[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 179 (Wednesday, September 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55612-55613]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23175]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9934-02-Region 6]

Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems in New
Mexico (NMR040000)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of extension of public comment period and rescheduling
of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: On July 30, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region 6 published a request for comments on a draft National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for storm water
discharges from small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)
located within the State of New Mexico except MS4s located in Indian
lands, Los Alamos County, the Middle Rio Grande Sub-Watersheds
described in Appendix A of the NPDES permit No. NMR04A000, or within
the area of another MS4 permit. This proposed permit offers discharge
authorization to regulated small MS4s within the boundaries of the
Bureau of the Census-designated 2000 and 2010 Farmington, Santa Fe, Los
Lunas, Las Cruces and El Paso Urbanized Areas and any other small MS4s
in the State of New Mexico designated by the Director as needing a MS4
permit, other than those primarily located in Los Alamos. This permit
is intended to replace the expired general permit NMR040000. In the
July 30, 2015, Federal Register notice, the Director also provided
notice of public meetings to be held regarding the proposed general
permit reissuance. EPA Region 6 is announcing today an extension of the
public comment period from October 28, 2015, to December 18, 2015, and
rescheduling of public meetings from the week of September 14, 2015, to
the week of November 16, 2015.

DATES: Written comments must now be submitted in writing to EPA on or
before December 18, 2015.
    New Locations and Dates for Public Meetings: EPA is rescheduling
the five informational public meetings announced in the July 30, 2015,
Federal Register notice. The new locations and dates for the five
informal public meetings are listed below. The public meetings will
include a presentation on the proposed general permit and a question
and answer session. Written, but not oral, comments for the official
permit record will be accepted at the public meetings. Public notice of
the extension of the public comment period and rescheduling of the
public meetings will also be provided in The Sun News, Albuquerque
Journal, The Santa Fe New Mexican, and The Farmington Daily Times prior
to or concurrent with today's notice.

El Paso Urbanized Area Meeting:
Date and Time: Monday November 16, 2015 from 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. MST
Location: New Mexico State University
Dona Ana Community College-Sunland Park Campus
Room 102--Auditorium
3365 McNutt Rd
Sunland Park, NM 88063

Las Cruces Urbanized Area Meeting:
Date and Time: Monday November 16, 2015 from 6:00 p.m.-7:30 p.m. MST
Location: New Mexico State University
Dona Ana Community College-East Mesa Campus
Student Resource Building
2800 N. Sonoma Ranch Blvd.
Las Cruces, NM 88003

Los Lunas Urbanized Area Meeting:
Date and Time: Tuesday November 17, 2015 from 6:00 p.m.-7:30 p.m. MST
Location: Holiday Inn Express Belen
2110 Camino del Llano
Belen, NM 87002

Santa Fe Urbanized Area Meeting:
Date and Time: Wednesday November 18, 2015 from 6:00 p.m.-7:30 p.m. MST
Location: The Lodge at Santa Fe
750 N. St. Francis Dr.
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Farmington Urbanized Area Meeting:
Date and Time: Thursday November 19, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.-7:30 p.m. MST
Location: Courtyard Farmington
560 Scott Ave
Farmington, NM 87401

    Proposed Documents: The proposed general permit and fact sheet
which sets forth principal facts and the significant factual, legal,
and policy questions considered in the development of the proposed
general permit, may be obtained via the Internet at http://epa.gov/region6/water/npdes/sw/sms4/index.htm. A backup copy is also available
at the New Mexico Environment Department Web site at https://www.env.nm.gov/swqb/WQA/Notice/. To obtain hard copies of these
documents or any other information in the administrative record, please
contact Ms. Evelyn Rosborough using the contact information provided
below.

How do I comment on this proposal?

    Comment Submittals: Submit your comments, by one of the following
methods:

     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Ms. Evelyn Rosborough, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Administrative Record: The proposed general permit and other
related documents in the administrative record are on file and may be
inspected any time between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays, at the addresses listed for
submission of comments. It is recommended that you write or call to the
contact above for an appointment, so the record(s) will be available at
your convenience.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Evelyn Rosborough, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 2, 2015.
William K. Honker,
Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-23175 Filed 9-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 43601]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0001]

Risks and Benefits of Hydroxyethyl Starch Solutions; Public
Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
workshop entitled: ``Risks and Benefits of Hydroxyethyl Starch
Solutions.'' The purpose of this public workshop is to discuss new
information on the risks and benefits of FDA-approved hydroxyethyl
starch (HES) solutions.
    The public workshop has been planned in partnership with the
Department of Defense and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute,
National Institutes of Health, and will include presentations and panel
discussions with experts from academia, regulated industry, government,
and other stakeholders.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on September 6,
2012, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and September 7, 2012, from 8:30
a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the Masur Auditorium,
National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr., Bldg. 10, Clinical
Center, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Jennifer Scharpf, Center for Biologics Evaluation
and Research (HFM-300), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville
Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:
301-827-2843, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: Mail, fax, or email your registration information
(including name, title, firm or organization name, address, telephone
and fax numbers, and email address) to Jennifer Scharpf (see Contact
Person) by August 15, 2012. There is no registration fee for the public
workshop. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited.
Registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided on a
space available basis beginning at 7:00 a.m. If you need special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jennifer Scharpf
(see Contact Person) at least 7 days in advance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: HES solutions are synthetic colloids
administered intravenously to patients to maintain or expand plasma
volume when clinically indicated. Currently, three such products are
approved by FDA. HES solutions are indicated for the treatment of
hypovolemia (low blood volume) that may result from trauma, sepsis,
burns, or anaphylaxis. These products are used in the prehospital and
hospital environment in both military and civilian settings. This
public workshop will serve as a forum for discussing new information on
the potential effects of HES solutions on hemostasis and on the renal
system.
    The first day of the public workshop will include presentations and
panel discussions on the following topics: (1) The risks and benefits
associated with HES solutions in different clinical settings and (2)
the findings of two recent major clinical studies conducted on HES
solutions.
    The second day of the public workshop will include a summary
discussion and presentations concerning the overall safety profile of
HES solutions and a discussion of future clinical research for the
evaluation of HES solutions.
    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as possible after a
transcript of the public workshop is available, it will be accessible
at: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/NewsEvents/WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/TranscriptsMinutes/default.htm.
Transcripts of the public workshop may also be requested in writing
from the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food and Drug
Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857.

    Dated: July 17, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-18110 Filed 7-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40676-40677]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15978]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Membership in the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group

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

ACTION: Solicitation of applications.

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

SUMMARY: By Federal Register notice on May 6, 2021, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service (NPS)
invited interested persons to apply to fill one existing and one
upcoming vacancy on the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group
(NPOAG). This notice informs the public of the selection made for the
one upcoming vacancy representing air tour operator concerns. No
selection was made for the existing opening representing Native
American tribal concerns so this notice also invites persons interested
in that opening to apply.

DATES: Persons interested in applying for the NPOAG opening
representing Native American concerns will need to apply by August 31,
2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Lusk, Special Programs Staff,
Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Headquarters,
777 S Aviation Boulevard, Suite 150, El Segundo, CA 90245, telephone:
(424) 405-7017, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was
enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181, and subsequently
amended in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Act
required the establishment of the advisory group within one year after
its enactment. The NPOAG was established in March 2001. The advisory
group is comprised of a balanced group of representatives of general
aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and
Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and the Director
of NPS (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of the

group. Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve
alternating 1-year terms as chairman of the advisory group.
    In accordance with the Act, the advisory group provides ``advice,
information, and recommendations to the Administrator and the
Director--
    (1) On the implementation of this title [the Act] and the
amendments made by this title;
    (2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in
commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands,
which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour
management plan;
    (3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the
interests of visitors to national parks; and
    (4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety,
environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour
operations over a national park or tribal lands.''

Membership

    The current NPOAG is made up of one member representing general
aviation, three members representing the commercial air tour industry,
four members representing environmental concerns, and two members
representing Native American interests. Current members of the NPOAG
are as follows:
    Melissa Rudinger representing general aviation; John Becker, James
Viola, and Eric Lincoln representing commercial air tour operators with
one upcoming opening due to Eric Lincoln's 3-year term ending; Dick
Hingson, Les Blomberg, Robert Randall, and John Eastman representing
environmental interests; and Carl Slater represents Native American
tribes with one current opening.

Selections

    Eric Lincoln has been chosen for another 3-year term as the air
tour operator representative. NPOAG members' 3-year terms commence on
the publication date of this Federal Register notice. No selection was
made for the additional opening to represent Native American concerns.
The FAA and NPS invite persons interested in applying for this
remaining opening on the NPOAG to contact Mr. Keith Lusk (contact
information is written above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Requests to serve on the NPOAG must be made to Mr. Lusk in writing and
postmarked or emailed on or before August 31, 2021. The request should
indicate whether or not you are a member of, or have an affiliation
with, a federally recognized Native American tribe. The request should
also state what expertise you would bring to the NPOAG as related to
issues and concerns with aircraft flights over national parks and/or
tribal lands. The term of service for NPOAG members is 3 years. Current
members may re-apply for another term. On August 13, 2014, the Office
of Management and Budget issued revised guidance regarding the
prohibition against appointing or not reappointing federally registered
lobbyists to serve on advisory committees (79 FR 47482).
    Therefore, before appointing an applicant to serve on the NPOAG,
the FAA and NPS will require the prospective candidate to certify that
they are not a federally registered lobbyist.

    Issued in El Segundo, CA, on July 21, 2021.
Keith Lusk,
Program Manager, Special Programs Staff, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-15978 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - October 2007

Compliance and Enforcement National Priority

Financial Responsibility Under Environmental Laws

What is the Environmental Problem?

Many environmental statutes contain financial responsibility provisions.
 Generally, financial responsibility requires regulated entities to set
aside funds, obtain, or otherwise guarantee that funds will be available
to address short and long term risks associated with the management and
permanent disposal of hazardous materials, substance and wastes so as
not to adversely affect human health and the environment.

Financial responsibility protects human health and the environment by
preventing improper handling and release of hazardous materials and
wastes, ensuring funds will be available to address contamination,
preventing the shift of cleanup costs from the responsible party to the
taxpayer or other parties; and making facilities and land available to
the public for reuse. These benefits are lost unless there is compliance
with the financial responsibility requirements and enforcement where
there is a failure to maintain sufficient financial assurances.  Absent
financial assurance, protection of human health and the environment
would depend on available governmental financial resources.  Compliance
and enforcement of financial responsibility requirements is consistent
with EPA’s mandate to prevent harm to human health and the
environment, deter illegal activities, and the Agency’s long-standing
“polluter pays” principle.

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is concerned
that entities are not providing adequate financial responsibility in
accordance with their obligations under federal environmental laws.
Recent studies and inquiries by the EPA Office of Inspector General (IG)
and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have noted issues
regarding compliance with the financial responsibility requirements
under RCRA closure/post-closure, RCRA corrective action, CERCLA cleanups
and SDWA UIC program.  Also, ongoing EPA Regional assessments of
owner’s or operator’s compliance with RCRA Subtitle C closure and
post-closure financial responsibility requirements, for example, have
identified a wide range of violations.  These violations place the
public at risk because of the potential financial inability to close or
clean-up the site.

Why Are We Addressing this Problem?

Prior to the designation of financial responsibility as an enforcement
priority, OECA and the States noted compliance concerns and engaged in
discussions and activities to address these issues. Several of the
environmental laws with financial responsibility requirements do not
provide for authorization of State programs (e.g., CERCLA, TSCA) and EPA
must take the lead in addressing financial responsibility issues.  In
programs that have a state and federal component, EPA plays a crucial
role by providing national leadership regarding the implementation and
enforcement of the financial responsibility requirements.

With the emergence in 2005 of financial responsibility as a potential
OECA national priority,

support for OECA’s decision to undertake this area as a national
priority came from EPA’s IG and the States.  Areas that have been
identified by OECA, the IG and GAO where EPA can provide leadership are
capacity building, revising national databases to incorporate and better
track financial responsibility, additional guidance and oversight
regarding enforcement of financial responsibility requirements and
highlighting the importance of financial responsibility nationally.

Since a portion of the non-compliances attributed to national companies
are systemic, EPA has an important role to play as it is better able to
address the violations corporate-wide.  Moreover, some of the legal
issues associated with the non-compliance are being encountered for the
first time in case development, settlement negotiations and litigation.
EPA’s national focus on financial responsibility will lead to national
consistency, highlight the importance of financial assurance, ensure the
proper and safe management of hazardous substances, wastes and
pollutants, and assures that the billions of dollars needed to properly
close and clean-up hazardous wastes and substances will be available.

How is OECA Addressing the Problem?

EPA initiated a phased approach in the examination of compliance and
enforcement issues.  OECA has initiated its review by looking at RCRA
Subtitle C closure/post-closure, RCRA corrective action, the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  OECA then plans
to evaluate the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and RCRA Subtitle I to
determine if the financial assurance programs under these laws should be
included in this priority.  The phased approach allows OECA the ability
to assess the information as it is gathered and focus its activities on
significant environmental or compliance problems as well as adjusting
its responses (e.g., enforcement, compliance assistance, etc.) when
dealing with several environmental statutes that may have uniquely
associated compliance and environmental concerns.

Highlights from the FY 2005-2007 Planning Cycle

OECA has been able to identify some trends from the work undertaken
during FY’06-FY’07.  This work was focused primarily on the
preliminary review of financial instruments and compliance
determinations under the RCRA, TSCA and CERCLA requirements and
obligations. As the priority has progressed, concerns regarding cost
estimates have been raised and OECA is placing additional focus on cost
estimates (particularly for RCRA corrective action).  Though this
information is generally still preliminary and under review, it gives
OECA a basis to make informed decisions regarding prioritization of and
type of enforcement activity it will initiate to address the identified
non-compliance EPA anticipates during FY’08 to focus its resources on
addressing the identified non-compliances with the financial
responsibility requirements.

Final: Financial Responsibility Summary		October 2007

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register: May 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 27806-27807]
[DOCID:fr17my07-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-328-000]

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Application

May 10, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 3, 2007, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky
42301, filed an application in Docket No. CP07-328-000 pursuant to
section 7(b) of the

Natural Gas Act (NGA) for permission and approval to abandon Southern
Star's Cement-Drumright line comprised of approximately 40.83 miles of
12-inch and 16-inch diameter pipeline and appurtenances located in
Grady and Comanche Counties, Oklahoma, by sale to DCP Midstream, LP.
Southern Star further requests that the Commission find the facilities,
when sold, as exempt from the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to
section 1(b) of the NGA, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Southern Star states that the facilities were originally
constructed to support its former merchant function and provide
mainline transmission, but in more recent years has only served to
gather gas from local producers and provided limited gas service to
various parties along the system, which will continue upon the transfer
of the facilities to DCP Midstream, LP.
    This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Toll-free: 1-

866-208-3676; or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any initial questions regarding this application should be directed
to Tim Thompson, Attorney, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.,
4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceeding for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC. 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene to have comments
considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the
Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two
copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The
Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to
make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules
require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project, should submit an original and two copies of their
comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters
will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will
receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of
meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. The Commission's rules require that
persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of
their protests only to the applicant. However, the non-party commenters
will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or
issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental
documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek
court review of the commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper; see 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Comment Date: May 31, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9462 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 8241]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02868]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2013-0144]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with Part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that
by a document dated November 25, 2013, Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad
(BPRR) and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) jointly petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance
or modification of a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket
Number FRA-2013-0144.
    Applicants:

Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Mr. Raymond A. Goss, Senior Vice
President, Northeast Region, Genesee & Wyoming, 400 Meridian Centre,
Suite 330, Rochester, NY 14618.
Norfolk Southern Corporation, Mr. Brian Sykes, Chief Engineer C&S
Engineering, 1200 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, GA 30309.
    BPRR and NS jointly seek approval of the proposed discontinuance of
the traffic control system (TCS) on the main track and controlled
siding between West Seneca, NY, Milepost (MP) BR 8.8, and Machias, NY,
MP 44.7, on the Machias Subdivision. Controlled signals at Control
Points (CP) Machias (MP 44.5), CP Perry (MP 25.0), and CP Wales (MP
22.0) will be discontinued. Intermediate signals 12,
15, 18, 27, 33, 37, and
40 will be discontinued. Power-operated switches at CPs will
be converted to hand operation. Derails will be installed at the end of
the siding at CP Wales and CP Perry. BPRR will maintain an approach
signal to CP Gravity (MP 10.5).
    The reasons given for the proposed changes are to improve the
efficiency of operation, that the TCS is no longer needed due to
reduced train traffic, and that there are no longer opposing moves or
fleeted traffic with following moves.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 28, 2014 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-02868 Filed 2-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: March 15, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 14110-14111]
[DOCID:fr15mr11-156]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Securities Act of 1933, Release No. 9191/February 24, 2011; Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Release No. 63956/February 24, 2011]

Order Regarding Review of FASB Accounting Support Fee for 2011
Under Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the ``Act'') provides that the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') may recognize,
as generally accepted for purposes of the securities laws, any
accounting principles established by a standard setting body that meets
certain criteria. Consequently, Section 109 of the Act provides that
all of the budget of such a standard setting body shall be payable from
an annual accounting support fee assessed and collected against each
issuer, as may be necessary or appropriate to pay for the budget and
provide for the expenses of the standard setting body, and to provide
for an independent, stable source of funding, subject to review by the
Commission. Under Section 109(f) of the Act, the amount of fees
collected for a fiscal year shall not exceed the ``recoverable budget
expenses'' of the standard setting body. Section 109(h) amends Section
13(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require issuers to
pay the allocable share of a reasonable annual accounting

support fee or fees, determined in accordance with Section 109 of the
Act.
    On April 25, 2003, the Commission issued a policy statement
concluding that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (``FASB'') and
its parent organization, the Financial Accounting Foundation (``FAF''),
satisfied the criteria for an accounting standard-setting body under
the Act, and recognizing the FASB's financial accounting and reporting
standards as ``generally accepted'' under Section 108 of the Act.\1\ As
a consequence of that recognition, the Commission undertook a review of
the FASB's accounting support fee for calendar year 2011. In connection
with its review, the Commission also reviewed the budget for the FAF
and the FASB for calendar year 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Financial Reporting Release No. 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 109 of the Act also provides that the standard setting body
can have additional sources of revenue for its activities, such as
earnings from sales of publications, provided that each additional
source of revenue shall not jeopardize, in the judgment of the
Commission, the actual or perceived independence of the standard
setter. In this regard, the Commission also considered the
interrelation of the operating budgets of the FAF, the FASB and the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (``GASB''), the FASB's sister
organization, which sets accounting standards used by State and local
government entities. The Commission has been advised by the FAF that
neither the FAF, the FASB nor the GASB accept contributions from the
accounting profession.
    After its review, the Commission determined that the 2011 annual
accounting support fee for the FASB is consistent with Section 109 of
the Act. Accordingly,
    It is ordered, pursuant to Section 109 of the Act, that the FASB
may act in accordance with this determination of the Commission.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5847 Filed 3-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 44296-44300]
[DOCID:fr30jy08-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58221; File No. SR-BSE-2008-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change Relating To Doing Business With the Public

July 24, 2008.
    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 July 14, 2008, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BSE''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
This order provides notice of the proposed rule change and approves the
proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend certain rules that govern an
Exchange member's conduct of doing business with the public.
Specifically, the proposed rule change would require participants to
integrate the responsibility for supervision of their public customer
options business into their overall supervisory and compliance
programs. In addition, the proposal would require members to strengthen
their supervisory procedures

and internal controls as related to their public customer options
business. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and at http://
www.bostonstock.com/BostonstockPDF/Legal/filings/2008-29.pdf.

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 III 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
a. Integration of Options Supervision
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to create a supervisory
structure for options that is similar to that required by New York
Stock Exchange, LLC (``NYSE'') Rule 342 and National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') (n/k/a Financial Industry
Regulatory, Inc. (``FINRA'')) Rule 3010. The proposed rule change would
also conform Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX'') rules to
those of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''),
which has recently eliminated the requirement that participants
qualified to do a public customer business in options designate a
single person to act as a Senior Registered Options Principal
(``SROP'') for the participant and that each such participant designate
a specific individual as a Compliance Registered Options Principal
(``CROP'').\3\ Instead, the rule requires participants to integrate the
SROP and CROP functions into their overall supervisory and compliance
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56492 (September 21,
2007) 72 FR 54952 (September 27, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-106) (approval
order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SROP concept was first introduced during the early years of
development of the listed options market. Previously, participants were
required to designate one or more persons qualified as Registered
Options Principals (``ROPs'') to have supervisory responsibilities with
respect to the firms' options business. As the number of ROPs at larger
firms began to increase, an additional requirement was imposed that
firms designate one of their ROPs as the SROP. This was intended to
eliminate confusion as to where the compliance and supervisory
responsibilities lay by centralizing in a single supervisory officer
overall responsibility for the supervision of a firm's options
activities.\4\ Subsequently, following the recommendation of the
Special Study, the options exchanges required firms to designate a CROP
to be responsible for each firm's overall compliance program with
respect to its options activities.\5\ The CROP could be the same person
designated as a SROP, but while the CROP generally was not permitted to
have sales functions in the firm, the SROP was not so restricted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities and Exchange Commission, 96th Cong., 1st Sess.,
Report of the Special Study of the Options Markets (Comm. Print
1978) (``Special Study'') p. 316 fn. 11.
    \5\ Id. at 335.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the SROP and CROP requirements were first imposed, the
supervisory function with respect to options activities of most
securities firms has been integrated into the matrix of supervisory and
compliance functions in respect of the firms' other securities
activities. This not only reflects the maturity of the options market,
but also recognizes the ways in which the uses of options themselves
have become more integrated with other securities in the implementation
of particular strategies. To further reflect the trend toward
integration, and to conform BOX rules to the recently amended FINRA
rules, the proposed change designates all options principals as
Registered Options and Security Futures Principals (``ROSFPs'').\6\ By
permitting supervision of a firm's options activities to be handled in
the same manner as the supervision of its securities and futures
activities, the proposed rule change would ensure that supervisory
responsibility over each segment of a firm's business is assigned to
the best qualified persons in the firm, thereby enhancing the overall
quality of supervision and compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57775 (May 5, 2008)
73 FR 26453 (May 9, 2008) (SR-FINRA-2007-035) (approval order). See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56663 (October 15, 2002) 67
FR 64944 (October 22, 2002) (approval order) (modifying and
broadening NASD registration categories to include security futures
activities by, among other things, amending the title of the Series
4 registration to Registered Options and Security Futures
Principal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would allow firms the flexibility to
assign such supervisory and compliance responsibilities, which formerly
resided with the SROP and/or CROP, to more than one individual. For
example, the proposed rule change would permit a participant firm to
designate certain ROSFPs to be responsible for a variety of supervisory
compliance functions such as approving acceptance of discretionary
accounts \7\ and exceptions to a participant firm's suitability
standards for trading uncovered short options.\8\ A firm would be
likely to do this in instances where it believes it advantageous to do
so to enhance its supervisory or compliance structure. Typically, a
firm may also wish to divide these functions on the basis of geographic
region or functional considerations. BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 2 would
be amended to clarify the qualification requirements of individuals
designated as ROSFPs.\9\ BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 3 would be amended
to specify the registration requirements of individuals who accept
orders from non-broker-dealer customers.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed BOX Rule Chapter XI, Sec. 12.
    \8\ See proposed BOX Rule Chapter XI, Sec. 9(f)(iii).
    \9\ See proposed BOX Rule Chapter XI, Sec.2(d) and (e).
    \10\ See proposed BOX Rule Chapter XI, Sec. 3(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would require options discretionary
accounts to be accepted by individuals who are qualified ROSFPs. The
proposed rule change would eliminate the requirement that discretionary
options orders be approved on the day of entry by a ROSFP (with one
exception as discussed below). This requirement predates the Special
Study and is not consistent with the use of supervisory tools in
computerized format or exception reports after the close of a trading
day. No similar requirement exists for supervision of other securities
accounts that are handled on a discretionary basis.\11\ Discretionary
orders must be reviewed in accordance with a participant's written
supervisory procedures. The proposed rule change would ensure that
supervisory responsibilities are assigned to specific ROSFP-qualified
individuals, thereby enhancing the quality of supervision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., NYSE Rule 408.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 12 would be revised by adding the
requirement that any participant that does not utilize computerized
surveillance tools for the frequent and appropriate review of
discretionary account activity must establish and implement procedures
to require ROSFP-qualified individuals who have been designated to
review discretionary accounts to approve and

initial each discretionary order on the day entered. The Exchange
believes that any firm that does not utilize computerized surveillance
tools to monitor discretionary account activity should continue to be
required to perform the daily manual review of discretionary orders.
    Under the proposed rule change, firms would continue to be required
to designate ROSFP-qualified individuals to provide frequent
appropriate supervisory review of options discretionary accounts. This
includes a review of the accounts in order to determine whether the
ROSFP accepting the account had a reasonable basis for believing that
the customer was able to understand and bear the risks of the proposed
strategies or transactions. This requirement would provide an
additional level of supervisory audit over options discretionary
accounts that do not exist for other securities discretionary accounts.
    In addition, the proposed rule change would require that each
participant submit to the Exchange a written report by April 1 of each
year that details the participant's supervision and compliance effort,
including its options compliance program, during the preceding year and
reports on the adequacy of the participant's ongoing compliance
processes and procedures.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(g), which is
modeled after NYSE Rule 342.30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BOX Rule Chapter XI, Sec. 10(h) would require that each
participant submit, by April 1 of each year, a copy of the BOX Rule
Chapter XI, Sec. 10(g) annual report to one or more of its control
persons or, if the participant has no control person, to the audit
committee of its board of directors or its equivalent committee or
group.\13\ Further, the proposed rule would provide that a participant
that specifically includes its options compliance program in a report
that complies with substantially similar NYSE and NASD rules would be
deemed to have satisfied the requirements of BOX Rules, Chapter XI,
Sec. 10(g) and (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(h), which is
modeled after NYSE Rule 354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Participants would be required to designate a single general
partner or executive officer to assume overall authority and
responsibility for internal supervision, control of the organization
and compliance with securities laws and regulations.\14\ Participants
would also be required to designate specific qualified individuals as
having supervisory or compliance responsibilities over each aspect of
the firm's options activities and to set forth the names and titles of
these individuals in their written supervisory procedures.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(a).
    \15\ See proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes would increase
accountability and eliminate impractical and unrealistic supervisory
standards applicable solely to listed options. The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule changes are appropriate and would not materially
alter the supervisory operations of firms.
b. Supervisory Procedures and Internal Controls
    The Exchange is also proposing to amend certain rules to strengthen
participants' supervisory procedures and internal controls relating to
a participant's public customer options business. The proposed rule
changes discussed below are modeled after NYSE and NASD rules approved
by the Commission in 2004.\16\ This proposal is appropriate and
consistent with the proposal discussed above to integrate the
responsibility for supervision of a participant firm's public customer
options business into its overall supervisory and compliance program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 49882 (June 17,
2004), 69 FR 35108 (June 23, 2004) (SR-NYSE-2002-36 (approval
order), 49883 (June 17, 2004), 69 FR (June 23, 2004) (SR-NASD-2002-
162) (approval order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to revise BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec.
10(a) to require the development and implementation of written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to supervise sales managers and
other supervisory personnel who service customer options accounts.\17\
This requirement would apply to branch office managers, sales managers,
regional/district sales managers, or any person performing a similar
supervisory function. Such policies and procedures are expected to
encompass all options sales-related activities. Proposed BOX Rule,
Chapter XI, Sec. 10(a)(3)(i) would require that supervisory reviews of
producing sales managers be conducted by a qualified ROSFP who is
either senior to, or otherwise ``independent of,'' the producing
manager under review. This provision is intended to ensure that all
options sales activity of a producing manager is monitored by persons
who do not have a personal interest in such activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(a) is modeled after
NYSE Rule 342.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(a)(3)(ii) would provide an
exception for participants so limited in size and resources that there
is no qualified person senior to, or otherwise independent of, the
producing manager to conduct the review. In this case, the review would
be conducted by a qualified ROSFP to the extent practicable. Under
proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(a)(3)(iii), a participant
relying on the limited size and resources exception must document the
factors used to determine that compliance with each of the ``senior''
or ``otherwise independent'' standards of proposed BOX Rule, Chapter
XI, Sec. 10(a)(3)(i) is not possible, and that the required supervisory
systems and procedures in place, with respect to any producing manager,
comply with the provisions of proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec.
10(a)(3)(i) to the extent practical.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(a)(3)(iv) would
provide that a participant that complies with the NYSE or NASD rules
that are substantially similar to the requirements in BOX Rules,
Chapter XI, Secs. 10(a)(3)(1) and (a)(3)(2) and (a)(3)(3) will be
deemed to have met such requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(c)(1) would require
participants to develop and maintain adequate controls over each of
their business activities. The proposed rule would further require that
such controls include the establishment of procedures to independently
verify and test the supervisory systems and procedures for those
business activities. A participant would be required to include in the
annual report, prepared pursuant to proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec.
10(g), a review of the participant's efforts in this regard, including
a summary of the tests conducted and significant exceptions identified.
The Exchange believes proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(c)(1)
would enhance the overall quality of each participant's supervision and
compliance function.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(c)(1) is modeled
after NYSE Rule 342.23. Paragraph (c)(2) of proposed BOX Rule,
Chapter XI, Sec. 10(c)(1) would provide that a participant that
complies with NYSE or NASD rules that are substantially similar to
the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of proposed BOX Rule, Chapter
XI, Sec 10 will be deemed to have met such requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(d) would establish
requirements for branch office inspections similar to the requirements
of NYSE Rule 342.24. Specifically BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(d)
would require a participant to inspect, at least annually, each
supervisory branch office and inspect each non-supervisory branch
office at least once every three years.\20\ The

proposed rule would further require persons who conduct a participant's
annual branch office inspection to be independent of the direct
supervision or control of the branch office (i.e., not the branch
office manager, or any person who directly or indirectly reports to
such manager, or any person to whom such manager directly reports). The
Exchange believes that requiring branch office inspections to be
conducted by someone who has no significant financial interest in the
success of a branch office should lead to more objective and vigorous
inspections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Proposed BOX Rules, Chapter XI, Secs. 10(d)(1)(i) and (ii)
would provide members with two exceptions from the annual
supervisory branch office inspection requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(e), any firm seeking
an exemption, pursuant to BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(d)(1)(ii), from
the annual branch office inspection requirement would be required to
submit to the Exchange written policies and procedures for systematic
risk-based surveillance of its branch offices, as defined in BOX Rule,
Chapter XI, Sec. 10(e). Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(f) would
require the annual branch office inspection program to include, at a
minimum, testing and verification of specified internal controls.\21\
Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(d)(3) would provide that a
participant that complies with the requirements of NASD or the NYSE
that are substantially similar to the requirements of BOX Rule, Chapter
XI, Sec. 10(d)(e) and (f) would be deemed to have met such
requirements. The Exchange is also proposing to amend BOX Rule, Chapter
XI, Sec. 10 to define ``branch office'' in a way that is substantially
similar to the definition of branch office in NYSE Rule 342.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(f) is modeled after
NYSE Rules 342.25 and 342.26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(g)(4) would require a firm
to designate a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO). Proposed BOX Rule,
Chapter XI, Sec. 10(g)(5) would require each firm's Chief Executive
Officer (CEO), or equivalent, to certify annually that the participant
organization has in place processes to: (1) Establish and maintain
policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with
applicable Exchange rules and federal securities laws and regulations,
(2) modify such policies and procedures as business, regulatory, and
legislative changes and events dictate, and (3) test the effectiveness
of such policies and procedures on a regular basis, the timing of which
is reasonably designed to ensure continuing compliance with Exchange
rules and federal securities laws and regulations.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(g)(5) is modeled
after NASD Rule 3013 and NYSE Rule 342.30(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(g)(5) would also require the
CEO to attest (1) That the CEO has conducted one or more meetings with
the CCO in the preceding 12 months to discuss the compliance processes
in proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(g)(5)(i), (2) that he or she
has consulted with the CCO and other officers to the extent necessary
to attest to the statements in the certification, and (3) that the
compliance processes are evidenced in a report, reviewed by the CEO,
CCO and such other officers as the participant firm deems necessary to
make the certification, that is provided to the participant firm's
board of directors and audit committee (if such committee exists).
    Under proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(b)(2)(g), a
participant, upon a customer's written instructions, may hold mail for
a customer who will not be at his or her usual address for no longer
than two months if the customer is on vacation or traveling, or for
three months if the customer is going abroad. This provision would help
ensure that participants that hold mail, for customers who are away
from their usual addresses, do so only pursuant to the customer's
written instructions and for a specified, relatively short period of
time.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(b)(2)(g) is modeled
after NASD Rule 3110(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(b)(3) would require that,
before a customer options order is executed, the account name or
designation must be placed upon the memorandum for each transaction. In
addition, only a qualified ROSFP would be permitted to approve any
changes in account names or designations. The ROSFP would be required
to document the essential facts relied upon in approving the changes
and maintain the record in an easily accessible place. A participant
would be required to preserve any documentation which provides for an
account designation change for a period of not less than three years,
with the documentation preserved for the first two years in an easily
accessible place, as the term ``easily accessible place'' is used in
Rule17a-4 of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule would
help to protect account name and designation information from possible
fraudulent activity.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 10(b)(3) is modeled
after NASD Rule 3110(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 12(d) would allow a participant
to exercise time and price discretion on orders for the purchase or
sale of a definite number of options contracts in a specified security.
The Exchange proposes to limit the duration of this discretionary
authority to the day it is granted, absent written authorization to the
contrary. Additionally, the proposed rule would require any exercise of
time and price discretion to be reflected on the customer order ticket.
The proposed one-day limitation would not apply to time and price
discretion exercised for orders effected with or for an institutional
account (as defined in the Rule) pursuant to valid Good-Till-Cancelled
instructions issued on a ``not held'' basis. The Exchange believes that
investors will receive greater protection by clarifying the time such
discretionary orders may remain pending.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Proposed BOX Rule, Chapter XI, Sec. 12(d) is modeled after
NASD Rule 2510(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes recognize that
options have become more integrated with other securities in the
implementation of particular strategies, and thus should not continue
to be regulated as though they are a new and experimental product. The
Exchange further asserts that the supervisory and compliance structure
in place for non-options products at most participant firms is not
materially different from the structure in place for options. The
proposed rule change would also provide conformity of the BOX Rules to
those of the CBOE. Accordingly, the Exchange submits that the proposed
rule changes are appropriate and would not materially alter the
supervisory operations of participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\26\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\27\ in particular, in that it will result in
consistency and uniformity among the competing options exchanges and it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Specifically, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change would
achieve these ends by integrating the supervision and compliance
functions relating to

participants' public customer options activities into their overall
supervisory structure, thereby eliminating any uncertainty over where
supervisory responsibility lies, and by fostering the strengthening of
participant organizations' internal controls and supervisory systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form http://
www.sec.gov/rules.sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BSE-2008-29 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-BSE-2008-29. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of BSE, located at 100
Franklin Street, Boston, MA 02110. 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-BSE-2008-29 and should be submitted on or before August
20, 2008.

IV. Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\28\ In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed
rule change would help to better integrate the supervisory and
compliance functions of a firm's public customer options activities
into the firm's overall supervisory and compliance functions, thereby
eliminating any uncertainty about where supervisory responsibility
lies. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\29\ which requires, among
other things, that Exchange rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of
notice of filing in the Federal Register. The proposed rule change is
substantially similar to recent CBOE and FINRA rule amendments
concerning options supervision, which were approved by the
Commission.\30\ The Commission believes that approving the proposed
rule change will simplify firms' compliance, and is consistent with the
public interest and the investor protection goals of the Act. Finally,
the Commission finds that it is in the public interest to approve the
proposed rule change as soon as possible to expedite its
implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56971 (December 14,
2007), 72 FR 72804 (December 21, 2007) (approval order for File No.
SR-CBOE-2007-106) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57775 (May
5, 2008) 73 FR 26453 (May 9, 2008) (approval order for File No. SR-
FINRA-2007-035).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission believes good cause exists, consistent
with Sections 19(b)(2) of the Act,\31\ to approve the proposed rule
change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-BSE-2008-29) be, and hereby
is, approved on an accelerated basis.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-17428 Filed 7-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Note to Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300
Stakeholder Briefing on the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions

On October 12, 2019 the EPA hosted a regulatory briefing in person and by phone for multiple organizations (see below) on the proposed revisions to the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for Lead and Copper (LCR). The purpose of the briefing was to provide an overview of the proposed rule and alternative options, and to allow participants to ask clarifying questions. Participants were advised that comments must be submitted to the docket during the public comment period.

The EPA provided an overview of the following topics of the LCR proposal:
    Six Key Areas of the Proposed Revisions
    Background and Regulatory History
    Health Effects
    Proposed LCR Requirements
      o Action Level/Trigger Level
      o Tap Sampling
      o Corrosion Control Treatment
      o Notification and Public Education
      o Lead Service Line Replacement
      o Small System Flexibility
      o School and Childcare Facility Testing and Education
      o Alternative LCR Revisions Considered
:: Next steps

Participants sought clarification on the following topics:
 Lead service line definition, including provisions for galvanized service lines and lead goosenecks
 Lead service line inventory
 Customer-initiated lead service line replacement
 Timeline before all lead service lines are replaced
 Corrosion control treatment strategies
 How to finance lead service line replacement, including availability of EPA financing
 School sampling
 Find and fix
 Materials to assist with understanding the proposal, such as flow charts

Attendees/Organization
 Angelina Panettieri  -  National League of Cities
 Kevin Letterly  -  Assoc. of State Drinking Water Administrators
 Emily Remmel  -  Nat'l Assoc of Clean Water Agencies
 Carolyn Hanson  -  Environmental Council of the States
 Layne Piper  -  Environmental Council of the States
 Deborah Cox  -  Nat'l Assoc of Counties
 Zach George  -  Nat'l Assoc of Counties
 Kevin Morley  -  American Water Works Assoc
 Ben Husch  -  National Conference of State Legislatures
 Sean Garcia  -  American Public Works Assoc
 Ian Lyle  -  National Water Resources Assoc
 Stephanie Schlea  -  Assoc of Metropolitan Water Agencies
 Chip Slaven  -  National School Board Assoc
 Sasha Pudelski  -  American Assoc of School Administrators
 Mark Limbaugh  -  Nat'l Assoc of Towns and Townships (Ferguson)
 Julia Anastasio  -  Assoc of Clean Water Administrators
 Ward Scott  -  Western Governors Assoc
 Sean Rolland  -  Assoc of Clean Water Administrators
 Mike Keegan  -  Nat'l Rural Water Assoc
 Chris Kearney  -  NATaT (Ferguson)
 Deirdre White  -  Assoc of State Drinking Water Administrators

Attendees/EPA
 Lee Forsgren
 Charlotte Bertrand
 Jennifer McLain
 Brittany Carter
 Eric Burneson
 Jeff Kempic
 Erik Helm
 Michael Goldberg


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 March 23, 2005 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Memorandum SUBJECT: Benefits Assessment for Dicofol on Apricots, Peaches, and Nectarines FROM: Don Atwood, Entomologist Biological Analysis Branch Stephen Smearman, Economist Elisa Rim, Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

THRU: Arnet Jones, Branch Chief Biological Analysis Branch Timothy Kiely, Acting Branch Chief Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

Peer Review Panel Date: November 24, 2004 TO: Mika Hunter, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch 2 Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

SUMMARY BEAD was asked by SRRD to determine the biological and economic impact of proposed dicofol label changes based on worker related issues identified by HED. BEAD believes that extending the restricted entry intervals ( REI) for dicofol from 12 hours to 33 days on apricots, peaches and nectarines is not likely to have biological or economic impact on production of these crops. While the extended REI will impact field activities, there are other miticides available which are as efficacious and economical as dicofol for mite control in California stone fruits. As the alternative miticides are currently used to treat more acres annually than dicofol, there is not likely to be either a biological or economic impact on California producers.

BACKGROUND 2 Apricot The apricot ( Prunus armeniaca L.), family Rosaceae, is a small to medium sized tree with a spreading, dense canopy, generally kept under 18 feet by pruning. Apricots grow best on deep, fertile, well drained soils, and are moderately tolerant of high soil pH and salinity. Apricot culture is most successful in mild, Mediterranean climates where risk of spring frost is limited and disease pressure is low. Most apricots ripen in early to mid summer. Apricot cultivation is similar to peaches, requiring good light exposure for fruit color development. Common spacing for trees is 20 24 feet. Most new growth is removed each year, exposing spurs to maximal sunlight. Furrow irrigation is most common.

Apricots for drying are harvested when fully ripe. Apricots for fresh consumption are hand harvested when firm. Firmness is a reliable indicator for ripeness. The number of days from full bloom is a fairly reliable index given the relatively stable growing conditions. However, proper flavor never develops in fruit picked prior to physiological maturity. Apricots are usually harvested 2 3 times during the growing season. Fresh apricots are shipped in shallow containers to prevent crushing or bruising. Apricots have an extremely short shelf life ( 1 2 weeks) at 00 C and 90% relative humidity.

Peaches and Nectarines Peaches and nectarines ( both Prunus persica) are in the family Rosaceae and originated in China. The only important difference between the peach and the nectarine is that nectarines have smooth skins and peaches are fuzzy. They come from identical trees. Nectarines often originate from peach seeds, and peaches may come from nectarine seeds. Botanists are unsure of which originated first. It is impossible to tell which seeds from nectarine trees will produce nectarine bearing trees, so commercial growers graft nectarine producing branches onto peach trees. The branches will continue to produce nectarines. In appearance, nectarine trees are virtually indistinguishable from peach trees. Tree size and shape, leaves, and even buds look the same. Nectarine fruit, however, is smaller than the peach and smooth skinned ( looking more like plums), a golden yellow with large blushes of red. There are over 100 varieties of nectarine, both freestone and clingstone varieties, the same as for peaches. Freestone flesh separates from the pit easily, while clingstone flesh clings to the pit. Nectarines are hand harvested, as the fruit need more delicate handling than peaches because they are bruised more easily.

PRODUCTION, USE, AND USAGE DATA Apricots The top producing states of apricots in 2001 through 2003 were California ( 94%), Utah (. 2%), and Washington ( 1.7%). There are over 200 different varieties of apricots in the U. S.

Over the past 4 years, dicofol has been used over a relatively samll acreage for apricot production in California. Nationally, the percentage treated acres with dicofol was 5.6% in 2001, 3 2.9 in 2002, and 0% in 2003. The most widely used insecticides for apricots in 2003 were esfenvalerate ( 67%), petroleum distillate ( 32%), and Bacillus thuringiensis ( 4%). Table 1 illustrates the dicofol use and usage for apricots in California from 1999 to 2002.

Table1: Dicofol Use and Usage for Apricots in California State Year Total Bearing Acres Grown Treated Acres Lbs. Of Dicofol Applied % Crop Treated Application Rate California 1999 18,871 1,518 3,451 8.0% 2.3 2000 18,681 762 1,005 4.1% 1.3 2001 17,575 998 1,207 5.7% 1.2 2002 15,725 489 789 3.1% 1.6 4 yr average 17,713 942 1,613 5.2% 1.6 Source: California Department of Pesticide Regulation Pesticide Use Reporting data: 1999, 2000,2001, and 2002.

Peaches The top peach producing states in 2001 through 2003 were California ( 73%), Georgia ( 5%), South Carolina ( 5%), New Jersey ( 3%), Pennsylvania ( 3%), and Washington ( 2%). Two types of peaches have been produced in the United States: clingstone varieties and freestone varieties. There are over 200 different varieties of peaches in the U. S.

Over the past 4 years, dicofol has been used for peach production in California. Nationally, the average percentage acres treated with dicofol from 1999 to 2002 was 5% in 2001, 0.3% in 2002, and 0.4% in 2003. The most widely used insecticides on peaches in 2003 were petroleum distillate ( 43%), esfenvalerate ( 39%), phosmet ( 37%), imidacloprid ( 23%), and chlorpyrifos ( 21%). California accounts for more than 50% of the total acres treated with dicofol in the United States. In 2003 in California the top three insecticides in terms of percent treated acreage were petroleum distillate ( 50%), esfenvalerate ( 38%), phosmet ( 18%). Dicofol only accounted for 2% percent treated acres. Table 2 illustrates the dicofol use and usage for peaches in California from 1999 to 2002.. 4 Table 2: Dicofol Use and Usage for Peaches State Year Total Bearing Acres Grown Treated Acres Lbs. Of Dicofol Applied % Crop Treated Application Rate California 1999 74,160 3,674 5,324 5.0% 1.4 2000 71,813 3,638 5,207 5.1% 1.4 2001 70,992 5,036 7,278 7.1% 1.4 2002 70,658 2,149 2,715 3.0% 1.3 4 yr average 71,906 3,624 5,131 5.0% 1.4 Source: California Department of Pesticide Regulation Pesticide Use Reporting data: 1999, 2000,2001, and 2002 Nectarines Over 90% of the nectarines grown in the United States are grown in California. There are over 175 different varieties of nectarines in the U. S.

The most widely used insecticides for nectarines in 2003, in regards to percent crop treated, were petroleum distillate ( 48%), esfenvalerate ( 41%), phosmet ( 44%), formetanate hydrochloride. ( 35%), and chlorpyrifos ( 31%). Table 3 illustrates the dicofol use and usage for nectarines in California from 1999 to 2002.

Table3: Dicofol Use and Usage for Nectarines State Year Total Bearing Acres Grown Treated Acres Lbs. Of Dicofol Applied % Crop Treated Application Rate California 1999 36,122 1,940 2,654 5.4% 1.4 2000 32,987 790 1,091 2.4% 1.4 2001 34,565 1,460 2,139 4.2% 1.5 2002 34,251 471 602 1.4% 1.3 4 yr average 34,481 1,165 1,622 3.3% 1.4 Source: California Department of Pesticide Regulation Pesticide Use Reporting data: 1999, 2000,2001, and 2002 TARGET PEST FOR DICOFOL IN APRICOTS, PEACHES, AND NECTARINES Mites can cause serious problems in apricots, peaches, and nectarines. The most important are the web spinning mites ( two spotted mite and Pacific mite). These pests may occur anytime during the year ( winter, spring, and in season). Winter and spring populations should be 5 monitored to prevent buildup of economically damaging numbers later in the year.

Stone fruits can tolerate some mite leaf feeding damage, particularly on water sprouts ( suckers that grow straight up from the main limbs) in the center of trees. However, high populations can result in leaf drop and poor fruit sizing. If defoliation happens early in the season, fruit fails to size properly, and limbs and fruit may be exposed to sunburn. In addition, high mite populations in apricots may also cause decreased production in the year following and outbreak.

Web spinning spider mites overwinter as adult females in protected places on the tree or in the litter, trash, and weeds on the orchard floor. The mites become active in early spring soon after trees leaf out and begin feeding on weeds or in the lower part of the trees. Both species are favored by hot, dry conditions, and as the weather becomes warmer, they increase in numbers and move up the center of the tree until the entire tree is infested. Females can complete a generation in as little as 10 days during the hottest part of summer. There may be from 8 to 18 generations of spider mites per year depending on temperature.

ALTERNATIVE MITICIDES FOR USE IN APRICOTS, PEACHES, AND NECTARINES Mites can be effectively controlled using insecticidal soaps and oils. During the spring ( dormant/ delayed dormant), motile mites may also be controlled using dicofol or pyridaben. Bifenazate, clofentezine, and hexythiazox are effective ovicides. Esfenvalerate, a synthetic pyrethroid, is also effective but may cause mite outbreaks through disruption of the beneficial insect and mite population.

In season control of mite populations is essential to manage plant stress during the hot summer months. Oil is an excellent miticide if applied early. Abamectin and bifenazate are excellent miticides. Hexythiazox is an effective ovicide. Clofentezine is also an effective ovicide but has a prohibitive PHI. Dicofol and pyridaben are only considered fair to good for in season mite control.

California recommendations for control of spider mites on apricots, peaches and nectarines do not include dicofol. Narrow range oil is the only recommended control during the dormant and delayed dormant period. The miticides recommended for post bloom control are narrow range oil, fenbutatin oxide, clofentezine, and hexythiazox.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL CONTROL OF SPIDER MITES Biological Control  Several species play a large role in mite control, including the western predatory mite , the six spotted thrips, the spider mite destroyer, the brown lacewing, and the green lacewing. The western predatory mite is the most reliable mite predator. It is the same size as spider mites, but lacks spots and ranges in color from cream to amber red. This predator maintains good control unless the proportion of leaves with spider mites is higher than the proportion of leaves with predatory mites. 6 Cultural Control  Mite populations can be impacted by field conditions. Mite populations can be suppressed by oiling or watering roadways and maintaining a groundcover to prevent the dry dusty conditions in which they thrive. Prevention of water stress in the trees can also reduce mite populations as this condition results in higher mite densities and intensified damage. Mites may also be organically controlled using biological control and narrow range oil sprays. Proper pruning and adequate amounts of fertilizer to maintain tree vigor will also discourage two spotted and Pacific mites.

BIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF INCREASED RESTRICTED ENTRY INTERVALS The current REI for dicofol application on stone fruits in California is 12 hours. New proposed REI's to mitigate worker exposure are 26 days for low contact field activities ( thinning) and 33 days for high contact activities ( hand labor, harvest) at the average application rate now being used in California ( 1.5 lb AI/ acre). Appendix A provides information on miticide applications in nectarines and peaches. In general, apricots follow the same schedule and field practices as nectarines but with an earlier harvest. Field activities which are concurrent with miticide application are irrigation, summer pruning/ leaf thinning and harvest.

Extension of the REI for dicofol to 26 days could make it difficult for stone fruit producers to work applications into other field activities, particularly in relation to summer pruning. It is likely that producers will move to an alternative miticide in instances where the dicofol REI is restricts other activities. Irrigation is exempt from the REI restrictions due to the lack of contact with treated trees. Harvest would be impacted for all crops. However, due to different crop timing for different peach production areas in California, the impact on harvest will be variable. Regardless, sufficient efficacious miticides with an acceptable REI are available for mite control immediately prior to harvest.

No biological impact would be expected from the extension of dicofol REI's. There are sufficient numbers of registered alternative miticides with acceptable efficacy and less restrictive REI's to fill any gap in which dicofol could not be applied.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF INCREASED RESTRICTED ENTRY INTERVALS A minimal economic impact would be expected from the extension of REI's for dicofol on stone fruits in California. Sufficient alternative miticides are available with comparable pricing to dicofol and which currently dominate the market. Currently dicofol is used on 5% of the acres. The Table 4 below illustrates a comparison of the cost per acre for alternatives to dicofol. The alternatives listed below include those that may be considered biological alternatives but did not have cost information available due to a lack of reported use. If the remaining exclusive dicofol use is converted to the next best alternative the following cost impacts may be expected. For apricots peaches and nectarines, the next best alternative that is currently in use is fenbutotin oxide. For apricots, if the average acreage using dicofol is converted to fenbutotin oxide the estimated increase in cost will be approximately $ 49,500. For peaches, the estimated average 7 increase in cost is approximately $ 157,500. For nectarines, the estimated average increase in cost is approximately $ 49,800. The aggregate average impact is estimated to be $ 256,800 annually.

Table 4. Dicofol Control Alternatives Cost Per Acre Treatment Control AI Product Name Product Cost per Pound Cost per Acre Treatment Dicofol Dicofol 4ec $ 31.62 $ 11.45 Abamectin Agri mec N/ A N/ A Bifenazate Savey $ 61.02 N/ A Clofentezine Apollo N/ A N/ A Esfenvalerate Asana XL $ 94.78 $ 6.30 Fenbutotin oxide Vendex 50 WP $ 157.89 $ 42.16 Formentenate Carzol SP $ 29.83 $ 29.83 Hexythiazox Hexagon N/ A N/ A Pyridaben Pyramite $ 29.83 $ 29.83 Oil Oil Damoil $ 3.40 $ 10.70 Sources: USDA Agricultural Statistics 2003, EPA proprietary data.

CONCLUSIONS There will be no biological impact from extension of the REI for dicofol on apricots, peaches and nectarines. Dicofol can still be used but producers will have to schedule field activities around the extended REI. For growers still using dicofol exclusively, the aggregate impact is estimated to be $ 256,800 annually. The lack of support for dicofol in California state recommendations and the low number of acres treated annually with this miticide ( 5% or less), indicate that other miticides are currently dominating the market for these crops. This also supports BEAD's conclusion that extension of the REI will have no impact on the biological or economic production of these stone fruits in California.

REFERENCES UC Pest Management Guidelines  Apricots. http:// www. ipm. ucdavis. edu/ PMG/ selectnewpest. apricots. html 8 UC Pest Management Guidelines  Peaches http:// www. ipm. ucdavis. edu/ PMG/ selectnewpest. peach. html UC Pest Management Guidelines  Nectarines. http:// www. ipm. ucdavis. edu/ PMG/ selectnewpest. nectarine. html A Pest Management Strategic Plan for Peach Production in California. 2003. http:// www. ipmcenters. org/ pmsp/ pdf/ CAPEACHPMSP. pdf A Pest Management Strategic Plan for Nectarine Production in California. 2003. http:// www. ipmcenters. org/ pmsp/ pdf/ CANECTARINEPMSP. pdf USDA Crop Profiles for Peaches in California. 1999. http:// www. ipmcenters. org/ cropprofiles/ docs/ capeaches. html USDA Crop Profiles for Nectarines in California. 2001 http:// www. ipmcenters. org/ cropprofiles/ docs/ canectarines. html Personal communication with Rick Melnicoe. Director, Western Integrated Pest Management Center. November 2004.

Personal communication. Gary VanSickle  California Tree Fruit Agreement. November 5, 2004. 9 APPENDIX A Crop Development J F M A M J J A S O N D Dormancy Bud Break Bloom Pollination Fruit Development Harvest Post Harvest Storage Cultural Practices J F M A M J J A S O N D Cultivation Irrigation Pruning  Dormant Frost Protection Girdling Fertilizer Application Summer Pruning Pest Management Activities J F M A M J J A S O N D Soil Sampling Scouting Mitcide Application Dormant Applications Fungicide Applications Use of Pheromones Herbicide Applications Nematicide Applications Vertebrate Control 10


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10617-10618]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04449]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0297; FRL-9942-98-OW]

Request for Nominations for Peer Reviewers for EPA's Biologically
Based Dose-Response (BBDR) Model for Perchlorate in Drinking Water

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for nominations for peer reviewers.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites the
public to nominate scientific experts to be considered as peer
reviewers for the contractor-managed, external peer review of the draft
Biologically Based Dose-Response model for perchlorate in drinking
water and the draft model support document. The draft model predicts
changes in thyroid hormones in sensitive life stages exposed to
different dietary iodide and perchlorate levels. EPA has been working
with scientists at the Food and Drug Administration to develop the
model recommended by EPA's Science Advisory Board for the derivation of
a maximum contaminant level goal for perchlorate in drinking water. The
model integrates previous perchlorate and iodine models for thyroid
hormones in formula-fed and nursing infants, as well as lactating
women. The model predicts the effects of perchlorate on serum thyroid
hormone concentrations in infants exposed via ingestion of formula
mixed with contaminated drinking water or breast milk. EPA anticipates
releasing the draft model and draft model support document for peer
review and public comment in the near future (the exact date to be
determined).

DATES: The nomination period for scientific experts begins on March 1,
2016 and ends on March 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Any interested person or organization may nominate
scientific experts to be considered as peer reviewers. Nominations
should be submitted in time to arrive no later than March 31, 2016.
Self-nominations will also be accepted. Nominations should be submitted
to the EPA contractor, Versar, Inc., using the following email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(the subject line should read: BBDR Model Peer
Review). Nominations will also be accepted via U.S. Postal Service mail
or by an overnight/priority mail service. Mailed nominations should be
addressed to Versar, Inc., 6850 Versar Center, Springfield, VA 22151
(Attention: David Bottimore). Nominations should include all nominee
information outlined in section II of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning the nomination
process should be directed to the EPA contractor, Versar, Inc., at 6850
Versar Center, Springfield, VA 22151; by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(the subject line should read: BBDR Model Peer
Review); or by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (ask for David Bottimore). For
additional information concerning the draft BBDR model and draft model
support document, please contact Russ Perkinson at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water, Standards and Risk Management Division, (Mail Code 4607M), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information on the Draft Biologically Based Dose-Response (BBDR)
Model and Draft Model Support Document for Perchlorate in Drinking
Water

    EPA is developing a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
(NPDWR) for Perchlorate in accordance with the requirements under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Among these requirements are that the
agency must request comment from the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB)
prior to proposal of a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and a
NPDWR (42 U.S.C. 1412(e)).
    In 2012, EPA sought guidance from the SAB on how best to consider
and interpret life stage information, epidemiologic and biomonitoring
data, physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) analyses and the
totality of perchlorate health information to derive an MCLG for
perchlorate. The MCLG is the maximum level of a contaminant in drinking
water at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of
persons would occur, and which allows an adequate margin of safety.
MCLGs are non-enforceable public health goals.
    In 2013, the SAB recommended that, ``. . . EPA derive a perchlorate
MCLG that addresses sensitive life stages through physiologically-based
pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PBPK/PD) modeling based upon its mode
of action rather than the default MCLG approach using the reference
dose and specific chemical exposure parameters'' (see Advice on
Approaches to Derive a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for Perchlorate,
EPA-SAB-13-004). The SAB found that ``. . . this data-driven approach
represents a more rigorous way to address differences in biology and
exposure between adults and sensitive life stages than is possible with
the default approach for deriving an MCLG.''
    Based on the SAB's recommendations, EPA and Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) scientists developed a BBDR (also known as a PBPK/
PD) model to determine under what conditions of iodine nutrition and
exposure to perchlorate across sensitive life stages low serum free and
total thyroxine would result. EPA is considering deriving a perchlorate
MCLG by linking BBDR model output to information from literature to
account for adverse health outcomes.

II. How to Submit Nominations for Peer Reviewers

    Expertise Sought: EPA is seeking candidates who are nationally and/
or internationally recognized scientific experts to serve as external
peer reviewers for the draft BBDR model and draft model support
document for

perchlorate in drinking water. Nominees should possess and demonstrate
background knowledge and experience in one or more of the following
areas: (1) PBPK, PBPK/PD and/or BBDR modeling, (2) fetal and neonatal
thyroid endocrinology (clinical and experimental), (3) iodide
homeostasis, and (4) perchlorate toxicology and mode of action or
adverse outcome pathway.
    Selection Criteria: Selection criteria for individuals nominated to
serve as external peer reviewers of the draft BBDR model and draft
model support document include the following: (1) Demonstrated
expertise through relevant peer reviewed publications, (2) professional
accomplishments and recognition by professional societies, (3)
demonstrated ability to work constructively and effectively in a
committee setting, (4) absence of financial conflicts of interest, (5)
no actual conflicts of interest or the appearance of lack of
impartiality, (6) willingness to commit adequate time for the thorough
review of the draft BBDR model and draft model support document,
commencing approximately in June 2016 (exact date to be determined),
and (7) availability to participate in-person in a one-day peer review
meeting in the Washington, DC metro area, projected to occur in
approximately August 2016 (exact date will be published in the Federal
Register at least 30 days prior to the external peer review meeting).
Further logistical information regarding the external peer review
meeting will be announced at a later date in the Federal Register.
    Required Nominee Information: To receive full consideration, the
following information should be submitted to Versar
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(the subject line should read: BBDR Model Peer
Review): (1) Contact information for the person making the nomination;
(2) contact information for the nominee; (3) the disciplinary and
specific areas of expertise of the nominee; (4) the nominee's
curriculum vitae; and (5) a biographical sketch of the nominee
indicating current position, educational background, past and current
research activities, recent service on other advisory committees, peer
review panels, editorial boards or professional organizations, sources
of recent grant and/or contract support and other comments on the
relevance of the nominee's expertise to this peer review topic.
Compensation for non-federal peer reviewers will be provided by Versar.
    Selection Process: EPA's contractor, Versar, will notify candidates
of selection or non-selection. Versar may also conduct an independent
search for candidates to assemble a balanced group representing the
expertise needed to fully evaluate EPA's draft BBDR model and draft
model support document for perchlorate in drinking water. Versar will
consider and screen all candidates against the criteria previously
listed. Following the screening process, Versar will narrow the list of
potential reviewers to approximately 10-15 candidates. Prior to
selecting the final peer reviewers, a Federal Register notice will be
published (exact date to be determined) to solicit comments on the
interim list of candidates. In that notice, the public will be
requested to provide relevant information or documentation on the
nominees within 30 days of the announcement of the interim list of
candidates. Once Versar has considered the public comments on the
interim list of candidates, Versar will select the final list of peer
reviewers, based on who, collectively, will best provide expertise
spanning the disciplines previously listed and (to the extent feasible)
best provide a balance of perspectives.

    Dated: February 21, 2016.
Joel Beauvais,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-04449 Filed 2-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P