[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 520]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33795]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66070; File No. SR-OCC-2011-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments No. 1,
No. 2, and No. 3, Relating to Relative Performance Indexes

 December 29, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On September 21, 2011, the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2011-13 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ On October 4, 2011, OCC filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on
October 11, 2011.\3\ On November 17, 2011, OCC filed Amendment No. 2
and Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendments No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 was published
in the Federal Register on November 29, 2011.\4\ The Commission
received no comment letters on the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendments No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3. This order approves the proposed
rule change as modified by Amendments No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65483 (October 4, 2011),
76 FR 62981 (October 11, 2011).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65807 (September 21,
2011), 76 FR 73752 (November 29, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to remove any potential
cloud on the jurisdictional status of relative performance indexes.
NASDAQ OMX PHLX has proposed to trade options on indexes (``Alpha Index
Options'') that measure the relative total returns of a stock or
exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') against another stock or ETF, including
where one of the reference ETFs measured by the index is a gold- or
silver-based ETF.\5\ Generally, OCC believes that a relative
performance index should be considered to be an index of securities
since the components of a relative performance index are ETFs or other
securities. However, OCC would like to confirm the jurisdictional
treatment of relative performance indexes in situations in which a
reference security of an underlying relative performance index is an
ETF designed to measure the return of gold or silver. To accomplish
this purpose, OCC is adding an interpretation following Section 2 in
Article XVII of its By-Laws,\6\ clarifying that OCC will clear and
treat as securities any relative performance index. The Commission and
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') have previously
approved changes to OCC's By-Laws clarifying that options on the CBOE
Gold ETF Volatility Index will be cleared and treated as securities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The staff notes that on August 17, 2011, the Commission
issued an Order granting approval to this proposed rule change. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-65149, 76 FR 52729 (August
23, 2011).
    \6\ The staff notes that OCC is also adding a definition of
``relative performance index'' to Section 1, which will be defined
as an index designed to measure the relative performance of a
reference security or reference index in relation to another
reference security or reference index.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-62290, 75 FR
35861 (June 23, 2010); CFTC Order Exempting the Trading and Clearing
of Certain Products Related to the CBOE Gold ETF Volatility Index
and Similar Products, 75 FR 81977 (December 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its capacity as a ``derivatives clearing organization''
registered as such with the CFTC, OCC filed the proposed rule change
for prior approval by the CFTC pursuant to provisions of the Commodity
Exchange Act (the ``CEA'') in order to foreclose any potential
liability under the CEA based on an argument that the clearing by OCC
of such options as securities options constitutes a violation of the
CEA. OCC amended the rule filing at the request of the CFTC to clarify
that OCC will clear and treat as options on securities any options on
relative performance indexes for which a reference security is an
exchange-traded fund designed to measure the return of gold or
silver.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The staff notes that Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 provide that the
interpretation will not include options on relative performance
indexes for which a reference security is an exchange-traded fund
designed to measure the return of a commodity other than gold or
silver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
derivative transactions.\9\ The proposed rule change is similar to a
proposed rule change the Commission approved previously with respect to
the jurisdictional status CBOE Gold ETF Volatility Index and clarifies
that OCC will clear and treat as securities any relative performance
index, including in situations in which one of the reference securities
of a relative performance index is an ETF designed to measure the
return of gold or silver. Any uncertainty regarding the jurisdictional
status of a product could presumably interfere with OCC's ability to
provide clearance and settlement services with respect to the product.
The proposed rule change, by allowing OCC to clarify in its rules the
treatment of a relative performance index, should facilitate the
clearance and settlement of such products and, thus, should help
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and of derivative transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \10\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No.
1, No. 2, and No. 3, (File No. SR-OCC-2011-13) be, and hereby is,
approved.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \12\ In approving this proposed rule change the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact of efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-33795 Filed 1-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 140)]
[Notices]
[Page 42362]
[DOCID:fr21jy08-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1773-DR]

Missouri; Amendment No. 4 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 declaration
for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1773-DR), dated June 25, 2008, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 11, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of June 25, 2008.

    Linn County for Individual Assistance.
    Gentry and Livingston Counties for Individual Assistance and
Public Assistance.
    Bates, Daviess, Grundy, Harrison, Mercer, Polk, and Webster
Counties for Public Assistance.

(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
Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared
Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-16549 Filed 7-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register: February 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 5790-5794]
[DOCID:fr04fe10-58]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0045; FRL-8807-5]

Notice of Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for
Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Agency's receipt of several initial
filings of pesticide petitions proposing the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)

number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in
the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID number and the
pesticide petition number of interest as shown in the body of this
document. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A contact person, with telephone
number and e-mail address, is listed at the end of each pesticide
petition summary. You may also reach each contact person by mail at
Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition
summary of interest.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have a typical or disproportionately high and adverse
human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

     EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that
the pesticide petitions described in this notice contain the data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not
fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or
whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions.
Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination
on these pesticide petitions.
     Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available on-line at http://
www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)),
EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

New Tolerances

     1. PP 9E7606. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0906). Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc., 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300,
proposes to establish an import tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide isopyrazam (SYN520453), in or on banana at
0.05 parts per million (ppm). An adequate, validated method
(GRM006.01B) is available for enforcement purposes for the
determination of residues of isopyrazam, analyzed as the isomers
SYN534968 and SYN534969, in crop samples. The limit of quantitation
(LOQ) has been set at 0.005 mg/kg for each isomer (0.01 mg/kg for
SYN520453 in total). Final determination is by liquid chromatography-
mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). An analytical method
suitable for the determination of residues of the metabolites
CSCD459488 and CSCD459489 (syn and anti forms respectively) in crop
samples using an external standardization procedure is also available
(GRM006.03A). The LOQ has been set at 0.005 mg/kg for both analytes.
Final determination is by LC-MS/MS. Contact: Shaunta Hill, (703) 347-
8961<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     2. PP 9E7632. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0861). The Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ
08540, proposes to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the insecticide spirodiclofen, (3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-
oxo-1-oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2-dimethylbutanoate), in or on the
bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 4.0 ppm. Adequate analytical methodology
using LC-MS/MS detection is available for enforcement purposes.
Contact: Laura Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>     3. PP 9E7642. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0890). The Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ
08540, in cooperation with Chemtura Corp., 199 Benson Rd (2-5),
Middlebury, CT 06749, proposes to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part
180 for residues of the insecticide bifenazate, (1-methylethyl 2-(4-
methoxy[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl)hydrazinecarboxylate) and diazinecarboxylic
acid, 2-(4-methoxy-[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl), 1-methylethyl ester
(expressed as bifenazate), in or on sugar apple, cherimoya, atemoya,
custard apple, ilama, soursop, and biriba at 1.5 ppm; avocado at 7.0
ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing subgroup 13-07F, except fuzzy kiwi
fruit at 0.75 ppm; and berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 1.5 ppm.
Chemtura Corporation, has developed practical analytical methodology
for detecting and measuring residues of bifenazate in or on raw
agricultural commodities. As D3598, a significant metabolite, was found
to interconvert readily to/from bifenazate, the analytical method was
designed to convert all residues of D3598 to the parent compound
(bifenazate) for analysis. The method, ``Determination of Combined
Bifenazate and D3598 Residues in Sugar Apple'', utilizes reversed phase
high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) to separate the
bifenazate from matrix derived interferences, and oxidative coulometric
electrochemical detection for the identification and quantification of
this analyte. The lowest level of method validation (LLMV) in this
study was 0.05 ppm for each analyte. Based on recoveries of samples
fortified at the LLMV, the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of
quantitation (LOQ) were calculated as 0.0308 ppm and 0.0923 ppm,
respectively, for bifenazate and as 0.0332 ppm and 0.0997 ppm,
respectively, for D3598. Contact: Sidney Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     4. PP 9E7651. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0980). Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, proposes to establish
import tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the insecticide
fluazifop-p-butyl, in or on potato, tuber at 1.1 ppm; potato, peel
(wet) at 1.1 ppm; potato, chips at 3.0 ppm; and potato, granules/flakes
at 5.0 ppm. Syngenta has developed and validated analytical methodology
for enforcement purposes. This method has been submitted to the Agency
and is in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol. II (PAM II). An
extensive database of method validation data using this method on
various crop commodities is available. Contact: Michael Walsh, (703)
308-2972<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. PP 9F7568. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0481). Valent U.S.A. Company, 1600
Riviera Ave., Walnut Creek, CA 94596-8025, proposes to establish
tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide 2,6-
Dichlorobenzamide (BAM), in or on cattle, fat; cattle, meat byproducts;
goat, fat; goat, meat byproducts; horse, fat; horse, meat byproducts;
sheep, fat; and sheep, meat byproducts at 0.05 ppm; and cattle, meat;
goat, meat; horse, meat; sheep, meat at 0.02 ppm, and milk at 0.02 ppm.
A practical analytical method utilizing liquid chromatography and mass
spectrometry detection that is validated for detecting and measuring
levels of fluopicolide and BAM in animal matrices has been submitted. A
confirmation method for milk, with a limit of quantitation of 0.002
ppm, has also been developed and is being submitted as part of this
petition. Contact: Janet Whitehurst,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    6. PP 9F7590. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0873). BASF Corporation, P.O. Box
13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, proposes to establish
tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide
pyraclostrobin, carbamic acid [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester and its metabolite methyl-
N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]o-tolyl] carbamate (BF 500-3);
expressed as parent compound, in or on soybean, forage at 11.0 ppm; and
soybean, hay at 14.0 ppm. In plants, the method of analysis is aqueous
organic solvent extraction, column clean up and quantitation by LC-MS/
MS. In animals, the method of analysis involves base hydrolysis,
organic extraction, column clean up and quantitation by LC-MS/MS

or derivatization (methylation) followed by quantitation by gas
chromatography/MS (GC/MS). Contact: Shaunta Hill,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    7. PP 9F7617. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0481). Valent U.S.A. Company, 1600
Riviera Ave., Walnut Creek, CA 94596-8025, proposes to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide
fluopicolide, 2,6-dichloro-N-[[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridyl]methyl]benzamide, as an indicator of combined residues of
fluopicolide and its metabolite, 2,6-dichlorobenzamide (BAM), in or on
vegetable, Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 05B at 20 ppm. Practical
analytical methods for detecting and measuring levels of fluopicolide
and its metabolites have been developed and validated in/on all
appropriate plant and animal matrices. An analytical method for
detecting fluopicolide and BAM in mustard greens has been submitted
with this petition. The LOQ of fluopicolide and the metabolite in the
analytical method for mustard greens is 10 parts per billion (ppb)
(0.01 ppm), which will allow monitoring for residues at the levels
proposed for the tolerances. Contact: Janet Whitehurst,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    8. PP 9F7620. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0836). Gowan Company, 370 S. Main
Street, Yuma, AZ 85364, proposes to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR
part 180 for residues of the herbicide S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate
(EPTC), in or on grasses grown for seed, hay at 0.1 ppm and grasses
grown for seed, forage at 0.2 ppm. Adequate methods are available for
the determination of EPTC and three hydroxy metabolites in crops,
including grass grown for seed. The EPA reviewed these methods and
noted in the ``1999 EPTC Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)''
that methods are available and adequate. The LOQ of the methods is 0.05
ppm for EPTC and 0.01 ppm for each of the hydroxy metabolites. Contact:
Bethany Benbow,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>     9. PP 9F7639. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0920). Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, proposes to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide diquat
dibromide, in or on canola, seed at 1.0 ppm; and canola, meal at 3.0
ppm. An adequate analytical method, extraction with sulfuric acid with
HPLC detection, is available for enforcement purposes. Analytical
methods for enforcing these tolerances have been published in the PAM
II. Contact: Bethany Benbow,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Amended Tolerances

     1. PP 9E7632. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0861). The Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ
08540, proposes to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.608 by revising
the tolerance expression under paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) to read as
follows: (a)(1). Tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide spirodiclofen, including its metabolites and degradates.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified is to be determined by
measuring only spirodiclofen (3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-
oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2-dimethylbutanoate). (a)(2). Tolerances
are established for residues of the insecticide spirodiclofen,
including its metabolites and degradates. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified is to be determined by measuring only the sum of
spirodiclofen (3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3-en-4-
yl 2,2-dimethylbutanoate) and its metabolite 3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-
hydroxy-1-oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3-en-2-one, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of spirodiclofen. Adequate analytical methodology using LC-
MS/MS detection is available for enforcement purposes. Contact: Laura
Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 9F7576. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0673). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, proposes to increase the
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.361 for residues of the herbicide
pendimethalin, N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine,
and its metabolite 4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl
alcohol, in or on alfalfa, forage from 3.0 ppm to 3.5 ppm. In plants,
the method is aqueous organic solvent extraction, column clean up, and
quantitation by GC. The method has a LOQ of 0.05 ppm for pendimethalin
and the alcohol metabolite. Contact: Philip Errico,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
New Tolerance Exemptions

     1. PP 9E7627. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0046). Joint Inerts Task Force,
Cluster Support Team 25, EPA Company Number 84866, c/o CropLife
America, 1156 15th St., NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005, proposes
to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of N-alkyl (C8-C18) primary amines and
acetate salts (NAPAAS) under 40 CFR 180.910 and 180.930 when used as
inert ingredients in pesticide formulations, limited to a maximum of
10% by weight in herbicide products, and 4% by weight in other
pesticidal products for the following N-alkyl (C8-
C18) primary amines and acetate salts where the alkyl group
is linear and may be saturated and or unsaturated including: The N-
alkyl (C8-C18) primary amines acetate salts:
amines, coco alkyl, acetates (61790-57-6); amines, soya alkyl, acetates
(61790-60-1); amines, hydrogenated tallow alkyl, acetates (61790-59-8);
and amines, tallow alkyl, acetates (61790-58-7); and the following N-
alkyl (C8-C18) primary amines: amines, coco alkyl
(61788-46-3); amines, coco alkyl (61790-33-8); and amines,
C14-18 and C16-18
unsaturated alkyl (68155-38-4). The petitioner believes no analytical
method is needed because requirements for an analytical method are not
applicable to a request to establish an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance. Contact: Karen Samek,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     2. PP 9E7628. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0131). Joint Inerts Task Force,
Cluster Support Team 2, EPA Company Number 84914, c/o CropLife America,
1156 15th St., NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005, proposes to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of alkyl alcohol alkoxylate phosphate derivatives (AAAPD) under 40 CFR
180.910 and 180.930 when used as inert ingredients in pesticide
formulations, limited to a maximum of 30% by weight in end-use products
for the [alpha]-alkyl (minimum C6 linear or branched,
saturated and or unsaturated)-[omega]-hydroxypolyoxyethylene polymer
with or without polyoxypropylene, mixture of di- and monohydrogen
phosphate esters and the corresponding ammonium, calcium, magnesium,
monoethanolamine, potassium, sodium and zinc salts of the phosphate
esters; minimum oxyethylene content averages 2 moles; minimum
oxypropylene content is 0 moles, including: Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl),
[alpha]-tridecyl-[omega]-hydroxy-, phosphate (9046-01-9); Poly(oxy-1,2-
ethanediyl), [alpha]-dodecyl-[omega]-hydroxy-, phosphate (39464-66-9);
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-hexadecyl-[omega]-hydroxy-, phosphate
(50643-20-4); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-decyl-[omega]-hydroxy-,
phosphate (52019-36-0); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-hydro-
[omega]-hydroxy-, mono-C12-15-alkyl ethers,
phosphates (69071-35-2); Polyphosphoric acids, esters with polyethylene
glycol decyl ether (68458-48-0); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-
hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-, mono-C10-14-alkyl ethers,
phosphates (68585-36-4); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-hydro-
[omega]-hydroxy-, mono-C12-15-branched alkyl

ethers, phosphates (68815-11-2); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-
hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-, mono-C10-12-alkyl ethers,
phosphates (68908-64-5); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-hydro-
[omega]-hydroxy-, mono-C12-14-alkyl ethers,
phosphates (68511-37-5); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-hydro-
[omega]-hydroxy-, mono-C8-10-alkyl ethers,
phosphates (68130-47-2); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-dodecyl-
[omega]-hydroxy-, phosphate, sodium salt (42612-52-2); Poly(oxy-1,2-
ethanediyl), [alpha]-dodecyl-[omega]-hydroxy-, phosphate, potassium
salt (58318-92-6); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-hexadecyl-[omega]-
hydroxy-, phosphate, potassium salt (60267-55-2); Poly(oxy-1,2-
ethanediyl), [alpha]-decyl-[omega]-hydroxy-, phosphate, potassium salt
(68070-99-5); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-tridecyl-[omega]-
hydroxy-, phosphate, potassium salt (68186-36-7); Poly(oxy-1,2-
ethanediyl), [alpha]-decyl-[omega]-hydroxy-, phosphate, sodium salt
(68186-37-8); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-,
mono-C12-15-alkyl ethers, phosphates, sodium
salts (68610-65-1); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-isodecyl-[omega]-
hydroxy-, phosphate, potassium salt (68071-17-0); (branched C10)
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-phosphono-[omega]-[(2-
propylheptyl)oxy]-, potassium salt (1:2) (936100-29-7); (branched C10)
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-phosphono-[omega]-[(2-
propylheptyl)oxy]-, sodium salt (1:2) (936100-30-0); Poly(oxy-1,2-
ethanediyl), [alpha]-isotridecyl-[omega]-hydroxy-, phosphate (73038-25-
2); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-, mono-
C11-14-isoalkyl ethers, C13-rich,
phosphates (78330-24--2); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-hydro-
[omega]-hydroxy-, mono(C10-rich C9-11-
isoalkyl) ethers, phosphates (154518-39-5); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl),
[alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-, mono-C12-14-sec-
alkyl ethers, phosphates (317833-96-8); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl),
[alpha]-isodecyl-[omega]-hydroxy-, phosphate (108818-88-8); Poly(oxy-
1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-phosphono-[omega]-[(2-propylheptyl)oxy]
(873662-29-4); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-dodecyl-[omega]-
hydroxy-, phosphate, monoethanolamine salt (61837-79-4); Poly(oxy-1,2-
ethanediyl), [alpha]-tridecyl-[omega]-hydroxy-, phosphate
monoethanolamine salt (68311-02-4); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-
decyl-[omega]-hydroxy-, phosphate, monoethanolamine salt (68425-73-0);
Oxirane, methyl-, polymer with oxirane, phosphate (37280-82-3);
Oxirane, methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono-C10-
16-alkyl ethers, phosphates (68649-29-6); Oxirane, methyl-,
polymer with oxirane, phosphate, potassium salt (67711-84-6); and
Oxirane, methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono-C10-
16-alkyl ethers, phosphates, potassium salt (68891-13-4).
The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because
requirements for an analytical method are not applicable to a request
to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact:
Karen Samek,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>     3. PP 9E7638. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0937). Cognis Corporation, c/o
Lewis & Harrison, LLC, 122 C Street NW, Suite 740, Washington, DC
20001, proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the alkyl polyglycosides (CAS Nos. 68515-73-
1, 110615-47-9, and 132778-08-6) under 40 CFR 180.950 when used as
inert ingredients in pesticide formulations. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because requirements for an analytical
method are not applicable to a request to establish an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: Karen Samek,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

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

    Dated: January 27, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-2382 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31351-31352]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12797]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[R08-CO-2012-0001; FRL-9676-4]

Adequacy Determination for Aspen PM[bdi1][bdi0] and Fort Collins
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plans' Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for
Transportation Conformity Purposes; State of Colorado

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that the Agency
has found the following adequate for transportation conformity
purposes: The ``Revised PM10 Maintenance Plan for the Aspen
Attainment/Maintenance Area'' \1\ and its motor vehicle emissions
budget, and the ``Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Fort Collins
Attainment/Maintenance Area.'' As more fully explained in the
Supplementary Information section of this notice, this finding will
affect future transportation conformity determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM10 refers to particulate matter less than or
equal to 10 microns in size.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: This finding is effective June 11, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-AR,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (303)
312-6064, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our,'' are used, we mean EPA.
    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). The conformity rule provisions at 40 CFR 93
require that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) and establish the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP
means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP revision's motor
vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) is adequate for conformity purposes are
outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), which was promulgated August 15, 1997
(62 FR 43780). We described our process for determining the adequacy of
submitted SIP MVEBs in our July 1, 2004 Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments (69 FR 40004). In addition, in certain areas with monitored
ambient carbon monoxide (CO) values significantly below the NAAQS, EPA
has allowed states to use limited maintenance plans (LMPs), which
contain no future year maintenance projections and, therefore, no
MVEBs. (See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas,'' signed by Joseph Paisie, Group Leader,
Integrated Policy and Strategies Group (MD-15), October 6, 1995, also
known as EPA's ``LMP Policy.'') In an area covered by an approved
carbon monoxide LMP, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are presumed to automatically
satisfy the emissions budget test requirement, and no regional
emissions analysis with respect to a MVEB under sections 40 CFR 93.118
or 93.119 (i.e., MVEB(s), build less than no-build, or build less than
base year) of the conformity rule is required for RTP and TIP
conformity. We used these resources in making our adequacy
determinations announced in this notice.
    This notice is simply an announcement of findings that we have
already made and are as described below:
    Aspen (PM10): The State submitted the ``Revised PM10
Maintenance Plan for the Aspen Attainment/Maintenance Area'' on May 25,
2011. The State prepared the submittal to meet the requirements of
section 175A(b) of the CAA for a second 10-year maintenance plan. EPA
sent a letter to the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) on August 11, 2011, stating that the submitted
Aspen PM10 second 10-year maintenance plan and the 2023
p.m.10 MVEB were adequate for transportation conformity
purposes. We posted the ``Revised PM10 Maintenance Plan for
the Aspen Attainment/Maintenance Area'' for adequacy review on EPA's
transportation conformity Web site on June 20, 2011. The public comment
period closed on July 20, 2011, and we did not receive any comments in
response to the adequacy review posting (see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#aspen).
    Fort Collins (Carbon Monoxide): The State submitted the ``Revised
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Fort Collins Attainment/Maintenance
Area'' on May 25, 2011. The State prepared the submittal to meet the
requirements of section 175A(b) of the CAA for a second 10-year
maintenance plan and used, as appropriate, the provisions of EPA's CO
LMP policy. Thus, the LMP contains no MVEB. EPA sent a letter to the
CDPHE on August 9, 2011, stating that the submitted Fort Collins second
10-year maintenance plan was adequate for transportation conformity
purposes. We posted the ``Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Fort
Collins Attainment/Maintenance Area'' for adequacy review on EPA's
transportation conformity Web site on June 20, 2011. The public comment
period closed on July 20, 2011, and we did not receive any comments in
response to the adequacy review posting (see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#ftcollins).
    For the Aspen PM10 maintenance area, the MVEB we found
adequate is 1146 pounds of PM10 per day in 2023. Following
the effective date listed in the DATES section of this notice, the
Colorado Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of
Transportation are required to use this motor vehicle emissions budget
for future transportation conformity determinations for projects in the
Aspen PM10 maintenance area. As noted above, the ``Revised
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Fort Collins Attainment/Maintenance
Area'' contains no MVEB, and, under EPA's LMP interpretation, the North
Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Colorado Department
of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of Transportation may
presume that RTPs and TIPs satisfy the emissions budget test
requirement with respect to such revised plan. However, prior MVEBs may
apply as we described in our adequacy letter to the State.
    Please note that our adequacy review described above is separate
from our rulemaking action on the two maintenance plans discussed above
and should not be used to prejudge our ultimate approval or disapproval
of each

of the SIP revisions. Even if we find a maintenance plan or a
maintenance plan and its MVEB adequate for transportation conformity
purposes, we may later disapprove the SIP revision.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 30, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2012-12797 Filed 5-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P