[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27356-27358]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12553]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83389; File No. SR-ICEEU-2018-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICE Clear Europe CDS
End-of-Day Price Discovery Policy

June 6, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On April 5, 2018, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change (SR-ICEEU-2018-006) to amend ICE
Clear Europe's CDS End-of-Day Price Discovery Policy (``Price Discovery
Policy'') to implement a revised methodology used to determine bid-
offer widths for credit defaults swap (``CDS'') contracts. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on April
25, 2018.\3\ The Commission did not receive comments regarding the
proposed changes. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is
approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-83072 (April 19,
2018), 83 FR 18106 (April 25, 2018) (SR-ICEEU-2018-006)
(``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    As part of its pricing process, on a daily basis, ICE Clear Europe
uses intraday quotes submitted by its CDS Clearing Members to determine
the bid-offer width (``BOW'') for each eligible CDS instrument. The BOW
is then used in ICE Clear Europe's price discovery process as an input
to determine, among other things, end-of-day price levels. These levels
are, in turn, used for mark-to-market and risk management purposes.\4\
Under its current methodology, ICE Clear Europe begins its price
discovery process by calculating a ``consensus BOW'' for each relevant
CDS instrument based on specified averages of the quotes provided by
CDS Clearing Members. ICE Clear Europe then compares this consensus BOW
with three pre-defined BOWs that correspond to three specific market
regimes, which ICE Clear Europe denotes as Regime 1, Regime 2, and
Regime 3. The BOW for Regime 1 is the smallest, and the BOW for Regime
3 is the largest. Depending on where the consensus BOW falls in
comparison to the three predefined market regime BOWs, ICE Clear Europe
selects one of the market regime BOWs as the end-of-day BOW for a given
risk factor based on that risk factor's most actively traded instrument
(``MATI'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Notice, 83 FR at 18106.
    \5\ Id. at 18106-07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe's clearing risk department is permitted to make
adjustments to the calculated end-of-day BOWs based on volatile or
``fast-moving'' market conditions that may cause BOWs, according to ICE
Clear Europe, to be temporarily wider than those observed in intraday
quotes.\6\ In order to systematically capture the volatile market
conditions and obviate the need for ICE Clear Europe's clearing risk
department to make manual adjustments to the calculated BOWs, ICE Clear
Europe proposes to revise its Price Discovery Policy to incorporate a
new methodology that would automatically widen the selected BOWs based
on observed market conditions. Specifically, ICE Clear Europe proposes
to introduce a new ``variability level'' calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id. at 18106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For index CDS instruments, this new calculation would take a time
series of intraday mid-levels from member quotes and compare the last
mid-level for the most actively traded instrument for a considered risk
factor to the end-of-day level from the prior day.\7\ Under the
proposed methodology, where the last mid-level of the time series for
an index CDS instrument is below the prior day's end-of-day level by
more than the pre-defined BOW for Regime 3 (i.e., by more than one
Regime 3 BOW), ICE Clear Europe will calculate the variability level as
the difference between the prior day's end-of-day level and the minimum
mid-level of the time series, divided by the Regime 3 BOW. Where the
last mid-level is above the prior day's end-of-day level by more than
one Regime 3 BOW, ICE Clear Europe would calculate the variability
level as the difference between the maximum mid-level of the time
series and the prior day's end-of-day level, divided by the Regime 3
BOW. In cases where the last mid-level in the time series is within one
Regime 3 BOW of the prior day's end-of-day level, then ICE Clear Europe
will set the variability level based on the range of intraday mid-
levels. Where the range of mid-levels is less than or equal to the
Regime 3 BOW, the variability level would be set to 1. Where the range
of mid-levels is greater than the Regime 3 BOW, ICE Clear Europe would
set the variability level at 1.2.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to proposing to implement a new variability level
calculation, ICE Clear Europe also proposes to group CDS risk factors
into ``market proxy groups.'' The market proxy groups for CDS index
instruments would consist of CDX, which would cover North American
Investment Grade and High Yield indices, and iTraxx, which could cover
the iTraxx Main, Crossover, Senior Financial, Sub Financials, and High
Volatility indices. In connection with establishing these market proxy
groups, ICE Clear Europe also proposes to implement ``variability
bands'' that would apply to the market proxy groups and correspond to
specified ranges of variability level determined by the new variability
level calculation described above. Under the proposed changes, the
variability band applicable to a market proxy group would be equal to
the largest variability band of the individual risk factors within the
group. Depending on the market proxy group variability band, ICE Clear
Europe would adjust the selected market Regime BOW by increasing it
either one or two Regimes (i.e., from Regime 1 to Regime 2, from Regime
2 to Regime 3, or from Regime 1 to Regime 3), with larger variability
bands corresponding to the larger adjustment.\9\ The resulting Regime
BOW (i.e., Regime 1, Regime 2, or Regime 3) will serve as the end-of-
day BOW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 18106-07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to single name CDS instruments, ICE Clear Europe
proposes to adopt a new scaling factor, denoted the ``SN variability
factor,'' that would be applied to the consensus BOW for single name
CDS instruments. The SN variability factor applied to the consensus BOW
is determined using the same new variability calculation methodology
described above, and the variability factor for single name instruments
will range from 1 to 1.5 depending on the applicable market proxy
variability band. As with the index instruments, ICE Clear Europe
proposes to group single name instruments into market proxy groups (the
CDX market proxy group for Standard North American Corporate Single
Names, and the iTraxx market proxy group for European Corporate and
Standard Western European Sovereign Single Names). ICE Clear Europe
would then apply variability bands to the market proxy groups for
single names in the same way that such variability bands are determined
for index instruments.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 18107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe also proposes to make certain typographical
corrections, as well as updates to cross-references, and other minor
clarifications.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder

applicable to such organization.\12\ For the reasons given below, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F),\13\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv) and
(e)(17)(i).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv) and (e)(17)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F)

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a registered clearing be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivatives agreements, contracts and
transactions, and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds
which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which
it is responsible.\15\ The Commission believes that the proposed
changes, taken as a whole, should improve ICE Clear Europe's ability to
determine appropriate end-of-day BOWs for its CDS instruments in a
number of ways, including but not limited to (i) incorporating a new
systematic method for evaluating market variability and automatically
widening the selected BOWs for index CDS instruments; and (ii)
incorporating a new variability scaling factor for single name
instruments to account for greater variability in end-of-day BOWs than
that which appears in intraday quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By automating the process for widening BOWs through applying pre-
determined and well-defined criteria for evaluating and responding to
market volatility that will be consistently applied over time for each
CDS instrument that ICE Clear Europe clears, the Commission believes
that the proposed rule changes will reduce the risk of human error
associated with ICE Clear Europe's determination of BOWs. As a result
of the likely reduction in human error and the more consistent
application over time and across CDS instruments of the BOW widening
process, the Commission believes the proposed rule change will promote
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of CDS instruments by
ICE Clear Europe.
    Moreover, by systematically taking into account market variability
and automatically widening BOWs in response, the Commission believes
that the proposed changes will enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to
more consistently and efficiently determine appropriate end-of-day BOWs
for the CDS instruments it clears. This improvement in determining end-
of-day BOWs for CDS instruments, in turn, should improve ICE Clear
Europe's ability to determine more accurate end-of-day price levels for
the purposes of mark-to-market and risk management of positions it
clears in CDS instruments, thereby improving ICE Clear Europe's ability
to safeguard the securities and funds which are in its custody or
control or for which it is responsible. Therefore, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv) requires, in relevant part, that a covered
clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover, if the covered
clearing agency provides central counterparty services, its credit
exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin
system that uses reliable sources of timely price data and uses
procedures and sound valuation models for addressing circumstances in
which pricing data are not readily available or reliable.\16\ As
described above, ICE Clear Europe currently uses intra-day quotes to
determine end-of-day BOWs for the CDS instruments that it clears.
However, under certain volatile or fast moving market conditions BOWs
may be wider than observed in intraday quotes.\17\ To address this
issue, ICE Clear Europe proposes to implement a systematic approach for
evaluating market volatility and automatically widening the selected
end-of-day BOWs such that the end-of-day BOWs more reliably reflect
current market conditions. As a result, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(6)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv).
    \17\ Notice, 83 FR at 18106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i) requires a covered clearing agency, in
relevant part, to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to manage the covered
clearing agency's operational risk by, among other things, identifying
the plausible sources of operational risk, both internal and external,
and mitigating their impact through the use of appropriate systems,
policies, procedures, and controls.\18\ As described above, ICE Clear
Europe's clearing risk department currently is tasked with monitoring
market conditions in order to assess volatility and, if appropriate,
manually adjust the selected end-of-day BOWs to reflect such
volatility. As described above, by implementing a systematic approach
to assessing volatility and an automatic widening of BOWs in
appropriate instances, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change will reduce the level of operational risk in ICE Cleary Europe's
end-of-day pricing methodology because it will establish pre-determined
and well-defined criteria that can be quickly and consistently applied
to widen the BOWs with minimal human intervention. As a result, the
Commission believes that the risk of error associated with observation
of market volatility and manual adjustment of the end-of-day BOWs will
be mitigated. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A
of the Act,\19\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv) and (e)(17)(i) \20\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv) and (e)(17)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\21\ that the proposed rule change be, and hereby is, approved.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \22\ 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).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12553 Filed 6-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57471-57472]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24884]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL19-13-000; QF16-1090-002; QF16-1091-002; QF17-475-001;
QF17-579-001; QF17-476-001]

Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order; Blue Marmot V LLC, Blue
Marmot VI LLC, Blue Marmot VII LLC, Blue Marmot VIII LLC, and Blue
Marmot IX LLC

    Take notice that on November 7, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,\1\ Blue Marmot V LLC,
Blue Marmot VI LLC, Blue Marmot VII LLC, Blue Marmot VIII LLC, and Blue
Marmot IX LLC (collectively, Petitioners) filed a petition for
declaratory order (petition) requesting that the Commission find that
transmission congestion does not mitigate the purchase obligation under
section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, as
amended,\2\ and that transmission costs associated with the delivery of
power on the Portland General Electric Company system are within the
Commission's authority, all as more fully explained in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.207 (2017).
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice
of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioners.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on December 7, 2018.

    Dated: November 8, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-24884 Filed 11-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 90)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26152-26155]
[DOCID:fr11my10-27]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0295]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation for Marine Events; Mattaponi River,
Wakema, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local
regulations during the Mattaponi Madness Drag Boat Event, a series of
power boat races to be held on the waters of the Mattaponi River, near
Wakema, Virginia. These special local regulations are necessary to
provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events.
This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic during the power
boat races in a segment of the Mattaponi River that flows along the
border of King William County and King and Queen County near Wakema,
Virginia.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 10, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0295 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call LT Tiffany Duffy, Chief Waterways Management Division,
Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2010-0295), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert

``USCG-20100295'' in the ``Keyword'' box. Click ``Search'' then click
on the balloon shape in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-20100295'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact LT Tiffany Duffy at the telephone number or e-mail address
indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
notice.

Background and Purpose

    The Mattaponi Volunteer Rescue Squad will be sponsoring a series of
power boat racing events titled the ``Mattaponi Madness Drag Boat
Event.'' The power boat races will be held on the following dates:
August 28, 2010, and in the case of inclement weather, the event will
be rescheduled to August 29, 2010. The races will be held on the
Mattaponi River immediately adjacent to the Rainbow Acres Campground,
King and Queen County, Virginia. The power boat races will consist of
approximately 45 vessels conducting high speed straight line runs along
the river and parallel to the shoreline. A fleet of spectator vessels
is expected to gather near the event site to view the competition. To
provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting
vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in
the event area during the power boat races.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations on
specified waters of the Mattaponi River, in the vicinity of Wakema,
Virginia. The regulated area includes all waters of Mattaponi River
immediately adjacent to Rainbow Acres Campground, King and Queen
County, Virginia. The regulated area includes a section of the
Mattaponi River approximately \3/4\-mile long and bounded in width by
each shoreline, bounded to the east by a line that runs parallel along
longitude 076[deg]52'43'' W, near the mouth of Mitchell Hill Creek, and
bounded to the west by a line that runs parallel along longitude
076[deg]53'41'' W just north of Wakema, Virginia. The effect of this
regulation would be to restrict general navigation in the regulated
area during the drag boat races. This special local regulation will be
enforced from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on August 28, 2010; and in the case of
inclement weather, this special local regulation will be enforced from
9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on August 29, 2010. Except for persons or vessels
authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the regulated area. Non-participating vessels will
be allowed to transit the regulated area between races, when the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander determines it is safe to do so. This regulation
is needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the
safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation
will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Mattaponi River
during the events, the effect of this regulation will not be
significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be
in effect and the advance notification that will be made to the
maritime community via marine information broadcast, local radio
stations and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans
accordingly. Additionally, the regulated area has been designed to
impose the least impact on general navigation yet provide the level of
safety deemed necessary. Vessel traffic will be able to transit the
regulated area between heats and when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander
deems it is safe to do so.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities: owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit this section of the Mattaponi River from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on
August 28, 2010 and on August 29, 2010. This proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for the following reasons. Although the regulated area will
apply to a \3/4\ mile segment of the Mattaponi River, traffic may be
allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander between races. In the case where the
Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during
the event, vessels shall proceed at the

minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake
near the race course. Before the enforcement period, we will issue
maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed
rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR Part 100 that
apply to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United
States that may have potential for negative impact on the safety or
other interest of waterway users and shore side activities in the event
area. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to
sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events,
crew racing, and sail board racing. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

    1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add temporary Sec.  100.35T05-0295 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T05-0295  Mattaponi River, Wakema, Virginia.

    (a) Regulated Area. The regulated area includes all waters of
Mattaponi River immediately adjacent to Rainbow Acres Campground, King
and Queen County, Virginia. The regulated area includes a section of
the Mattaponi River approximately \3/4\-mile long and bounded in width
by each shoreline, bounded to the east by a line that runs parallel
along longitude 076[deg]52'43'' W, near the mouth of Mitchell Hill
Creek, and bounded to the west by a line that runs parallel along
longitude 076[deg]53'41'' W just north of Wakema, Virginia. All
coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions: (1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a
commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads.
    (2) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads with a commissioned,
warrant or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    (c) Special Local Regulations: (1) Except for persons or vessels
authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the regulated area.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by an
Official Patrol.
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any official patrol.
    (d) Enforcement Period: This regulation will be enforced from 9
a.m. to 7 p.m. on August 28, 2010. In the case of inclement weather,
this regulation will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on August 29,
2010.

    Dated: 24 April 2010.
M.S. Ogle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2010-11084 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 55)]
[Notices]
[Page 12435-12436]
[DOCID:fr24mr09-149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Third Meeting--RTCA Special Committee 217/EUROCAE WG 44--Airport
Mapping Databases

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 217 meeting: Airport Mapping
Databases.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 217 meeting: Airport Mapping
Databases

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 18-20, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at AENA, Spanish Air Navigation
Service Provide, Juan Ignacio Luca de Tena 14, Madrid, Spain, Contact:
Javier Fenoll, Tel : (34) 91 321 54 61, Fax : (34) 91 321 31 57,
Internet<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,

Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036-5133; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 217 meeting. The agenda will
include:

18 May

Opening Plenary (Chairmen's remarks and introductions, Review and
approve meeting agenda)
Discussion
     Schedule for this week
     Schedule for next meetings
     Action Items
Presentations
     Taxi Graphic Demonstrations--Brian Gilbert
     AENA Activities on eTOD--Javier Fenoll
Terrain, Obstacle, and Airport Mapping discussions
     Discussion on AMDB and ICAO Recommendations

19 May

Terrain, Obstacle, and Airport Mapping discussions
Address Outcome from ``Roadmap Items'' (outcome from assigned actions)

20 May

Terrain, Obstacle, and Airport Mapping discussions
    Plenary Session
     Other Business
     Determine and agree on action plan
     Meeting Plans and Dates.

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 18, 2009.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E9-6459 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72226-72232]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29250]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0458; FRL-9370-8]

Picoxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
picoxystrobin in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 5, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 4, 2013,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0458, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather

provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0458 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 4, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0458, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of June 23, 2010 (75 FR 35801) (FRL-8831-
3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 0F7722)
by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, DE
19898, proposed to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues
of the fungicide picoxystrobin, in or on the cereal grains crop group
(crop group 15) except rice at 0.2 parts per million(ppm); the cereal
forage and fodder crop group (crop group 16) except rice at 13.0 ppm;
cereal grain aspirated grain fractions at 4.5 ppm; cereal grain oil at
1.5 ppm; the dry legume vegetables crop subgroup (crop group 6,
subgroup C) except soybean at 0.1 ppm; the legume vegetable foliage
crop group (crop group 7) at 18.0 ppm; soybean seed at 0.05 ppm;
soybean forage at 0.8 ppm; soybean hay at 2.5 ppm; soybean aspirated
grain fractions at 3.2 ppm; soybean hulls at 10.0 ppm; soybean oil at
0.05 ppm; canola seed at 0.05 ppm; meat and meat byproducts except
liver of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep at 0.01 ppm; fat of
cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep at 0.05 ppm; liver of cattle, goat,
hog, horse, and sheep at 0.8 ppm; meat, meat byproducts, fat, and eggs
of poultry at 0.01 ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm, and cream, at 0.03 ppm. That
notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Company, the registrant, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the proposed tolerance levels for several commodities. The
reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * *
*.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for picoxystrobin, including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with picoxystrobin
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The most consistently observed effects of picoxystrobin exposure
across species, genders, and treatment durations were decreased body
weight, body weight gain and food consumption, and diarrhea. The
effects on body weight and food consumption were consistent with the
commonly observed findings for compounds which disrupt mitochondria
respiration system and the resulting disruption of energy production.
Similar to some other strobilurins, picoxystrobin causes intestinal
disturbance as indicated by increased incidence of diarrhea or duodenum
mucosal thickening. These intestinal effects appeared to be related to
the irritating action on the mucus membranes as demonstrated by the
severe eye irritation effect seen in the primary eye irritation study
on picoxystrobin.
    Picoxystrobin caused changes in behavioral effects in both the
acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies with no neuropathological
findings. The effects observed with acute exposure

were transient (i.e. lasted for a day) and consisted of low arousal and
decreased motor activities in males and decreased rearing in females,
and, with subchronic exposure, included decreased male forelimb grip
and increased female hindlimb splay. In the absence of any
neuropathological findings, the behavioral effects were attributed to
general malaise (probably related to energy production perturbations)
as evidenced by the associated decreased body weight and body weight
gain.
    In the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies, developmental
toxicity was expressed as skeletal variations at doses causing maternal
toxicity (i.e. diarrhea, decreased body weight, body weight gain, food
consumption, and clinical signs of toxicity). In the reproduction
study, parental/systemic toxicity manifested as decreased body weight
and body weight gain in both the parents and offspring; no reproductive
toxicity was seen.
    Picoxystrobin induced a treatment-related increase in testicular
interstitial cell benign tumors only in the high dose male rats. No
tumors were seen in females; no treatment related-increase in any type
of tumor incidence was seen in male and female mice at doses that were
considered to be adequate for the assessment of carcinogenicity of
picoxystrobin. There is no mutagenic concern. Based on these data, EPA
has concluded that quantification of cancer risk based on a non-linear
approach (i.e., reference dose (RfD) will adequately account for all
chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that which could result
from exposure to picoxystrobin. Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by picoxystrobin
as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be
found at http://www.regulations.gov in document, ``Picoxystrobin: Human
Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Canola, Cereal Grains
Except Rice, Dried Shelled Peas and Beans, and Soybeans.'' at pages 17-
22 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0458.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for picoxystrobin used for human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Picoxystrobin for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Point of departure and
          Exposure/scenario               uncertainty/safety     RfD, PAD, LOC for risk  Study and toxicological
                                               factors                 assessment                effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-49 years of   There were no appropriate toxicological effects attributable to a single
 age).                                    exposure (dose) observed in available toxicity studies. Therefore, a
                                             dose and endpoint were not identified for this risk assessment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population      LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day..  aRfD = 0.2 mg/kg/day...  Acute Neurotoxicity--
 including infants and children).      UFA = 10x..............  aPAD = 0.2 mg/kg/day...   Rat
                                       UFH = 10x..............                           LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day
                                       FQPA SF = 10x..........                            based on low arousal
                                                                                and decreased motor
                                                                                activities in males,
                                                                                decreased rearing in
                                                                                females, in addition
                                                                                to decreased
                                                                                bodyweight gain and
                                                                                food consumption in
                                                                                both sexes on Day 1.
Chronic dietary (All populations)....  NOAEL= 4.6 mg/kg/day...  cRfD = 0.046 mg/kg/day.  Chronic Toxicity--Dog
                                       UFA = 10x..............  cPAD = 0.046 mg/kg/day.  LOAEL = 15.7 mg/kg/day
                                       UFH = 10x..............                            based on decreased
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            body weights, weight
                                                                                gains, and food
                                                                                consumption in both
                                                                                sexes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)....   Classification: ``Suggestive evidence of Carcinogenic Potential'' based
                                          on tumors in one species and one sex: A treatment-related increase in
                                           testicular interstitial cell benign tumors in high dose male rats.
                                         Quantification of cancer is based on a non-linear (i.e. RfD) approach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population
  adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation
  from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human
  population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to picoxystrobin, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
picoxystrobin in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern

occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for picoxystrobin. In estimating acute
dietary exposure for the general population, including infants and
children, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA's assumption of this dietary assessment
included total highest field trial total residues (parent and
metabolite) for all proposed crops. In addition, 100 percent crop
treated (PCT) was assumed. Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM)
version 7.81 default processing factors were assumed except for where
tolerances were established for processed commodities or when
processing studies showed no concentration. A separate tolerance was
set for wheat bran, wheat germ, barley bran and corn oil. Tolerance
levels were used for livestock commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to
residue levels in food, EPA used total highest average field trial
total residues (parent and metabolite) for all proposed crops. In
addition, 100 PCT was assumed. DEEM version 7.81 default processing
factors were assumed except for where tolerances were established for
processed commodities. Tolerance levels were used for livestock
commodities.
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
Cancer risk is quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If
sufficient information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available,
a threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer RfD is
calculated based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic
mode of action data is not available, or if the mode of action data
determines a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope
factor approach is utilized. Based on the data summarized in Unit
III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate
for assessing cancer risk for picoxystrobin. Cancer risk was assessed
using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.,
chronic exposure.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for picoxystrobin in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of picoxystrobin. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    The drinking water assessment used a total toxic residue approach
to include parent and the major environmental degradates: Compound 2,
Compound 3, Compound 7, and Compound 8. Based on the Pesticide Root
Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System and Screening
Concentration in Ground Water models, the estimated drinking water
concentrations of picoxystrobin for:
     Acute exposures are estimated to be 7.95 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 0.041 ppb for ground water.
     Chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated
to be 2.41 ppb for surface water and 0.041 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 7.95 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 2.41 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Picoxystrobin is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found picoxystrobin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and picoxystrobin does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
picoxystrobin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicity studies include rat and rabbit prenatal development studies,
in addition to reproduction and fertility effects studies in rats. No
evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility/
sensitivity was seen in any of these studies.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA Safety factor were reduced to 1X for chronic dietary exposure. For
acute dietary exposures for the general population, including infants
and children where the acute neurotoxicity is study used as an endpoint
for risk assessment, EPA is

retaining a 10X FQPA safety factor. That decision is based on the
following findings:
    i. Although all required toxicity studies for picoxystrobin have
been submitted, the acute neurotoxicity study used for acute dietary
risk assessment did not demonstrate a NOAEL, and a LOAEL was used as an
endpoint. Therefore, the 10X FQPA safety factor was retained for use of
a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL.
    ii. There is no indication that picoxystrobin is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that picoxystrobin results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT, total highest field trial total residues for acute
exposures, total highest average field trial total residues for chronic
exposures, and tolerance levels for livestock commodities. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to picoxystrobin in drinking water.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by picoxystrobin.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to picoxystrobin will occupy 1.3% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
picoxystrobin from food and water will utilize 2.8% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for picoxystrobin.
    3. Short- and intermediate--term risks. Short- and intermediate--
term risk aggregate exposures take into account residential exposure
plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background
exposure level). Because no short-term or intermediate-term adverse
effects were identified, picoxystrobin is not expected to pose a short-
or intermediate-- term risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency considers
the chronic aggregate risk assessment, making use of the cPAD, to be
protective of any aggregate cancer risk.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to picoxystrobin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. No Codex MRLs have been
established for picoxystrobin.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    The Agency has revised several of the commodity definitions and
modified the levels for which tolerances are being established as
follows: Vegetable, legume, dried shelled, except soybean, (group 6C)
at 0.1 ppm is revised to pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean,
subgroup 6C at 0.06 ppm; soybean forage at 0.08 ppm is revised to
soybean, forage at 1.0 ppm; soybean hay at 2.5 ppm is revised to
soybean, hay at 3.0 ppm; soybean hulls at 10 ppm is revised to soybean,
hulls at 0.2 ppm; canola, seed at 0.05 ppm is revised to rapeseed
subgroup 20A at 0.08 ppm; barley, grain which was proposed as crop
group 15 at 0.2 ppm is revised to barley, grain at 0.3 ppm. Tolerance
for soybeans oil was proposed at 0.8 ppm, but EPA has determined that a
tolerance is not needed. These tolerances have been revised based on
the use of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and development
tolerance calculation procedure (OECD TCP). Further, EPA determined
that the proposed tolerance for crop group 15 (grain, cereal, except
rice), and crop subgroup 7A group/subgroup (vegetable, foliage of
legume) each be modified and established as follows: Grain, cereal,
group 15, except rice and barley at 0.04 ppm; vegetable, foliage of
legume, except soybean, subgroup 7A at 40.0 ppm. Crop group 16 (grain,
cereal, forage and fodder except rice) however, should each be broken
up and established with individual tolerances. These tolerances are
revised as follows: Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16,
straw at 2.0 ppm; grain, cereal, forage fodder, and straw, group 16,
stover at 10.0 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw group 16,
hay at 5.0 ppm; grain, cereal forage, fodder, and straw, group 16,
forage at 15.0 ppm;
    Based on the corn processing study, the proposed tolerance for
cereal grain oil at 1.5 ppm is revised to corn, field, refined oil at
0.07 ppm.
    The proposed tolerance for cereal (wheat), aspirated grain
fractions at 4.5 ppm is being established as grain, aspirated grain
fractions at 10 ppm; soybean, aspirated grain fractions at 3.2 ppm is
revised to grain, aspirated grain fractions at 10 ppm as well.
    Though not proposed, the Agency has determined it was appropriate
to establish tolerances for wheat, bran at 0.06 ppm; wheat, germ at
0.09 ppm; and barely, bran at 0.5 ppm.
    EPA also revised livestock tolerances as follows, based on the
calculated dietary burden to account for the transfer of residues to
livestock matrices (tissues and milk): Cattle, fat from 0.05

ppm to 0.01 ppm; goat, fat from 0.05 ppm to 0.01 ppm; hog, fat from
0.05 ppm to 0.01 ppm. horse, fat from 0.5 ppm to 0.01 ppm; sheep, fat
from 0.05 ppm to 0.01 ppm; horse, liver at 0.8 ppm and horse, meat
byproduct, except liver at 0.01 ppm were combined as horse, meat
byproduct at 0.01 ppm. Sheep, liver at 0.8 ppm and sheep, meat
byproducts, except liver at 0.01 ppm were combined as sheep, meat
byproducts, at 0.01 ppm. Goat, liver at 0.8 ppm and goat, meat
byproducts, except liver at 0.01 ppm were combined as goat, meat
byproducts at 0.01 ppm.; hog, liver at 0.8 ppm and hog, meat
byproducts, except liver at 0.01 were combined as hog, meat byproducts
at 0.01 ppm. Cattle, liver at 0.8 ppm and cattle, meat byproduct,
except liver at 0.01 ppm were combined as cattle, meat byproducts at
0.01 ppm. Finally a tolerance was proposed on cream at 0.03 ppm;
however EPA has determined that no tolerance is needed.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
picoxystrobin, methyl ([alpha]E)-[alpha]-(methoxymethylene)-2-[[[6-
(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]methyl]benzeneacetate in or on
barley, bran at 0.5 ppm; barley, grain at 0.3 ppm; rapeseed subgroup
20A at 0.08 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm;
cattle, meat byproducts, at 0.01 ppm; corn, field, refined oil at 0.07
ppm; goat, fat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; goat meat
byproduct, at 0.01 ppm; grain, aspirated grain fractions at 10 ppm;
grain, cereal, group 15, except rice and barely at 0.04 ppm; grain,
cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, hay at 5.0 ppm; grain,
cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, forage at 15 ppm; grain,
cereal, forage, fodder, and straw group 16, stover at 10 ppm; grain,
cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, straw at 2 ppm; hog, fat
at 0.01 ppm; hog, meat at 0.01 ppm; hog, meat byproducts, at 0.01 ppm;
horse, fat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat
byproducts, at 0.01 ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; pea and bean, dried shelled,
except soybean, subgroup 6C at 0.06 ppm; eggs at 0.01 ppm; poultry, fat
at 0.01 ppm; poultry, meat at 0.01 ppm; poultry, meat byproducts at
0.01 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, meat
byproducts, at 0.01 ppm; soybean, forage at 1 ppm; soybean, hay at 3
ppm; soybean, hulls at 0.2 ppm; soybean, seed at 0.05 ppm; vegetable,
foliage of legume, except soybean, subgroup 7A at 40 ppm; wheat, bran
at 0.06 ppm; and wheat, germ at 0.09 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 26, 2012.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticides Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  180.669 to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec.  180.669  Picoxystrobin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
fungicide picoxystrobin, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the commodities listed below. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only
picoxystrobin, methyl ([alpha]E)-[alpha]-(methoxymethylene)-2-[[[6-
(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]methyl]benzeneacetate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barley, bran..............................................          0.5
Barley, grain.............................................          0.3
Cattle, fat...............................................          0.01
Cattle, meat..............................................          0.01
Cattle, meat byproducts...................................          0.01
Corn, field, refined oil..................................          0.07
Eggs......................................................          0.01
Goat, fat.................................................          0.01
Goat, meat................................................          0.01

Goat, meat byproducts.....................................          0.01
Grain, aspirated grain fractions..........................         10
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, forage         15
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, hay...          5
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, stover         10
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, straw.          2
Grain, cereal, group 15, except rice and barley...........          0.04
Hog, fat..................................................          0.01
Hog, meat.................................................          0.01
Hog, meat byproducts......................................          0.01
Horse, fat................................................          0.01
Horse, meat...............................................          0.01
Horse, meat byproducts....................................          0.01
Milk......................................................          0.01
Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C..          0.06
Poultry, fat..............................................          0.01
Poultry, meat.............................................          0.01
Poultry, meat byproducts..................................          0.01
Rapeseed subgroup 20A.....................................          0.08
Sheep, fat................................................          0.01
Sheep, meat...............................................          0.01
Sheep, meat byproducts....................................          0.01
Soybean, forage...........................................          1
Soybean, hay..............................................          3
Soybean, hulls............................................          0.2
Soybean, seed.............................................          0.05
Vegetable, foliage of legume, except soybean, subgroup 7A.         40
Wheat, bran...............................................          0.06
Wheat, germ...............................................          0.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2012-29250 Filed 12-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 63954-63955]
[DOCID:fr28oc08-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-483-000]

Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent WestTex, LLC; Pioneer Natural
Resources (USA), Inc.; Notice of Application

October 21, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 30, 2008, Atlas Pipeline Mid-
Continent WestTex, LLC (Atlas/WestTex), 100 West 7th Street, Suite
2300, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119, and Pioneer Natural Resources (USA), Inc.
(Pioneer), 1400 Williams Square West, 5205 North O'Connor Boulevard,
Irving, TX 75039, filed a joint application in Docket No. CP08-483-000,
pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), requesting
permission and approval to abandon in place and convert to low pressure
gathering approximately 3.4 miles of 12\3/4\-inch diameter pipeline and
the approximately 7.5 miles of 10\3/4\-inch diameter pipeline located
in Reagan and Upton Counties, Texas (Midkiff Line). Atlas/WestTex and
Pioneer indicate that they plan to replace the Midkiff Line with a new
pipeline 3-mile and request the Commission determine that the
replacement line is exempt from NGA jurisdiction. Since Atlas/WestTex
and Pioneer will not operate any facilities subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction, they request the Commission rescind the Limited
Jurisdiction Certificate issued in Docket No. CP06-385-000, all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to
James F. Bowe, Jr., Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, 1101 New York Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20005, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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 proceedings 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 in order 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 commentors 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 commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors 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 in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: November 4, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-25618 Filed 10-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P