In addition, the Exchange is extending eligibility
for this credit to execution of securities listed on Nasdaq. As a
consequence, the $0.0025 per share credit will apply to all Exchange-
Listed Securities.

    The Exchange is also proposing to reduce the credits provided in
Exchange-Listed Securities for Quotes/Orders entered by a member
organization that provides an average daily volume of 2 million or more
shares of liquidity during the month; provided that (i) the Quote/Order
is entered through a 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 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. Currently, the Exchange
provides a credit of $0.0028 per share executed for Nasdaq-listed
securities, and a credit of $0.0029 per share executed for NYSE listed
and securities listed on other exchanges, under the applicable rules.
The Exchange is proposing to reduce the credit provided for all
Exchange-Listed Securities under the consolidated rule to $0.0024 per
share executed.
    The Exchange is also proposing to reduce the credits provided in
Exchange-Listed Securities for Quotes/Orders entered through a MPID
through which the member organization provides an average daily volume
of 100,000 or more shares of liquidity during the month. Currently, the
Exchange provides a credit of the $0.0026 per share executed for
Exchange-Listed Securities. The Exchange is proposing to reduce the
credit provided for Exchange-Listed Securities under the consolidated
rule to $0.0021 per share executed.
    Lastly, the Exchange is proposing to reduce the credit provided for
all other displayed Quotes/Orders in Exchange-Listed Securities from
$0.0020 per share executed to $0.0015 per share executed.
Amended Credits and New Charges for Execution of Quotes/Orders: Non-
Displayed Orders
    The Exchange is proposing to change the title of the rule section
under Section VIII(a) of the Pricing Schedule concerning the credits
provided for the execution of non-displayed quotes and orders to
reflect that it no longer provides only credits, but also charges.
    The Exchange is proposing to eliminate the credit provided to
member organizations for the execution of a midpoint pegged order or a
midpoint peg post-only order (a ``midpoint order'') and instead assess
a charge for such an execution. Currently, the Exchange provides a
credit of $0.0010 per share executed in Exchange-Listed Securities. The
Exchange is proposing to replace the credit and instead assess a charge
of $0.0003 per share executed.
    In light of the amended title of the rule, the Exchange is also
proposing to add clarifying rule text concerning the $0.0005 per share
executed credit provided for other non-displayed orders in Exchange-
Listed Securities. Specifically, the Exchange is adding the word
``credit'' to the rule. The Exchange is also adding language that makes
it clear that the credit is intended for non-displayed orders that
provide liquidity.
    Lastly, the Exchange is proposing to add a new charge of $0.0003
per share executed for orders that execute against resting midpoint
order liquidity in Exchange-Listed Securities.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act \5\
in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities, and it does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers. The proposed changes are reasonable
because they reflect a modest decrease in the credits provided in the
execution of certain orders and a modest increase in the fees assessed
for others, which will allow the Exchange to reduce costs and increase
revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed change with respect to consolidating the three fee
schedules under Section VIII(a) is reasonable because it will simplify
the presentation of the fees, which are similar in many respects
currently and will be identical under the proposed changes. The change
is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees and not unfairly
discriminatory because it presents the harmonized charges and credits
in a single schedule of charges and credits.
    The proposed change with respect to the elimination of the $0.0030
per share charge assessed for quotes and orders entered through a MPID
through which the member organization provides an average daily volume
of 10,000 or more shares of liquidity during the month is reasonable
because it eliminates a fee assessed on providers of liquidity in order
to encourage further participation on PSX by these market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is consistent with an
equitable allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because
it applies to all market participants who formally met the requirements
of the fee who will now be assessed the same fee assessed other market
participants that enters orders that execute orders on PSX. The
Exchange notes that the current rule assesses a fee that is identical
to the other rates that are assessed for entering orders that execute
in PSX.
    The proposed change with respect to the reduction of fees assessed
for execution of an order that is designated as eligible for routing
and for other orders executed on PSX are reasonable because they create
a single, lower charge assessed for orders that execute on PSX designed
to further attract liquidity to the market. The Exchange believes that
the proposed changes are consistent with an equitable allocation of
fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because they will result in the
same fee assessed on all member organizations that enter orders that
execute on PSX.
    The proposed change with respect to the new credit for Quotes/
Orders entered by a member organization that provides an average daily
volume of 6 million or more shares of liquidity during the month;
provided that (i) the Quote/Order is entered through a 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 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 is reasonable because it provides a new credit designed to
incentivize member organizations to provide displayed liquidity in
Nasdaq-listed securities. The Exchange notes that it currently provides
identical categories of incentive for liquidity provided in NYSE-listed
securities and securities listed on other exchanges. The Exchange
believes that the proposed changes are consistent with an equitable
allocation of fees and are not unfairly discriminatory because they
extend the credits currently provided to member organizations for the
same liquidity in NYSE-listed securities and securities listed on other
exchanges. Accordingly, all member organizations will receive

the same credit for providing liquidity that meets the requirements of
the rules.
    The Exchange notes that it is reducing all of the credits under the
rule for providing liquidity in displayed quotes and orders, regardless
of the listing venue of the security. The Exchange believes that the
proposed reduction in these credits is reasonable because it reflects a
modest reduction in the credits provided. Phlx notes that the credits
provided by the rule are given in lieu of assessing normal fees, and
accordingly provide incentive to market participants to enter such
orders. The proposed change balances the Exchange's desire to provide
certain incentives to market participants with the costs the Exchange
incurs in providing such incentives, which ultimately affect the
ability to sustain them. The Exchange believes that the proposed
changes are consistent with an equitable allocation of fees and is not
unfairly discriminatory because they will provide the same credits to
member organizations for the same levels of liquidity provided,
regardless of the listing venue of the security.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the credits
concerning non-displayed orders are also consistent with the Act.
Specifically, the believes that the proposed change from a credit
provided for non-displayed midpoint orders to a charge is reasonable
because it reflects the Exchange's need to adjust its credits and fees
in response to the costs and benefits provided. As discussed above,
credits provided by the Exchange are given in lieu of assessing normal
fees, and accordingly provide incentive to market participants to enter
such orders. The proposed change balances the Exchange's desire to
provide certain incentives to market participants with the costs the
Exchange incurs in providing such incentives, which, in the case of the
proposed change, have outweighed the Exchange's desire to incentivize
member organizations to provide such liquidity. The Exchange believes
that the proposed changes are consistent with an equitable allocation
of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because they result in a
uniform charge to member organizations that provide such non-displayed
liquidity.
    The change with respect to the new charge assessed for orders that
remove liquidity in resting midpoint orders is reasonable because it
imposes a modest charge for removing midpoint liquidity from PSX. As
discussed above, the Exchange currently assesses charges for removing
liquidity from PSX and the proposed new charge is less than the
standard removal charge, which is reflective of the price improvement
such orders provide to the market. The Exchange believes that the
proposed change is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees and
is not unfairly discriminatory because it applies the charge for
removing liquidity from PSX in midpoint orders to all member
organizations that remove such liquidity, regardless of the listing
venue of the security of the order.
    Lastly, the clarifying changes to the title of the rule section
concerning credits for non-displayed orders and the text of the credit
for other non-displayed orders are reasonable because they more
accurately reflect the nature of the rule section and the credit
provided, in light of the changes discussed above. The Exchange
believes that the proposed changes are consistent with an equitable
allocation of fees and are not unfairly discriminatory because the
changes apply to all member organizations that use PSX.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.\6\ The Exchange
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,
the Exchange 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, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited. In this instance, the changes to the credits
provided and charges assessed are intended to reduce the Exchange's
costs, while still continuing to provide an incentive for members to
execute shares on PSX and make use of its optional routing
functionality. Because there are numerous competitive alternatives to
PSX, it is likely the Exchange will lose market share as a result of
the changes if they are unattractive to market participants.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe the proposed changes will
impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to
maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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 \7\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\8\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 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-2014-43 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-43. 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-2014-43 and should be
submitted on or before August 5, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-16498 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


October 3, 2006 OPP/APHIS/MBIP meeting at EPA’s Potomac Yard Building
(Arlington, VA)

Upon the request of USDA, representatives OPP, Methyl Bromide Industry
Panel (MBIP) and USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service met
to discuss the process for converting MeBr’s Section 18 Emergency uses
to Section 3 registrations.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 100 (Friday, May 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31176-31177]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15027-000]

Agate Energy Park, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On April 21, 2020, the Agate Energy Park, LLC, filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the proposed Agate
Closed Loop Pumped Storage Hydro Project No. 15027-000, to be located
in Twin Falls County, near the town of Rogerson and Twin Falls, Idaho.
The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the
permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit
term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to
perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or
waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 3,000-
foot-long, 1,000-foot-wide, oval-shaped upper impoundment created by a
5,700-foot- long, 75-foot-high earthen and/or roller compacted concrete
embankment; (2) a 1,900-foot-long, 1,900-foot-wide, square-shaped lower
reservoir formed by a 7,600-foot-long, 75-foot-high earthen and/or
roller compacted concrete embankment; (3) a 5,000-foot-long, 18-foot-
diameter steel penstock; (4) a 400-foot-long, 115-foot-wide powerhouse
below grade and located adjacent to the lower reservoir housing three
Quaternary units rated at 133 Mega-watt each; (5) a 7.5 mile-long
transmission line interconnecting to existing transmission line owned
by Idaho Power; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project
would have an annual generation of 1,300 Gigawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Mr. Carl Borgquist, 612 East Main Street, Suite
C, P.O. Box 309, Bozeman, MT 59771; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Maryam Zavareh; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY).
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-15027) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: May 18, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-11119 Filed 5-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 18842]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08976]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9993-06-Region 5]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to
State Operating Permit for Cargill, Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition to object to Clean Air Act
title V operating permit.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed
an Order dated March 20, 2019, denying a petition dated July 11, 2014
from Michelle Ford (Petitioner). The Petitioner requested that EPA
object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit issued by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) to Cargill, Inc.
(Cargill) for its Bloomington, Illinois, soybean processing facility.

ADDRESSES: EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view copies of the final
Order, the Petition, and other supporting information. You may review
copies of the final Order, the Petition, and other supporting
information at the EPA Region 5 Office, 77 W Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
Illinois 60604. You may view the hard copies Monday through Friday,
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. If you wish to
examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24
hours before the visiting day. Additionally, the final Order and
Petition are available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Ogulei, Environmental Engineer,
Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to
review, and object, as appropriate, to title V operating permits
proposed by State permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA
authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days
after the expiration of the EPA review period to object to a title V
operating permit if EPA has not done so on its own initiative.
Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were
raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period
provided by the State, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was
impracticable to raise issues during the comment period, or the grounds
for the issues arose after this period.
    On July 11, 2014, the Petitioner submitted a petition requesting
that EPA object, pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR
70.8(d), to the title V permit that IEPA issued on April 21, 2014 to
Cargill for its Bloomington, Illinois, soybean processing facility. The
Petitioner alleged that (1) the permit contains vague and undefined
terms, including ``properly operated,'' ``reasonable steps,''
``reasonable times,'' ``any records,'' ``other parameters,'' ``standard
test methods,'' and an unclear date for when EPA notice started, among
others; (2) the inspection provisions of the permit are inadequate
because Cargill is forewarned of any inspections, may delay
inspections, and has ample opportunity to correct any issues that would
be found during inspection; (3) the permit improperly authorizes
Cargill to operate ``outdated'' pre-1973 equipment and does not mandate
upgrades to equipment to ensure compliance with permit limits; (4) the
monitoring and control requirements of the permit are insufficient to
address the facility's alleged historical violations of particulate
matter emission limits; (5) the permit's recordkeeping requirements are
inadequate because they do not require daily recordkeeping of the
amount of grain processed; and (6) area residents' health, property and
quality of life, including the ability to open windows or enjoy their
property outdoors, have been severely impacted by Cargill's continued
operation.
    On March 20, 2019, the Administrator issued an order denying the
petition. The order explains the basis for EPA's decision.
    Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner
may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny
issues in a petition. Any petition for review of the Administrator's
March 20, 2019 Order shall be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than July 1, 2019.

    Dated: April 18, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-08976 Filed 5-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 54964]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21700]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR21-12-000]

Tesoro Logistics Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on September 24, 2021, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2)
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2019) and section
284.502(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations,\1\ Tesoro Logistics
Northwest Pipeline LLC (TLNP), a subsidiary of MPLX LP, hereby requests
(Petition) that the Commission issue a declaratory order approving
various requested rulings related to a proposed expansion (Expansion)
of its SLC Core Pipeline system that, following the Expansion, will be
capable of transporting crude oil from Fort Laramie Station, Wyoming to
Wahsatch Station, Utah. TLNP respectfully requests that the Commission
act on this Petition no later than December 23, 2021 so that TLNP and
its shippers may receive the certainty necessary for TLNP to move
forward with the development of the Expansion and place it into
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 284.502(b)(1) (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene, or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar
pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance with any FERC Online
service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (866) 208-
3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on October 25, 2021.

    Dated: September 29, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21700 Filed 10-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30987-30990]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14091]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0066; FRL-9962-60]

Pyroxsulam; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
pyroxsulam in or on teff, grain; teff, forage; teff, hay; and teff,
straw. Dow AgroSciences LLC requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective July 5, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 5, 2017,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0066, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP

Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0066 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
September 5, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0066, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14030) (FRL-9942-
86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
5E8439) by Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN
46268. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.638 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide pyroxsulam, N-
(5,7-dimethoxy[1,2,4]triazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidin-2-yl)-2-methoxy-4-
(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinesulfonamide, in or on teff, grain at 0.01
parts per million (ppm); teff, forage 0.06 ppm; teff, hay 0.01 ppm; and
teff, straw 0.03 ppm. The published notice of filing (NOF) mistakenly
listed the following incorrect tolerances for residues of pyroxsulam in
or on the cereal crops: teff at 0.06 parts per million (ppm); teff,
forage at 0.01 ppm; teff, grain at 0.03 ppm; teff, hay at 0.01 ppm; and
teff, straw at 0.01 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the
petition containing the correct tolerance amounts prepared by Dow
AgroSciences LLC, the registrant, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of
filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with FFDCA section
408(b)(2).
    In the Federal Register of February 27, 2008 (73 FR 10402) (FRL-
8349-9), EPA established tolerances for residues of pyroxsulam in or on
wheat, forage; wheat, grain; wheat, hay; and wheat, straw at the same
levels as those requested for residues in or on corresponding teff
commodities. Since these wheat tolerances were established in 2008, the
toxicological profile and the endpoints for assessment have not
changed. Moreover, as explained below, EPA has concluded that the new
tolerances for teff commodities does not alter the previous conclusions
about the potential aggregate exposure to pyroxsulam residues.
    Although teff residue data were not submitted with this petition,
EPA concluded that the level of pyroxsulam residues on teff commodities
would be the same or similar to the level of pyroxsulam residues on
wheat commodities, based on the similarity in application rates.
Furthermore, EPA concluded that because teff is a likely substitute for
wheat products, there would be no additional exposure to pyroxsulam
residues beyond what was

previously assessed to support the wheat tolerances. Finally, because
there is no corresponding request for a U.S. registration allowing use
of pyroxsulam on teff, there are no additional drinking water or
residential exposures beyond previous assessments.
    Based on this assessment of potential exposure from use of
pyroxsulam on teff and the findings supporting the February 27, 2008
tolerances established for wheat commodities, EPA concludes that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to
pyroxsulam residues.
    For a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and
determination of safety for the proposed tolerances, please refer to
the February 27, 2008 Federal Register document and its supporting
documents as well as Human Health Risk Assessments D431295, D. Dotson,
3/25/2016 and D439358, D. Dotson, 4/21/2017 available at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0785.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate enforcement methodology, Method GRM 04.17, an Liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method, is
available to enforce the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

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

C. Response to Comments

    EPA received two comments to the published Notice of Filing. Both
comments stated, in part and without any supporting information, that
EPA should deny this petition because it is a harmful and toxic
chemical with no benefits. The Agency recognizes that some individuals
believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops. The
existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), however, states that tolerances may be
set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have
demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by
that statute. EPA has assessed the effects of this chemical on human
health and determined that aggregate exposure to it will be safe. These
comments provide no information to support an alternative conclusion.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA is revising the tolerance expression to clarify (1) that, as
provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites
and degradates of pyroxsulam not specifically mentioned; and (2) that
compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by
measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance
expression.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyroxsulam,
N-(5,7-dimethoxy[1,2,4]triazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidin-2-yl)-2-methoxy-4-
(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinesulfonamide, in or on teff, forage 0.06
ppm; teff, grain at 0.01 ppm; teff, hay 0.01 ppm; and teff, straw at
0.03 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S.

Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 19, 2017.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.638:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text; and
0
b. Add alphabetically the commodities ``teff, forage''; ``teff,
grain''; ``teff, hay''; and ``teff, straw''; and footnote 1 to the
table in paragraph (a).
    The revision and additoins read as follows:

Sec.  180.638  Pyroxsulam; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of pyroxsulam,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities
listed in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only pyroxsulam, N-
(5,7-dimethoxy[l, 2,4]triazolo[l, 5-a]pyrimidin-2-yl)-2-methoxy-4-
(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinesulfonamide, in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teff, forage \1\............................................        0.06
Teff, grain \1\.............................................        0.01
Teff, hay \1\...............................................        0.01
Teff, straw \1\.............................................        0.03

                               * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations on teff as of May 8, 2017.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-14091 Filed 7-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P