[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19393-19396]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06403]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 555

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0103]

Denial of Petition for Reconsideration; Temporary Exemption From
Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for reconsideration submitted
by Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Center for Auto Safety,
Consumer Reports, Consumer Federation of America, and Ms. Joan
Claybrook (collectively, the ``Petitioners'') of a final rule amending
NHTSA's regulation on temporary exemption from the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The final rule eliminated the
provision calling for the agency to determine that an application for a
temporary exemption from any FMVSS or bumper standard or for a renewal
of exemption is complete before the agency publishes a notification
summarizing the application and soliciting public comments on it.

DATES: April 7, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petition for Reconsideration and Agency Response
    A. This Final Rule was Not Issued as a Direct Final Rule under
49 CFR 553.14
    B. Immediate Adoption of a Final Rule Under the APA
    C. Advantages of Removing Completeness Requirement
    D. NHTSA Provided a Reasoned Justification for the Amendment
III. Conclusion

    This document denies a petition for reconsideration submitted by
the Petitioners requesting reconsideration of a December 26, 2018 final
rule (83 FR 66158) amending NHTSA's regulation on temporary exemption
from the FMVSS. The intended effect of the final rule was to solicit
public comments on a petition more quickly than had been

the case under part 555 prior to the change in procedure.

I. Background

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), as
amended, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to exempt, on a
temporary basis, under specified circumstances, and on terms the
Secretary deems appropriate, motor vehicles from an FMVSS or bumper
standard. This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary
has delegated the authority for implementing this section to NHTSA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 1.94
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In exercising this authority, NHTSA must look comprehensively at
the request for exemption and find that an exemption would be
consistent with the public interest and with the objectives of the
Safety Act.\2\ In addition, the Secretary must make at least one of the
following more-focused findings, which NHTSA commonly refers to as the
``basis'' for the exemption:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A).

    (i) compliance with the standard[s] [from which exemption is
sought] would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer
that has tried to comply with the standard[s] in good faith;
    (ii) the exemption would make easier the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety
level at least equal to the safety level of the standard;
    (iii) the exemption would make the development or field
evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not
unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle; or
    (iv) compliance with the standard would prevent the manufacturer
from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least
equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B).

    Per the Safety Act, once NHTSA receives a petition for an
exemption, the agency is required to publish a notice of receipt of the
petition and provide the public the opportunity to comment. However,
NHTSA does have a certain amount of discretion to set procedural rules
regarding time and way in which a petition is filed, as well as the
contents of the petition.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's procedural regulations implementing these statutory
requirements are codified at 49 CFR part 555, ``Temporary Exemption
from Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards.'' Per the requirements
in 49 CFR 555.5, a petition for a temporary exemption must, among other
things, provide supporting documentation that would enable NHTSA to
make the findings required to grant the exemption under one of the four
exemption bases. In addition, the petition must also explain why the
exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the
objectives of the Safety Act. NHTSA's procedures for processing
exemption petitions once they are received are described in 49 CFR
555.7.
    The final rule made no changes to the ability of the public to
comment on a published petition for exemption, nor to the substantive
requirements for a petition. The opportunity for the public to comment
on a petition remains the same today as it has always been: The agency
publishes a notification in the Federal Register summarizing the
application and inviting public comment on whether the application
should be granted or denied. Before NHTSA issued its December 26, 2018,
final rule (83 FR 66158), however, this Federal Register notification
would only be published after the agency determined that the
application was complete (i.e., that the application included all the
information required under 49 U.S.C. 30113 and 49 CFR part 555).
However, if NHTSA found that the application was incomplete, NHTSA
informed the applicant, pointed out the areas of insufficiency, and
stated that the application would not receive further consideration
until the required information was submitted. Prior to the final rule,
the agency would not make the application available to the public and
request public comment at this stage in the process unless the
additional required information was submitted. Only then would the
agency publish the notification requesting public comment.
    Importantly, the final rule did not amend 49 CFR 555.7(d) or (e),
which describe what steps NHTSA must take after the agency determines
whether an exemption petition contains ``adequate justification'' to
grant the petition. 49 CFR 555.7(d) states that, if NHTSA determines
that the application does not contain adequate justification to grant
an exemption after considering the application and the public comments,
the Administrator denies the petition and notifies the petitioner in
writing. 49 CFR 555.7(e) states that, if the Administrator determines
that the application does contain adequate justification to grant the
petition, the Administrator grants the petition and notifies the
applicant in writing. Under both cases, the Administrator also
publishes a notification in the Federal Register stating the decision
to grant or deny the petition, and the reasons for the decision.
    The December 26, 2018 final rule amended 49 CFR 555.7 by
eliminating the provision stating that the agency will not publish a
notice of receipt of an exemption petition to solicit public comments
prior to making a determination that the petition is ``complete.'' \5\
As was noted in the final rule, the reason for this was NHTSA's
difficulty in differentiating between incomplete petitions (for which,
prior to the final rule, a notice of receipt would not be published)
and petitions which were complete, but which failed to provide adequate
justification to grant (for which, prior to the final rule, a notice of
receipt would be published). This was especially the case in the
context of complex petitions involving new or innovative vehicle
designs, which has in the past led to delays in processing these
petitions.\6\ This final rule did not change the substantive
requirements that exemption petitions must meet; the amended regulation
continues to provide that the agency will determine whether an
application for exemption contains adequate justification in deciding
whether to grant or deny the application.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 83 FR 66158 (Dec. 26, 2018).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petition for Reconsideration and Agency Response

    The Petitioners submitted a petition for reconsideration requesting
that NHTSA stay the effective date of the December 26, 2018 final rule,
and to proceed with a new notice of proposed rulemaking along with a
notice and comment period.
    First, the Petitioners argue that by issuing the final rule, NHTSA
did not follow its direct final rulemaking procedures for amendments
that involve complex or controversial issues because, pursuant to 49
CFR 553.14, direct final rules may not be issued when they are likely
to result in ``adverse public comment.'' The Petitioners argue that the
final rule would have resulted in adverse public comments because the
new procedure is controversial among the Petitioners. (Under NHTSA's
direct final rulemaking procedures, if NHTSA receives an adverse
comment after issuing a direct final rule, the agency must withdraw the
rule and issue an NPRM proposing the amendment.)
    Second, the Petitioners argue that, if the agency did not intend
for the final rule to be a direct final rule, the agency violated the
Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) notice and comment requirement
because the agency did not issue an NPRM proposing the change.

    Third, the Petitioners argue that the final rule is not in the
public interest because it deprives the public of the opportunity to
``review issues of great importance to safety'' and permits the agency
to publish incomplete applications. The Petitioners believe that the
regulatory change would impose additional burdens on the public because
to fully evaluate an incomplete application and its implications on
safety, the public would be required to conduct independent research
and investigation to obtain missing information not contained in an
incomplete application.
    Finally, the Petitioners argue that NHTSA has not put forth data or
evidence to show that the requirement of waiting until an application
is complete before publication has caused an undue delay or hardship on
any applicant, the agency, or the public.

A. This Final Rule was Not Issued as a Direct Final Rule Under 49 CFR
553.14

    The Petitioners' assumption that NHTSA intended for this rulemaking
to be considered a direct final rule, subject to 49 CFR 553.14, is
incorrect. The APA includes two circumstances when notice and comment
rulemaking procedures do not apply: (1) ``to interpretative rules,
general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice; or'' (2) ``when the agency for good cause finds
(and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor
in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' 5
U.S.C. 553(b). As described below, this rule falls into the first
exception, as a rule of agency procedure. NHTSA's direct final
rulemaking regulation is primarily directed at the second exception, as
it requires a threshold ``good cause'' finding. See 49 CFR 553.14.
    In any event, the procedures in 49 CFR 553.14 are not mandatory. 49
CFR 553.14 states that if the Administrator makes a ``good cause''
finding, ``a direct final rule may [emphasis added] be issued''
according to the direct final rulemaking procedures. Likewise, it
provides that: ``[r]ules that the Administrator judges to be non-
controversial and unlikely to result in adverse public comment may
[emphasis added] be published as direct final rules,'' \8\ thereby
giving NHTSA discretion to publish a rule according to the specified
``direct final rule'' procedures. NHTSA did not purport to issue the
final rule that is the subject of this petition according to those
procedures. The petitioned final rule did not refer to 49 CFR 553.14
and instead expressly indicated that it was issued without notice and
comment pursuant to the APA exception for procedural rules in 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(A).\9\ Petitioners do not support their claim that NHTSA
somehow acted ``in violation of'' its discretionary direct final
rulemaking procedures in 49 CFR 553.14, when the agency instead applied
a statutory exception in the APA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 49 CFR 553.14(a).
    \9\ 83 FR 66158, 66159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Immediate Adoption of a Rule Under the APA

    NHTSA fully complied with the APA when it issued a final rule for
immediate adoption without a notice and comment period. Section
553(b)(3)(A) of the APA (U.S.C., Title 5) provides that notice and
comment procedures do not apply to rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice, except when notice or hearing is required by
statute. Under this section, an agency may issue a final rule without
seeking comment prior to the rulemaking. Procedural rules are agency
provisions that are primarily directed toward improving the efficient
and effective operations of an agency, not toward the determination of
the rights or interests of affected parties.\10\ A rule that simply
prescribes the manner in which the parties present themselves or their
viewpoints to the agency does not alter the underlying rights or
interests of the parties.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Clarian Health West, LLC v. Burwell, 206 F. Supp. 3d 393,
414 (D.D.C. 2016), rev'd on other grounds, Clarian Health West, LLC
v. Hargan, 878 F.3d 346 (DC Cir. 2017).
    \11\ Inova Alexandria Hospital v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 349
(2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the petitioned final rule is to expedite the
publishing of documents soliciting public comment on exemption
applications,\12\ which is directly related to improving the efficient
and effective operations of the agency. It amended a provision of
NHTSA's regulations concerning the agency's ``[p]rocessing of
applications.'' \13\ The final rule simply eliminated the provision
calling for the agency to determine that an application for exemption
is complete before publishing a notification summarizing an application
and soliciting public comments on it, which is a prescription of the
manner in which applicants present themselves to the agency. Therefore,
this procedural final rule is not directed toward the determination of
the rights or interests of the Petitioners as the Petitioners' public
interest argument seems to suggest; it does not alter the underlying
rights or interest of interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 83 FR 66158 (Dec. 26, 2018).
    \13\ See revised heading of 49 CFR 555.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners' assertion that the final rule ``contravenes NHTSA's
notice-and-comment obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act''
is unpersuasive. NHTSA expressly found that the final rule met the
exception in APA section 553(b)(3)(A) because ``[t]he sole purpose of
this rule is to eliminate the provision calling for the agency to
determine that a petition is complete before the agency publishes a
notification summarizing the petition and soliciting public comments on
it. This rule does not impose any additional requirements on exemption
applicants or the public. Therefore, NHTSA has determined that notice
and public comment are unnecessary.'' \14\ Petitioners provided no
explanation for why they believe notice-and-comment procedures apply
notwithstanding the APA exception cited by the agency in the final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 83 FR 66158, 66159--60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Advantages of Removing Completeness Determination Requirement

    Contrary to the assertion by Petitioners, the subject final rule is
in the public's interest for several reasons. First, the final rule
increases transparency by giving the public the opportunity to
thoroughly review exemption applications that otherwise may not have
been disclosed to the public or subject to public input. Under the
prior rule, NHTSA first had to make a threshold finding before opening
a public docket on the petition. If NHTSA found that the application
was incomplete, NHTSA informed the applicant, pointed out the areas of
insufficiency, and stated that the application would not receive
further consideration until the required information was submitted. The
public did not have the opportunity to review the incomplete
application. Under the amended rule, the public can review incomplete
exemption applications.
    Second, under the final rule, both the agency and the public can
comprehensively evaluate applications for exemption. Prior to the final
rule, only the agency would make a completeness determination, without
input on that issue from the public. The final rule increases the
public's opportunity to evaluate the application and provide input
because the agency will decide whether to grant an exemption
application, complete or not,

based on the application and the public comments. Among its comments,
the public can submit opinions as to whether the application is
complete. The public gets to see an application sooner as opposed to
not seeing it until NHTSA makes a threshold completeness determination.
The public can point out what it sees as insufficiencies to the agency;
and if the agency agrees, the application will be denied unless it is
later supplemented. If an application is supplemented, the public will
have access to any supplemental information to the same extent as if
the supplement happened before the application became public under the
old rule. In addition, the public can, if it so chooses, comment on
completeness, or on any other supplemental information submitted
through the public comment process.
    Finally, the final rule does not impose additional requirements on
the public to perform research, as the Petitioners claimed without
support. Although published exemption applications may be incomplete,
NHTSA is still required to make an ``adequate justification''
determination based on the information provided by the applicant. An
application that lacks merit or critical information will be denied,
based on public input and the agency's analysis, regardless of whether
there is a threshold completeness determination. A determination that
an application is complete is not a determination that the application
should be granted. If NHTSA determines that the application does not
contain ``adequate justification,'' the Administrator denies it and
notifies the applicant in writing, pointing out the areas of
insufficiency.\15\ It is not the public's duty to perform research to
determine areas of insufficiency. The Administrator also publishes in
the Federal Register a notification of the denial and the reasons for
it, which is available to the public. Further, if a member of the
public believes the agency's explanation for granting an application
lacks sufficient supporting arguments and facts, he or she may seek to
have the agency reconsider the grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 49 CFR 555.7(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. NHTSA Provided a Reasoned Justification for the Amendment

    NHTSA articulated the purpose behind changing this procedural rule
in the preamble to the rule. Specifically, NHTSA changed its procedure
``to expedite the publishing of documents soliciting public comment on
exemption petitions.'' \16\ Petitioners' argument that ``NHTSA has put
forth no data or evidence in the Final Rule that the current
requirement of waiting until the application is complete before
publishing it in the Federal Register has caused undue delay or
hardship on any applicant, the agency, or the public'' lacks merit.
NHTSA provided a reasoned explanation of its change in procedure. See
F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009).
NHTSA explained how the prior procedure led to delays.\17\ The agency
also explained that the prior procedure was unnecessary under the
statute, particularly in light of the substantive determination it will
continue to make regarding whether a petition contains an adequate
justification.\18\ Petitioners' assertions regarding the public
interest have not convinced the agency that it should return to its
prior procedure, which would reduce transparency and delay the ability
of the public to obtain and comment on exemption applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 83 FR 66158, 66159.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed above, the agency is denying the
Petitioners' petition for reconsideration of the December 26, 2018
final rule (83 FR 66158).

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.4.
James Clayton Owens,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-06403 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Interregional Research Project No. 4 ( IR 4)

PP# 4E6848 Summary of Petitions EPA has received a pesticide petition ( 4E6848) from Interregional Research Project No. 4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 681, U. S. Highway No. 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902 3390 proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.493 by establishing a tolerance for residues of dimethomorph [( E, Z) 4[ 3( 4 chlorophenyl) 3( 3,4 dimethoxyphenyl) 1 oxo 2 propenyl] morpholine] in or on the raw agricultural commodity Brassica head and stem ( Subgroup 5A) at 2.0 parts per million ( ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. [ Based upon the results of metabolism studies conducted on potato, grape, and lettuce, the nature of the residues in brassica, head and stem ( Subgroup 5A) is considered to be understood. The results of the potato metabolism study show only negligible residues in tubers, 0.01 0.02 parts per million ( ppm) total radioactive residues ( TRR). This is in contrast to the aerial portions of the plant, which were found to have up to 23.5 ppm TRR, thus demonstrating that translocation of dimethomorph downward within the plant was not significant. Almost all of the radioactive residue ( 97.8%) was extractable from the plant at harvest. In the aerial portion of the plant, approximately 70% of the TRR was identified as dimethomorph. No metabolites were identified that require regulation. The results of the grape metabolism study showed that the TRR in/ on grapes harvested 35 days following the last of four applications [ 0.8 lb active ingredient per acre ( ai/ A) per application for four consecutive weeks] for a total rate of 3.2 lb ai/ A was 14.6 ppm. Unmetabolized dimethomorph accounted for 87.3% of the TRR ( 12.7 ppm). No metabolites were identified that require regulation. The results of the lettuce metabolism study showed that the TRR in/ on lettuce leaves harvested 4 days following the last of 4 applications [ approximately 1.0 lb ai/ A per application with a 9 to 11 day spray interval], for a total rate of 4.1 lb ai/ A, was 102 ppm. Of this total residue, 98.5% was extractable and unmetabolized dimethomorph accounted for greater than 93% of the extractable TRR. No metabolites were identified that require regulation.]

2. Analytical method. [ A reliable method for the determination of dimethomorph residues in brassica, head and stem ( Subgroup 5A exists; this method is the FDA Multi Residue Method, Protocol D, as published in the Pesticide Analytical Manual I.] 3. Magnitude of residues. [ The residue data for Brassica, head and stem ( Subgroup 5A) submitted to support this tolerance petition were collected from 7 cabbage ( head) and 6 broccoli ( stem) studies conducted in cabbage and broccoli producing regions of the United States. Trials were conducted using multiple applications ( 7) of dimethomorph applied at 0.2 lb ai/ A with a maximum seasonal rate of 1.4 lb ai/ A ( 1.4X the proposed label rate). Dimethomorph residues observed in these field trials for cabbage ranged from < 0.05 ppm to 1.52 ppm when harvested 7 days after the last application and for broccoli ranged from 0.12 ppm to 0.52 ppm when harvested 7 days after the last application.

Therefore, a tolerance of 2.0 ppm in or on brassica, head and stem ( Subgroup 5A) is proposed.]

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. [ i. Oral LD50 studies were conducted on dimethomorph technical: a. An acute oral toxicity study in the Sprague Dawley rat for dimethomorph technical with a LD50 of 4,300 milligrams/ kilogram body weight ( mg/ kg b. w.) for males and 3,500 mg/ kg b. w. for females. Based upon EPA toxicity criteria, the acute oral toxicity category for dimethomorph technical is Category III or slightly toxic. b. An acute toxicity study in the CD 1 mouse for dimethomorph technical with a LD50 of greater than 5000 mg/ kg b. w. for males and 3699 mg/ kg/ b. w. for females. Based on the EPA toxicity category criteria, the acute oral toxicity category for dimethomorph technical is Category III or slightly toxic. ii. Oral LD50 studies were conducted on the two isomers ( E and Z) alone: a. An acute oral toxicity study in the Wistar rat for the E isomer with a LD50 greater than 5,000 mg/ kg b. w. for males and approximately 5,000 mg/ kg b. w. for females. b. An acute oral toxicity study in the Wistar rat for the Z isomer with a LD50 greater than 5,000 mg/ kg b. w. for both males and females. iii. An acute dermal toxicity study in the Wistar rat for dimethomorph technical with a dermal LD50 greater than 5,000 mg/ kg b. w. for both males and females. Based on the EPA toxicity category criteria, the acute dermal toxicity category for dimethomorph is Category IV or relatively non toxic. iv. A 4 hour inhalation study in Wistar rats for dimethomorph technical with a LC50 greater than 4.2 mg/ L for both males and females. Based on the EPA toxicity category criteria, the acute inhalation toxicity category for dimethomorph technical is Category IV or relatively non toxic. v. A skin irritation study was performed using New Zealand White rabbits. Based on the EPA toxicity criteria, the skin irritation toxicity category for dimethomorph technical in this study is Category IV or non to slightly irritating. vi. An eye irritation study using New Zealand White rabbits demonstrated dimethomorph technical produced moderate conjunctival redness, slight to moderate chemosis and slight discharge three hours after treatment. Based on the EPA toxicity criteria, the eye toxicity category for dimethomorph technical is Category III ( slightly to moderately irritating)] 2. Genotoxicty. [ i. Salmonella reverse gene mutation assays ( 2 studies) were negative up to a limit dose of 5,000 µ g/ plate. Chinese hamster lung V79 cells were negative for mutations at the HGPRT locus at up to toxic doses in two studies. ii. Two Chinese hamster lung ( V79 cells) structural chromosomal studies were reportedly positive for chromosomal aberrations at the highest dose tested ( HDT) ( 160 µ g/ ml/ S9; 170 µ g/ ml/+ S9). However, dimethomorph induced only a weak response in increasing chromosome aberrations in this test system. In addition, these results were not confirmed in two micronucleus tests under in vivo conditions. iii. Structural Chromosomal Aberration studies were weakly positive in human lymphocytic cultures, but only in S9 activated cultures treated at 422 µ g/ ml, the highest dose tested ( HDT), which was strongly cytotoxic. No increase in chromosomal aberrations was observed in the absence of S9 activation at all doses. Furthermore, the positive clastogenic response observed under the in vitro conditions was not confirmed in two in vivo micronucleus assays. iv. Micronucleus assay ( 2 studies) indicated that dimethomorph was negative for inducing micronuclei in bone marrow cells of mice following i. p. administration of doses up to 200 mg/ kg or oral doses up to the limit dose of 5,000 mg/ kg. Thus, dimethomorph was found to be negative in these studies for causing cytogenic damage in vivo. v. Dimethomorph was negative for inducing unscheduled DNA synthesis, in cultured rat liver cells, at doses up to 250 µ g/ ml, a weakly cytotoxic level. Dimethomorph was negative for transformation in Syrian hamster embryo cells treated, in the presence and absence of activation, up to cytotoxic concentrations ( 265 µ g/ ml/+ S9; 50 µ g/ ml/ S9).]

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [ i. A rat developmental toxicity study with a Lowest Observed Effect Level ( LOEL) for maternal toxicity of 160 mg/ kg/ day and a No Observed Effect Level ( NOEL) for maternal toxicity of 60 mg/ kg/ day. The NOEL for developmental toxicity is 60 mg/ kg/ day. Dimethomorph is not teratogenic in the Sprague Dawley rat. ii. A rabbit development toxicity study with a LOEL for maternal toxicity of 650 mg/ kg/ day and a NOEL for maternal toxicity of 300 mg/ kg/ day. The NOEL for developmental toxicity is 650 mg/ kg/ day, the highest dose tested. Dimethomorph is not teratogenic in the New Zealand white rabbit. iii. A two generation rat reproduction study with a LOEL for parental systemic toxicity of 1000 ppm, or approximately 80 mg/ kg/ day, and a NOEL for parental systemic toxicity of 300 ppm, or approximately 24 mg/ kg/ day. The NOEL for fertility and reproductive function was 1000 ppm, the highest concentration tested, or approximately 80 mg/ kg b. w./ day.]

4. Subchronic toxicity. [ i. A 90 day dietary study in Sprague Dawley rats with a NOEL of greater than or equal to 1000 ppm, the highest concentration tested, or approximately 73 mg/ kg/ day for males and 82 mg/ kg/ day for females. ii. A 90 day dog dietary study with a NOEL of 450 ppm, or approximately 15 mg/ kg/ day, and a LOEL of 1350 ppm, or approximately 43 mg/ kg/ day.]

5. Chronic toxicity. [ i. A 2 year chronic toxicity study in Sprague Dawley rats with a NOEL of 200 ppm or approximately 9 mg/ kg/ day for males and 12 mg/ kg/ day for females. The LOEL for systemic toxicity is 750 ppm, or approximately 36 mg/ kg/ day for males and 58 mg/ kg/ day for females. ii. A 1 year chronic toxicity study in dogs with a NOEL of 450 ppm, or approximately 14.7 mg/ kg/ day and a LOEL of 1350, or approximately 44.6 mg/ kg/ day. iii. A 2 year oncogenicity study in Sprague Dawley rats with a NOEL for systemic toxicity of 200 ppm, or approximately 9 mg/ kg/ day for males and 11 mg/ kg/ day for females. The LOEL for systemic toxicity was 750 ppm, or approximately 34 mg/ kg/ day for males and 46 mg/ kg/ day for females. There was no evidence of increased incidence of neoplastic lesions in treated animals. The NOEL for oncogenicity is 2000 ppm, the highest concentration tested, or approximately 95 mg/ kg/ day for males and 132 mg/ kg/ day for females. iv. A 2 year oncogenicity study in CD 1 mice with a NOEL for systemic toxicity of 100 mg/ kg/ day and a LOEL of 1,000 mg/ kg/ day. There was no evidence of increased incidence of neoplastic lesions in treated animals. The NOEL for oncogenicity is 1,000 mg/ kg/ day, the highest dose tested.]

6. Animal metabolism. [ Results from the livestock and rat metabolism studies show that orally administered dimethomorph was rapidly excreted by the animals. The principal route of elimination is the feces.]

7. Metabolite toxicology. [ There were no metabolites identified in plant or animal commodities which require regulation.]

8. Endocrine disruption. [ Collective organ weights and histopathological findings from the two generation reproduction study in rats, as well as from the subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in two or more animal species, demonstrate no apparent estrogenic effects or effects on the endocrine system. There is no information available that suggests that dimethomorph technical would be associated with endocrine effects.]

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. [ An assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential risk due to chronic dietary exposure of the U. S. population and sub populations to residues of dimethomorph. Tolerance values have previously been established for grape; grape, raisin; hop, dried cones; lettuce, head; lettuce, leaf; potato, wet peel; vegetable, bulb, group 3; and vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 and are listed in U. S. 40 CFR § 180.493. The EPA recently established additional tolerances for dimethomorph in brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B; taro, corm; taro, leaves;, and vegetable, fruiting, group 8 and are listed in the Federal Register, Volume 168, No. 188 page 55826. This analysis included the crops with established tolerance values and proposed crop tolerances for Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A. The proposed tolerance for subgroup 5A is 2.0 ppm.]

i. Food. [ Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment An acute assessment was not needed since the U. S. EPA Toxicological Endpoint Selection ( TES) Committees had previously evaluated the dimethomorph toxicity data, including developmental and maternal toxicity in the developmental toxicity studies and determined there was no toxicologic endpoints for acute dietary exposure and a quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessment were not required.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment A Tier 1 chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted assuming tolerance level residues and 100% crop treated factors for all registered and proposed crops. The EPA Food Commodity Ingredient Database ( FCID) was also used in Exponent's Dietary Exposure Evaluation Module ( DEEM FCID) software. Inadvertent residues in animal commodities ( i. e. meat, meat byproducts, milk, eggs) were not considered as a result of grain forage since studies have shown dimethomorph does not accumulate in animal tissues or milk and tolerance values for these commodities are not required by the EPA.

Dietary exposure estimates were compared against the established dimethomorph chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( cPAD) of 0.11 mg/ kg b. w./ day for all populations. Results of the chronic dietary assessments are listed in the table below. The estimated chronic dietary exposure from crops ( both established and proposed tolerances) was less than 16.0 % of the cPAD for all subpopulations. Additional refinements such as the use of anticipated residues would further reduce the estimated chronic dietary exposure. The results in the Table below demonstrate that there are no safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses, and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.

Table 1. Summary of Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment considering crops with established and proposed tolerances for Dimethomorph. Population Subgroups Exposure Estimate ( mg/ kg b. w./ day) % cPAD U. S. Population 0.007113 6.5 All Infants (< 1 yr old) 0.004183 3.8 Children 1 2 years 0.016758 15.2 Children 3 5 years 0.013179 12.0 Children 6   12 years 0.007767 7.1 Youth 13 19 years 0.005788 5.3 Females 13 49 years 0.006111 5.6 Adults 20 49 years 0.006555 6.0 Adults 50+ years 0.00626 5.6 % cPAD = percent of chronic population adjusted dose Exposure estimates based on tolerance values, percent crop treated values for established crop tolerances, 100% CT for crops with proposed tolerances ]

ii. Drinking water. [ Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated environmental concentrations ( EECs) from these models to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a % RfD or % PAD. Instead, drinking water levels of comparison ( DWLOCs) are calculated and used as points of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. A DWLOC is the theoretical upper allowable limit of a pesticide's concentration in drinking water and is calculated with considering the aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food and residential uses. A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water consumption, body weights, and pesticide uses.

Different populations will have different DWLOCs. If the DWLOC is greater than the model water concentrations, the EPA concludes that exposure from drinking water is not a risk issue. The modeled water concentration is obtained from PRZM/ EXAMS model for surface water and SCIGROW for groundwater. The values used for comparison to the DWLOC are the maximum concentrations for any use. When the EEC's are less than the calculated DWLOCs, EPA concludes with reasonable certainty that exposures to the pesticide in drinking water would not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk.

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk ( Food and water)

Since the U. S. EPA Toxicological Endpoint Selection ( TES) Committees has evaluated the dimethomorph toxicity data and determined there was no toxicologic endpoints for acute dietary exposure, the determination of an acute aggregate exposure and risk evaluation was not required.

Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk ( food and water)

Table 4. Summary of chronic drinking water levels of comparison for Dimethomorph Population Subgroup Chronic Food Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day cPAD1 Maximum Allowable Water Exposure ( mg/ kg/ b. w./ day) DWLOC ( ug/ L) Sci Grow ground water ( ug/ L) GENEEC surface water ( ug/ L)

US Population ( 0 1year) 0.007113 0.11 0.102887 3601 0.30 28.5 Infants (< 1 yr old) 0.004183 0.11 0.105817 1058 Children ( 1 2 years) 0.016758 0.11 0.093242 932 Females ( 13 49) 0.006111 0.11 0.103889 3117 Adults ( 20 49) 0.006555 0.11 0.103445 3620 1 Inter/ inter species safety factor = 100 FQPA safety factor = 1, NOAEL = 11 mg/ kg bw/ day The results in the summary table of chronic DWLOCs demonstrate that there are no safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses, and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.

In summary, we can conclude with reasonable certainty that no harm will occur from chronic aggregate exposure of dimethomorph.

Short and Intermediate Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk ( Food, Water and Residential Exposure)

Short and intermediate term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure from food and water. Dimethomorph is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum from chronic food and water. The chronic aggregate risk assessment has shown that there is no concern risk concerns. Therefore we can conclude with reasonable certainty that no harm will occur from short term aggregate exposure of dimethomorph residues.]

2. Non dietary exposure. [ Dimethomorph is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, a residential exposure and risk assessment was not conducted]

D. Cumulative Effects [ There is no information to indicate that any toxic effects produced by dimethomorph would be cumulative with those of any other chemical. The fungicidal mode of action of dimethomorph is unique; dimethomorph inhibits cell wall formation only in Oomycete fungi. The result is lysis of the cell wall that kills growing cells and inhibits spore formation in mature hyphae. This unique mode of action and limited pest spectrum suggest that there is little or no potential for cumulative toxic effects in mammals. In addition, the toxicity studies submitted to support this petition do not indicate that dimethomorph is a particularly toxic compound. No toxic end points of potential concern were identified.]

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. [ Based on this risk assessment, BASF concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population from the aggregate exposure to dimethomorph residues.] 2. Infants and children. [ Based on this risk assessment, BASF concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants or children from the aggregate exposure to dimethomorph residues.]

F. International Tolerances [ There are no Canadian, Mexican, or Codex MRLs established for dimethomorph for the commodities associated with this request; consequently, a discussion of international harmonization is not relevant.]


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 141 (Friday, July 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43230-43232]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17792]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety

Notice of Application for Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of Applications for Special Permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each
mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is
requested is indicated by a number in the ``Nature of Application''
portion of the table below as follows: 1--Motor vehicle, 2--Rail
freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft only, 5--Passenger-carrying
aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 23, 2010.
    Address Comments to: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 16, 2010.
Ryan Paquet,
Acting Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and
Approvals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Regulation(s)       Nature of special
   Application No.            Docket No.              Applicant           affected           permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               NEW SPECIAL PERMITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15059-N.............  .........................  Raytheon Missile    49 CFR 173.301,     To authorize the
                                                  Systems Company,    173.302 and         transportation in
                                                  Tucson, AZ.         173.306.            commerce of helium in
                                                                                non-DOT specification
                                                                                packaging (cryoengines
                                                                                and assemblies of
                                                                                Maverick Missiles,
                                                                                Guidance Control
                                                                                Sections and Training
                                                                                Guidance Missiles
                                                                                containing
                                                                                cryoengines). (modes
                                                                                1, 4, 5)

15062-N.............  .........................  Ryan Air Inc......  49 CFR              To authorize the
                                                                      173.302(f)(3) and   transportation in
                                                                      (f)(4) and          commerce of cylinders
                                                                      173.304(f)(3) and   containing oxidizing
                                                                      (f)(4).             gases without outer
                                                                                packaging capable of
                                                                                passing the Flame
                                                                                Penetration and
                                                                                Resistance Test and
                                                                                the Thermal Resistance
                                                                                Test, when no other
                                                                                practical means of
                                                                                transportation exist.
                                                                                (modes 4,5)
15069-N.............  .........................  Arkema, Inc.,       49 CFR 173.225(e).  To authorize the
                                                  Philadelphia, PA.                       transportation in
                                                                                commerce of Organic
                                                                                peroxide Type F,
                                                                                Liquid in UN31HA1
                                                                                intermediate bulk
                                                                                containers by motor
                                                                                vehicle. (mode 1)
15070-N.............  .........................  Carleton            49 CFR 173.302a,    To authorize the
                                                  Technologies,       173.304a and        manufacture marking,
                                                  Inc.,               180.205.            sale and use of carbon
                                                  Westminster, MD.                        and glass fiber
                                                                                reinforced, brass
                                                                                lined composite
                                                                                pressure vessels.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
15071-N.............  .........................  Orbital Sciences    49 CFR 173.62(c)..  To authorize the
                                                  Corporation,                            transportation in
                                                  Dulles, VA.                             commerce of a
                                                                                Cartridge, power
                                                                                device installed as
                                                                                part of a launch
                                                                                vehicle subassembly in
                                                                                alternative packaging
                                                                                by motor vehicle and
                                                                                cargo vessel. (modes
                                                                                1, 3)
15073-N.............  .........................  Utility Aviation,   49 CFR 172.101      To authorize the
                                                  Inc.                Column (9B),        transportation in
                                                                      172.204(c)(3),      commerce of certain
                                                                      173.27(b)(2),       hazardous materials by
                                                                      173.30(a)(1),       cargo aircraft
                                                                      175.200, 172.300    including by external
                                                                      and 172.400.        load in remote areas
                                                                                of the US without
                                                                                being subject to
                                                                                hazard communication
                                                                                requirements and
                                                                                quantity limitations
                                                                                where no other means
                                                                                of transportation is
                                                                                available. (mode 4)
15075-N.............  .........................  Lynden Air Cargo,   49 CFR              To authorize the
                                                  Anchorage, AK.      173.302(f)(3) and   transportation in
                                                                      (f)(4) and          commerce of cylinders
                                                                      173.304(f)(3) and   containing oxidizing
                                                                      (f)(4).             gases without outer
                                                                                packaging capable of
                                                                                passing the Flame
                                                                                Penetration and
                                                                                Resistance Test and
                                                                                the Thermal Resistance
                                                                                Test, when no other
                                                                                practical means of
                                                                                transportation exist.
                                                                                (mode 4)
15076-N.............  .........................  Arctic              49 CFR              To authorize the
                                                  Transportation      173.302(f)(3) and   transportation in
                                                  Services,           (f)(4) and          commerce of cylinders
                                                  Anchorage AK.       173.304(f)(3) and   containing oxidizing
                                                                      (f)(4).             gases without outer
                                                                                packaging capable of
                                                                                passing the Flame
                                                                                Penetration and
                                                                                Resistance Test and
                                                                                the Thermal Resistance
                                                                                Test, when no other
                                                                                practical means of
                                                                                transportation exist.
                                                                                (mode 4)
15077-N.............  .........................  Frontier Flying     49 CFR              To authorize the
                                                  Service, Inc.,      173.302(f)(3) and   transportation in
                                                  Fairbanks, AK.      (f)(4) and          commerce of cylinders
                                                                      173.304(f)(3) and   containing oxidizing
                                                                      (f)(4).             gases without outer
                                                                                packaging capable of
                                                                                passing the Flame
                                                                                Penetration and
                                                                                Resistance Test and
                                                                                the Thermal Resistance
                                                                                Test, when no other
                                                                                practical means of
                                                                                transportation exist.
                                                                                (mode 4)
15078-N.............  .........................  Spernak Airways,    49 CFR              To authorize the
                                                  Anchorage, AK.      173.302(f)(3) and   transportation in
                                                                      (f)(4) and          commerce of cylinders
                                                                      173.304(f)(3) and   containing oxidizing
                                                                      (f)(4).             gases without outer
                                                                                packaging capable of
                                                                                passing the Flame
                                                                                Penetration and
                                                                                Resistance Test and
                                                                                the Thermal Resistance
                                                                                Test, when no other
                                                                                practical means of
                                                                                transportation exist.
                                                                                (mode 4)
15079-N.............  .........................  Northern Air        49 CFR              To authorize the
                                                  Cargo, Anchorage,   173.302(f)(3) and   transportation in
                                                  AK.                 (f)(4) and          commerce of cylinders
                                                                      173.304(f)(3) and   containing oxidizing
                                                                      f)(4).              gases without outer
                                                                                packagings capable of
                                                                                passing the Flame
                                                                                Penetration and
                                                                                Resistance Test and
                                                                                the Thermal Resistance
                                                                                Test, when no other
                                                                                practical means of
                                                                                transportation exist.
                                                                                (mode 4)
15080-N.............  .........................  Alaska Airlines,    49 CFR              to authorize the
                                                  Seattle, WA.        173.302(f)(3) and   transportation in
                                                                      (f)(4) and          commerce of cylinders
                                                                      173.304(f)(3) and   containing oxidizing
                                                                      (f)(4).             gases without rigid
                                                                                outer packagings
                                                                                without outer
                                                                                packaging capable of
                                                                                passing the Flame
                                                                                Penetration and
                                                                                Resistance Test and
                                                                                the Thermal Resistance
                                                                                Test, when no other
                                                                                practical means of
                                                                                transportation exist.
                                                                                (mode 4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-17792 Filed 7-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register: September 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 55580-55582]
[DOCID:fr25se08-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58608; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-101]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. To Temporarily
Suspend the Requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 2.4 and Related NYSE Arca
Rules Concerning Options Trading Permit Holder Applications and
Approvals In Order To Immediately Approve Barclays Capital Inc. as an
NYSE Arca OTP Holder

September 19, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 19, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act,\4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\5\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.\6\ The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \6\ NYSE Arca gave the Commission written notice of its
intention to file the proposed rule change on September 19, 2008.
The Commission reviewed the proposed rule change and gave NYSE Arca
permission to file the proposed the rule change on the same day.
NYSE Arca asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay.
See Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to temporarily suspend the requirements of
NYSE Arca Rule 2.4 and related NYSE Arca rules concerning Options
Trading Permit (``OTP'') Holder applications and approvals in order to
immediately approve Barclays Capital Inc. (``BCI'') as an NYSE Arca OTP
Holder, subject to BCI complying with Exchange rules for applying to
become an OTP Holder (and being approved by the Exchange) within 60
days of the date that BCI is provisionally approved as an NYSE Arca OTP
Holder.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to temporarily suspend the requirements of
NYSE Arca Rule 2.4 and related rules regarding the application and
approval of OTP Holders in order to immediately approve, as an NYSE
Arca OTP Holder, the entity that acquires the assets of Lehman Brothers
Inc. (``LBI''). The Exchange proposes this temporary suspension on an
emergency basis to ensure that the acquiring entity, Barclays Capital
Inc. (``BCI''), which is a U.S. registered broker dealer and FINRA
member, will be able to expeditiously complete its proposed acquisition
of certain LBI assets and begin operating former LBI business lines, as
early as September 22, 2008. This proposed temporary suspension is
contingent upon BCI having applied for and been approved as a new NYSE
Arca OTP Holder pursuant to Exchange rules within 60 days of the date
that BCI is provisionally approved as an NYSE Arca OTP Holder pursuant
to this rule filing.

1. Background
A. Lehman Files for Bankruptcy
    On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. (``Lehman'')
filed for bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
bankruptcy code. Lehman is the parent holding company of LBI, which is
a registered broker dealer and NYSE Arca OTP Holder.
    Although LBI did not file for bankruptcy protection at that time,
Lehman's Chapter 11 status impacted the ability of LBI to continue
operations.
    On September 17, 2008, Barclays Bank PLC (``Barclays''), a global
financial services provider, announced that it had agreed to acquire
the LBI investment banking and capital markets operations and
supporting infrastructure for $1.75 billion (the ``proposed
acquisition''). As part of the proposed acquisition, Barclays would be
acquiring the LBI fixed income and equities sales, trading and
research, and investment banking businesses, including Lehman Brothers
Market Makers (``LBMM'') (the ``LBI businesses''). Barclays would also
be acquiring approximately 10,000 LBI employees, the Lehman
headquarters located at 745 Seventh Avenue in New York City, and two
data centers located in New Jersey.
    The proposed acquisition is subject to a number of conditions,
including approval by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York and other regulatory approvals and
antitrust review. Moreover, if the proposed acquisition is not
completed by September 24, 2008, Barclays may terminate the agreement
to acquire LBI businesses.
B. Barclays Will Transfer LBI Assets to BCI
    On September 19, 2008, Barclays announced that certain LBI assets,
including its employees and businesses, will be transferred to its
wholly-owned subsidiary, BCI. BCI is a registered U.S. broker dealer
and FINRA member. However, BCI is not currently approved as an NYSE
Arca OTP Holder.
    The Exchange understands that LBI will likely file for some form of
bankruptcy protection on Friday, September 19, 2008, and thus by the
close of business on Friday, LBI will be in the control of a trustee.
The Exchange further understands that, subject to approval by the
bankruptcy court, as part of the bankruptcy proceeding, LBI assets will
be sold to Barclays and transferred to BCI. Accordingly, as early as
September 19, 2008, BCI may own and control the LBI businesses.
2. Proposed Temporary Suspension of NYSE Arca Rule 2.4 and Related
Rules
A. Background
    NYSE Arca Rule 2.4 requires any individual or organization applying
to become an OTP Holder to complete an application and file it with the
Exchange. NYSE Arca OTP Holder status cannot be transferred to the
acquiring entity; the entity that proposes to continue the business
operations of the predecessor member organization must be separately
approved as an NYSE Arca OTP Holder.
B. A Temporary Suspension of NYSE Arca Rule 2.4 and Related Rules for
BCI Is Consistent With the Act
    As proposed, BCI will continue the business operations of LBI in
the same manner that they were operated by LBI. Because the bankruptcy
proceeding for LBI will likely be on September 19, 2008, BCI could be
eligible to begin operations as an NYSE Arca OTP Holder on Monday,
September 22, 2008.
    To ensure that BCI can continue the LBI operations without
unnecessary interruption, including all operations that required LBI to
be an NYSE Arca OTP Holder, such as entering orders directly with the
Exchange, the Exchange believes that BCI should be approved immediately
as an NYSE Arca OTP Holder. The Exchange notes that BCI is already a
registered broker dealer, which is a prerequisite to becoming an NYSE
Arca OTP Holder. See NYSE Arca Rule 2.3.
    The Exchange therefore proposes providing BCI with a temporary
suspension of NYSE Arca Rules 2.4 and 2.23, as they relate to approval
to operate as an NYSE Arca OTP Holder and approval of a proposed OTP
Holder's approved persons, and immediately approve BCI as an OTP
Holder. As proposed, this temporary suspension is contingent upon:
     BCI providing the Exchange with sufficient information to
confirm that BCI will meet its capital requirements as an NYSE Arca OTP
Holder; and
     Within 60 days of BCI's approval as an NYSE Arca OTP
Holder under this proposed filing, BCI and its approved persons will
have applied for and complied with the Exchange's new member
organization requirements, as set forth in the Exchange's rules.
    Moreover, the Exchange proposes that in addition to being approved
as an NYSE Arca OTP Holder, to ensure that certain LBI market making
operations can continue, BCI should also be deemed approved as a Market
Maker as defined under NYSE Arca Rules 6.32A and 6.33. This approval is
contingent upon BCI certifying in writing to the Exchange that, for the
period immediately following approval as an NYSE Arca OTP Holder until
such time that BCI is independently approved as an NYSE Arca OTP
Holder:
     BCI will maintain the existing LBMM technologies,
staffing, supervisory structure, and written supervisory procedures
with respect to its market making operations; and
     Within 60 days of BCI's approval as an NYSE Arca OTP
Holder under this proposed filing, BCI and its approved persons will
have applied for registration as a Market Maker and will have been
approved by the Exchange as a Market Maker, consistent with the
Exchange's requirements for registration as a Market Maker pursuant to
NYSE Arca Rule 6.33(a).
    Upon receipt of such written statement, the Exchange will approve
BCI as a successor entity to LBI's registration as a Market Maker on
the Exchange.
    As proposed, if BCI does not apply for and be approved as a new
NYSE Arca OTP Holder pursuant to Exchange rules within 60 days of the
effective date of this filing, BCI's provisional status as an approved
NYSE Arca OTP Holder will no longer be effective.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\8\ in particular, because it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3)
become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    NYSE Arca has requested the Commission to waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission hereby grants NYSE Arca's request.\11\
The Commission notes that the Exchange is proposing that certain of its
rules relating to membership requirements be temporarily suspended so
that BCI can be provisionally approved as an NYSE Arca OTP Holder. The
proposed relief does not exempt BCI from Exchange rule requirements
governing member organizations. BCI would have a 60-day grace period
within which to apply for and be approved under relevant Exchange
rules. Moreover, the Commission believes that immediate effectiveness
is appropriate to ensure a smooth transition of the LBI businesses to
another entity. In particular, with respect to BCI, time is of the
essence as it has been announced that BCI may succeed to LBI's assets
as early as September 19, 2008. Therefore, the Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest and designates the proposed rule
change as operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For purposes of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposal's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-101 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-NYSEArca-2008-101. 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 between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at NYSE Arca's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at http://www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEArca-2008-101 and should be
submitted on or before October 16, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22504 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64184-64185]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22495]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4277-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of Louisiana (FEMA-4277-DR), dated August 14, 2016, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 8, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 8, 2016, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to W. Craig
Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Louisiana resulting from severe storms and flooding during the
period of August 11-31, 2016, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are warranted
regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declaration of August 14, 2016, to
authorize Federal funds for all categories of Public Assistance at
90 percent of total eligible costs.

    This adjustment to State and local cost sharing applies only to
Public Assistance costs including direct Federal assistance eligible
for such adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar
adjustment for funds provided for Other Needs Assistance (section
408), and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (section 404). These
funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible
costs.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households, 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-22495 Filed 9-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 57756-57758]
[DOCID:fr22se10-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

September 15, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC10-96-000.
    Applicants: Snowflake White Mountain Power, LLC, Snowflake Power,
LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization of Disposition and
Acquisition of Existing Generation Facility and Related Jurisdictional
Agreements, and Request for Shortened Comment Period and Expedited
Consideration.
    Filed Date: 09/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100914-5181.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 5, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG10-68-000.
    Applicants: Minco Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Minco Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 09/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100914-5131.

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

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1102-001.
    Applicants: Madison Paper Industries.
    Description: Madison Paper Industries submits tariff filing per 35:
Baseline Filing to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 09/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100915-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 6, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2642-000.
    Applicants: Cedars Rapids Transmission Company Limit.
    Description: Cedars Rapids Transmission Company Limited submits
tariff filing per 35.12: CRT Baseline Filing to be effective 9/14/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100914-5158.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2643-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits a Letter
Agreement with NextEra Energy Resources, LLC for Engineering Study, to
be effective 9/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100915-5022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 6, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2644-000.
    Applicants: Hardwood Energy LLC.
    Description: Hardwood Energy LLC submits an application for
authorization to make wholesale sales of energy and capacity at
negotiated, market-based rates.
    Filed Date: 09/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100915-0200.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2645-000.
    Applicants: Baconton Power LLC.
    Description: Baconton Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12:
Baseline Market-Based Rates to be effective 9/15/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100915-5053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 6, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2646-000.
    Applicants: APX, Inc.
    Description: APX, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.12: APX
Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 9/15/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100915-5054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 6, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2648-000.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-opertive, Inc.
    Description: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
submits its Baseline Tariff Filing, to be effective 9/15/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100915-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 6, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2649-000.
    Applicants: Central Illinois Public Service Company.
    Description: Central Illinois Public Service Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): AIC MBR and Short-Term Protocol to be
effective 12/31/1998.
    Filed Date: 09/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100915-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 6, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2650-000.
    Applicants: ISO Trader, LLC.
    Description: ISO Trader, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12:
Baseline Electric Market-Based Rates to be effective 9/15/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100915-5076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 6, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2651-000.
    Applicants: Lockhart Power Company.
    Description: Lockhart Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.12: Lockhart MBR Baseline Filing to be effective 8/31/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100915-5085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 6, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2652-000.
    Applicants: Lockhart Power Company.
    Description: Lockhart Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.12: Lockhart COSAC Baseline Filing to be effective 8/31/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100915-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 6, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2653-000.
    Applicants: Snowflake Power, LLC.
    Description: Snowflake Power, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12:
Snowflake Power, LLC MBR Tariff Application to be effective 9/15/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100915-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 6, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2654-000.
    Applicants: Vitol Inc.
    Description: Vitol Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.12: Baseline
to be effective 9/15/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100915-5119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 6, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2655-000.
    Applicants: Gateway Energy Services Corporation.
    Description: Gateway Energy Services Corporation submits tariff
filing per 35.12: Market-Based Rate Tariff in Compliance with Order No.
714 to be effective 9/15/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100915-5168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 6, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2656-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Tucson Electric Power Company submits tariff filing
per 35.12: Baseline Filing--Tucson Electric Power Company Open Access
Transmission Tariff to be effective 9/16/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100915-5182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 6, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to

challenge such qualifying facility status may do so by filing a motion
pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be
filed in response to notices of qualifying facility dockets other than
self-certifications and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23619 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P