[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56234-56235]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25707]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9971-09-Region 1]

Proposed Cercla Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; Rowayton
Trading Company, Inc., Bridgeport Fire Site, Bridgeport, Connecticut

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended
(``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative
settlement for recovery of response costs under CERCLA Section 122(h)
and 104(e), concerning the Bridgeport Fire Superfund Site in
Bridgeport, Connecticut with the following settling party: Rowayton
Trading Company, Inc. The settlement requires Rowayton Trading Company,
Inc. to pay $50,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund, and, if
timely paid, shall include no interest.
    For 30 days following the date of publication of this notice, the
Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The
United States will consider all comments received and may modify or
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any
comments received will be available for public inspection at 5 Post
Office Square, Boston, MA 02109-3912.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by December 28, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Cynthia Lewis, Senior

Enforcement Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100 (OES04-3), Boston, MA 02109-3912 (Telephone
No.<PHONE_NUMBER>) and should refer to: In re: Grant Street Fire
Superfund Site, U.S. EPA Docket No. CERCLA 01-2017-0026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the proposed settlement may
be obtained from Cynthia Lewis, Senior Enforcement Counsel, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100
(OES04-3), Boston, MA 02109-3912;<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this proposed administrative settlement
for recovery of response costs under CERCLA Section 122(h)(1) and
104(e)(6), concerning the Bridgeport Fire Superfund Site in Bridgeport,
Connecticut, requires settling party, Rowayton Trading Company, Inc. to
pay $50,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund, and, if timely paid,
shall include no interest. The settlement includes a covenant not to
sue pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and
9607, relating to the Site, and protection from contribution actions or
claims as provided by Sections 113(f)(2) and 122(h)(4) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. 9613(f)(2) and 9622(h)(4). The settlement has been approved by
the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the United States
Department of Justice.

    Dated: October 30, 2017.
Bryan Olson,
Director, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration.
[FR Doc. 2017-25707 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ OSWER 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2050  0086 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. x Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. x Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes x No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. x Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Continuous Release Reporting Regulations ( CRRR) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ( CERCLA)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA No. 1445.05 9. Keywords CERCLA, Environmental protection, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Hazardous susbstances, Continuous Releases, National Response Center, Reportable Quantity.

10. Abstract The CRRR provides relief from per occurrence notification requirements of CERCLA Section 103( a) for hazardous substance releases that are " continuous," and " stable in quantity and rate," and for which notification has been given " for a period sufficient to establish the continuity, quantity, and regularity" of the release.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X")

a. X Individuals or households d. X Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. X Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 2,712 b. Total annual responses 23,280 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 249,451 d. Current OMB inventory 181,180 e. Difference 68,271 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 68,271 ___ 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) ( 3 yr ave.) $ 76 c. Total annualized cost requested ( 3 yr ave) $ 76 d. Current OMB inventory $ 159 e. Difference ($ 83) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment ________________________ ($ 83)

15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X")

a. Application for benefits e. x Program planning or management b. x Program evaluation f. x Research c. General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. x Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. x Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes x No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Lynn Beasley_____________________________ Phone: 703.603.9086_________________________

OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


TERBUFOS 105001

Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: October 1st, 2007

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active
ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then
merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not
proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.

What does it contain?

Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used
on.

Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80%
or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases,
depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.

Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural
crop.

Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural
crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by
merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging by year,
averaging across all years, & then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated
value is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated
values between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.
Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant
digits.)

Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data
sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, &
rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is
less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.

Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value
reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5,
then the value is labeled <2.5.

What are the data sources used?

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service) – pesticide usage data from 2001 to
2006.

Private pesticide market research – pesticide usage data from 2001 to
2006.

NPUD 2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) – fungicide and herbicide
usage data from NPUD 02 of the CropLife Foundation are used only if data
are not available from the other sources.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use
Reporting (PUR) data for 2000 to 2005 when 95% or more of a crop is
grown California.

What are the limitations to the data?

Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the
available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply
zero usage.

Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not
quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the
SLUA.

Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control,
etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to
receive these estimates.

Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This
usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to
Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection
errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

October 1, 2007

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of TERBUFOS (105001)

Sorted Alphabetically

		Crop					Lbs. A. I. 			Percent Crop Ttd.

	  	 									Avg		Max

	1 	Cantaloupes +	               	1,000
   <1                <2.5

	2 	Corn	        	1,300,000                                     <1
              5

	3 	Pumpkins +	                	<500
<1                <2.5

	4 	Sorghum	             	60,000                                     <1
                   5

	5 	Soybeans+	               	6,000
<1                <2.5

	6 	Sugar Beets	 	          600,000
35                   35

	7 	Sweet Corn	             	30,000
 5                   10

	8 	Watermelons +		               1,000
   <1                <2.5

All numbers rounded.

'<500' indicates less than 500 pounds of active ingredient.

'<2.5' indicates less than 2.5 percent of crop is treated.

'<1' indicates less than 1 percent of crop is treated.

SLUA data sources include:

	USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National
Agricultural Statistics Service);

            2001-2006

	Private Pesticide Market Research, 2001-2006

	NPUD 2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) of the CropLife America
Foundation and California

            DPR data.

	These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are
releasable to the public.

+ = These crops were not listed as active product registrations when
this report was run.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13257-13264]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04555]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1002; FRL-9379-6]

Pyraflufen-ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
pyraflufen-ethyl in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. Nichino America, Inc. requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 27, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 29, 2013, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1002, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bethany Benbow, Registration Division

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1002 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 29, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1002, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.

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

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of March 14, 2012 (77 FR 15012) (FRL-9335-
9), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
1F7944) by Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New Linden Hill Road Suite 501,
Wilmington, DE 19808. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.585 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide
pyraflufen-ethyl, ethyl 2-[2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy)-1-
methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]-4-fluorophenoxy] acetate and its acid
metabolite, E-1, 2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-
pyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetic acid, expressed in terms of the
parent, in or on hop, dried cone at 0.01 parts per million (ppm);
peanut at 0.01 ppm; peanut, hay at 0.07 ppm; peanut, meal at 0.01 ppm;
and peanut, refined oil at 0.01 ppm. That document referenced a summary
of the petition prepared by Nichino America, Inc., the registrant,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There
were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
establishing tolerances for peanut and peanut, hay but not establishing
tolerances for hop, dried cone; peanut, meal; or peanut, refined oil.
In addition, the current time-limited tolerances established for
combined residues of pyraflufen-ethyl and metabolite E-1 in milk and
the meat by-products of cattle, goat, horse, and sheep at 0.02 ppm are
being revised to permanent tolerances for combined residues of
pyraflufen-ethyl and metabolites E-1 and E-9 at 0.03 ppm. Finally,
permanent tolerances for combined residues of pyraflufen-ethyl and
metabolites E-1 and E-9 are also being set for the fat and meat of
cattle, goat, horse, and sheep at 0.03 ppm. The reasons for these
changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Pyraflufen-ethyl exhibits relatively low acute toxicity from
oral, dermal, and inhalation exposure. It produces moderate eye

irritation and is not a dermal irritant or a dermal sensitizer.
Following repeated short-term and chronic oral dosing, the liver,
kidney, and hematopoietic system are the target organs for pyraflufen-
ethyl in the rat and/or mouse. The rabbit appears to be the most
sensitive species in the toxicity database with adverse effects,
including mortality. Adverse effects were not noted in the dog
following oral exposure or in the rat following dermal exposure. There
was no evidence of increased susceptibility following pre-natal
exposure to rats and rabbits in the developmental toxicity studies or
following pre- and post-natal exposure to rats in the multi-generation
reproduction study. Although not mutagenic in the mutagenicity battery
or carcinogenic in the rat, pyraflufen-ethyl is classified as ``Likely
to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' due to a compound-related increase in
incidence of hepatocellular adenomas, carcinomas, and/or
hepatoblastomas in male and female mice. A linear low-dose
extrapolation approach is used to estimate human cancer risk
(Q1*) based on combined hepatocellular adenomas, carcinomas,
and/or hepatoblastomas seen in male mice.
    Since the last risk assessment, the neurotoxicity battery was
reviewed and determined to be negative for both acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity. Additionally, the Agency reviewed an immunotoxicity
study that showed a decreased immune response (decreases of anti-sheep
red blood cell (SRBC) antibody forming cell (AFC) response in male
rats), only at a dose level approaching the limit dose.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by pyraflufen-ethyl as well as the no observed
adverse effect levels (NOAELs) and the lowest observed adverse effect
levels (LOAELs) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Pyraflufen-ethyl--Human Health Risk
Assessment for a Section 3 Registration of New Food Uses on Hops and
Peanuts at pages 44-48 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1002.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

     Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Pyraflufen-ethyl for Use in Human Health Risk
                                                   Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Study and
         Exposure/scenario               Point of departure and         RfD, PAD, LOC for       toxicological
                                       uncertainty/safety factors        risk assessment           effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population                            None                           An endpoint
 including infants and children).                                                            attributable to a
                                                                                single dose was not
                                                                                identified for
                                                                                pyraflufen-ethyl
                                                                                from the available
                                                                                data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations).  NOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day............  Chronic RfD = 0.20    Mouse
                                    UFA = 10x.......................   mg/kg/day.            carcinogenicity
                                    UFH = 10x.......................  cPAD = 0.20 mg/kg/     study.
                                    FQPA SF = 1x....................   day..                LOAEL = 98 mg/kg/day
                                                                                based on liver
                                                                                toxicity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental oral short-term (1 to    NOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day............  LOC for MOE = 100...  Developmental
 30 days).                          UFA = 10x.......................                         toxicity--rabbit.
                                    UFH = 10x.......................                        Maternal LOAEL = 60
                                    FQPA SF = 1x....................                         mg/kg/day based on
                                                                                decreases in body
                                                                                weight and food
                                                                                consumption,
                                                                                gastrointestinal
                                                                                (GI) observations,
                                                                                and abortions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days);                            None                           28-day dermal
 Dermal intermediate-term (1 to 6                                                            toxicity--rats.
 months).                                                                                No dermal or
                                                                                systemic toxicity
                                                                                was seen at the
                                                                                limit dose (1,000
                                                                                mg/kg/day).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inhalation short-term (1 to 30      Inhalation (or oral) study NOAEL  Residential LOC for   Developmental
 days) and Intermediate and long     = 20 mg/kg/day (inhalation        MOE = 100.            toxicity-rabbit.
 term (1-6 months).                  absorption rate = 100%).                               LOAEL = 60 mg/kg/day
                                    UFA = 10x.......................                         based on decreases
                                    UFH = 10x.......................                         in body weight and
                                    FQPA SF = 1x....................                         food consumption,
                                                                                GI observations,
                                                                                and abortions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).   Classification: ``Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' by the oral route.
                                                           Q1* = 3.32 x 10-2 (mg/kg/day)-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing pyraflufen-ethyl
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.585. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
pyraflufen-ethyl in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for pyraflufen-ethyl;
therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is
unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in
food, EPA incorporated all current and proposed tolerances for combined
residues of pyraflufen-ethyl and metabolite E-1 in plants and residues
of pyraflufen-ethyl, metabolite E-1 and metabolite E-9 in animals and
assumed 100% of crops were treated. The commodities of corn, wheat,
soybeans, cottonseed, potatoes, pome fruit, stone fruit, pomegranates,
olives, grapes, tree nuts, and pistachios were analyzed at \1/2\ the
combined levels of quantitation (LOQs) of the parent and metabolites
for the residue values in the dietary assessment because the field
trials showed that residues were lower than the LOQ. All other
established and proposed commodities were analyzed using tolerance-
level residues. Because the commodity-specific processing studies did
not show pyraflufen-ethyl concentration after processing, the chronic
dietary exposure assessment did not incorporate processing factors for
the following commodities: Treated corn grain, soybean seeds, wheat
grain, apples, and grapes. However, default processing factors were
used for dry potatoes (6.5X), peanut butter (1.89X), dried beef
(1.92X), and corn syrup (1.5X). An empirical processing factor of 0.6X
was used for cotton seed oil. The anticipated residue in meat, milk,
fat, and meat byproducts was calculated to be 0.001 ppm. Chronic (non-
cancer) dietary exposure from drinking water was determined based on a
Tier 2 (surface water) drinking water estimate provided by the
Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED). The chronic (annual
average) estimate for drinking water was incorporated directly into the
dietary assessment for the combined residues of pyraflufen-ethyl and
its metabolic products, E-1, E-2, and E-3, which are the major residues
present in the supporting studies.
    iii. Cancer. Pyraflufen-ethyl is classified as ``Likely to be
Carcinogenic to Humans'' by the oral route; therefore, a cancer dietary
risk assessment was conducted. EPA determines whether quantitative
cancer exposure and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use
pesticide based on the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and
other relevant data. If quantitative cancer risk assessment is
appropriate, cancer risk may be quantified using a linear or nonlinear
approach. If sufficient information on the carcinogenic mode of action
is available, a threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer
RfD is calculated based on an earlier noncancer key event. If
carcinogenic mode of action data are not available, or if the mode of
action data determines a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear
cancer slope factor approach is utilized. Based on the data summarized
in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that pyraflufen-ethyl should be
classified as ``Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' and a linear
approach has been used to quantify cancer risk.
    All exposure inputs for the cancer assessment were the same as for
the chronic dietary exposure assessment, except the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWC). A Tier 2 drinking water (surface water) of
a (30-year average) estimate for pyraflufen-ethyl and its metabolic
products, E-1, E-2, and E-3, was incorporated directly into the dietary
assessment to estimate chronic carcinogenic risk from drinking water
containing pyraflufen-ethyl.
    iv. Anticipated residue information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA
authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated
residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of
pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on
such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1)
that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established,
modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are
not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will
issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E)
and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to
be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these
tolerances.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for pyraflufen-ethyl in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of pyraflufen-ethyl. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
pyraflufen-ethyl acute exposures are estimated to be 0.640 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.0018 ppb for ground water. The
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of pyraflufen-ethyl for
non-cancer chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.295 ppb for surface
water and 0.0018 ppb for ground water. The EDWCs of pyraflufen-ethyl
for chronic exposures for cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.268
ppb for surface water and 0.0018 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 0.295 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For cancer dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 0.268 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Pyraflufen-ethyl is currently registered for the following uses
that could result in residential exposures: Established ornamental turf
lawns (residential, industrial, and institutional), parks, cemeteries,
athletic fields, golf courses, sod farms, nurseries, ornamental
plantings, and Christmas trees. EPA assessed residential handler
exposure using the following assumptions: (1) Most residential uses
will result in short-term (1-30 day) exposures, (2) residential
handlers are assumed to be wearing short-sleeved shirts, short pants,
shoes, and socks during pyraflufen-ethyl application, (3) various
application methods may be used such as manually pressurized handwands,
backpack sprayers, and hose-end sprayers.
    When determining the potential for residential post-application
exposure, the Agency considers residues from leaf to skin/hand residue
transfer, children's hand-to-mouth transfer, and exposure time. Because
exposure to treated gardens and turf could be expected within the same
day, adult post-application cancer exposure to treated trees and retail
plants and turf were combined. The exposure assessment for treated
plants is considered extremely conservative in that the plants are
assumed to be treated the same day that residential post-application
contact occurs, with no residue transfer between treatment and purchase
of the plants. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions
and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/science/USEPA-OPP-HED_Residential%20SOPs_Oct2012.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found
pyraflufen-ethyl to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and pyraflufen-ethyl does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite which is also produced by other substances. For the purposes
of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that pyraflufen-
ethyl does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses following in utero
exposure in the developmental studies with pyraflufen-ethyl. There is
no evidence of increased susceptibility of young rats in the
pyraflufen-ethyl reproduction study and there are no residual
uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal exposure.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for pyraflufen-ethyl is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that pyraflufen-ethyl is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that pyraflufen-ethyl results in
increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% crop treated (CT) and tolerance-level residues for the proposed
commodities, and residue inputs of \1/2\ LOQ as refined estimates of
the currently registered commodities. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure
of adults and children as well as incidental oral exposure of children.
In addition, the residential exposure assessment is based on the
updated 2012 Residential Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) employing
surrogate study data, including conservative exposure assumptions based
on day 0 dermal/oral contact to turf and surfaces treated at the
maximum application rate. These data are reliable and are not expected
to underestimate risks to adults or children. The Residential SOPs are
based upon reasonable ``worst-case'' assumptions and are not expected
to underestimate risk. Although some of the residue values used in the
dietary exposure assessment were refined, these assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by pyraflufen-ethyl.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
pyraflufen-ethyl is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
pyraflufen-ethyl from food and water will utilize < 1% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
pyraflufen-ethyl is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Pyraflufen-
ethyl is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to pyraflufen-ethyl.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined chronic dietary and
short-term residential exposures result in an adult (inhalation) non-
cancer aggregate MOE of 290,000. The aggregate MOE for children 1-2
years old, including incidental oral exposures from treated turf, is
9,600. Because EPA's level of concern for pyraflufen-ethyl is a MOE of
100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
pyraflufen-ethyl is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus
chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term
residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating
intermediate-term risk for pyraflufen-ethyl.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The aggregate cancer
risk assessment for the general U.S. population considers exposure
estimates from dietary consumption of pyraflufen-ethyl in food and
drinking water and exposure through residential uses of pyraflufen-
ethyl. Exposures from residential uses are based on the lifetime
average daily dose and assume an exposure period of 2 days per year and
35 years of exposure over a 78 year lifetime. Average food and water
exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl was used in the aggregate assessment.
Estimated cancer risk for the general U.S. population includes infants
and children; therefore, a children's cancer risk estimate was not
reported separately. The aggregate cancer risk estimate for pyraflufen-
ethyl is 2.6 x 10 -6. EPA generally considers cancer risks
in the range of one in one million (1 x 10 -6) or less to be
negligible. The precision that can be assumed for cancer risk estimates
is best described by rounding to the nearest integral order of
magnitude on the log scale; for example, risks falling between 3 x 10
-7 and 3 x 10 -6 are expressed as risks in the
range of 10-6. Considering the precision with which cancer
hazard can be estimated, the conservativeness of low-dose linear
extrapolation, and the rounding procedure just described, cancer risk
should generally not be assumed to exceed the benchmark level of
concern of the range of 10 -6 until the calculated risk
exceeds approximately 3 x 10 -6. This is particularly the
case where some conservatism is maintained in the exposure assessment.
Although the pyraflufen-ethyl exposure risk assessment is somewhat
refined, it retains significant conservatism due, among other things,
to the assumption that 100% of registered crops are treated in the
dietary cancer assessment and 100% dermal absorption was assumed in the
residential exposure cancer assessment. Accordingly, EPA has concluded
the cancer risk for all existing pyraflufen-ethyl uses and the uses
associated with the tolerances established in this action falls within
the range of 1 x 10 -6 to 3 x 10 -6 and is thus
negligible. Therefore, the aggregate cancer risk estimate from
pyraflufen-ethyl residues in food and drinking water is not of concern
for the general U.S. population.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

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

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on a lack of adequate residue data, the Agency is not
granting tolerances for hops at this time. As permitted under 40 CFR
180.8, the petitioner has withdrawn its request for hop, dried cone
tolerances.

    In addition, the requested tolerances for peanut, meal and peanut,
refined oil are not being granted since those residues will be covered
by the proposed tolerance for peanut. Because peanut hay is fed to
livestock and may affect residue levels, upon review of the data
supporting the petitions, EPA determined that several livestock
tolerances should be revised (from residues of the parent and
metabolite E-1 in milk and meat by-products of cattle, goat, horse, and
sheep at 0.02 ppm to residues of the parent and metabolites E-1 and E-9
at 0.03 ppm) and several new livestock tolerances should be established
(residues of the parent and metabolites E-1 and E-9 in the fat and meat
of cattle, goat, horse and sheep at 0.03 ppm). The Agency revised these
tolerance levels based on analysis of the residue field trial data
using the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
tolerance calculation.
    Finally, based on data submitted with this petition, EPA is
removing the time-limitations for these tolerances.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, permanent tolerances are established for the combined
residues of pyraflufen-ethyl, metabolite E-1, and metabolite E-9 in or
on (cattle, goat, horse, sheep) fat, meat, and meat by-products at 0.03
ppm; milk at 0.03 ppm; and new tolerances are established for the
combined residues of pyraflufen-ethyl and metabolite E-1 in or on
peanut at 0.01 ppm; and peanut, hay at 0.07 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: February 20, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.585, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.585  Pyraflufen-ethyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide, pyraflufen-ethyl, including its metabolites and degradates,
in the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the plant
commodity tolerance levels specified in the table is to be determined
by measuring only the sum of the parent pyraflufen-ethyl, ethyl 2-[2-
chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]-4-
fluorophenoxy] acetate, and its acid metabolite, E-1, 2-chloro-5-(4-
chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4-
fluorophenoxyacetic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent
of pyraflufen-ethyl in or on the commodity. Compliance with the
livestock commodity tolerance levels specified in the table is to be
determined by measuring only the sum of the parent pyraflufen-ethyl,
ethyl 2-[2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-
yl]-4-fluorophenoxy] acetate and its acid metabolites: E-1, 2-chloro-5-
(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4-
fluorophenoxyacetic acid, and E-9, 2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-
difluoromethoxy-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetic acid, both
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pyraflufen-ethyl in or
on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls...............................................        0.02
Cattle, fat.................................................        0.03
Cattle, meat................................................        0.03
Cattle, meat byproducts.....................................        0.03
Corn, field, forage.........................................        0.01
Corn, field, grain..........................................        0.01
Corn, field, stover.........................................        0.01
Cotton, gin byproducts......................................         1.5
Cotton, undelinted seed.....................................        0.04
Fruit, pome, group 11-10....................................        0.01
Fruit, stone, group 12......................................        0.01
Goat, fat...................................................        0.03

Goat, meat..................................................        0.03
Goat, meat byproducts.......................................        0.03
Grape.......................................................        0.01
Grass, forage, group 17.....................................         1.0
Grass, hay, group 17........................................         1.4
Horse, fat..................................................        0.03
Horse, meat.................................................        0.03
Horse, meat byproducts......................................        0.03
Milk........................................................        0.03
Nut, tree, group 14.........................................        0.01
Olive.......................................................        0.01
Peanut......................................................        0.01
Peanut, hay.................................................        0.07
Pistachio...................................................        0.01
Pomegranate.................................................        0.01
Potato......................................................        0.02
Sheep, fat..................................................        0.03
Sheep, meat.................................................        0.03
Sheep, meat byproducts......................................        0.03
Soybean, forage.............................................        0.05
Soybean, hay................................................        0.10
Soybean, seed...............................................        0.01
Wheat, forage...............................................        0.02
Wheat, grain................................................        0.01
Wheat, hay..................................................        0.01
Wheat, straw................................................        0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-04555 Filed 2-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 18122-18125]
[DOCID:fr10ap06-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53588; File No. SR-Amex-2006-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt Rules and Procedures Governing the Execution of Complex Orders
Involving Options and Securities Futures

April 3, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 24, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Amex. The Exchange has
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange seeks to adopt rules governing the execution of
complex orders \5\ involving stock-option orders and security future-
option orders, and to adopt definitions of additional types of complex
orders. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Complex orders include those orders which are defined in
950--ANTE(e)(i)-(iii) and 950--ANTE(e)(vii), and proposed 950--
ANTE(e)(viii)-(xii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 900--ANTE

Applicability, Definitions and References
    (a) Applicability--The Exchange's new trading system (known as the
ANTE System or ANTE) will be rolled-out over a period of time
(approximately eighteen months) on a specialist post-by-specialist post
basis. The roll-out began on May 25, 2004 and will continue until June
30, 2006 at which

time all equity and index option classes traded by the Exchange will be
on the ANTE System. Therefore, during the roll-out period, while the
Exchange has option classes trading on both systems, current rules (as
they are amended from time to time) will apply to those option classes
continuing to trade on its current system while the following ANTE
rules will apply to those option classes trading on the new trading
system. Once the roll-out of ANTE is complete, the amendments to the
Exchange's options rules reflecting the implementation of ANTE set
forth below will replace, where applicable, the corresponding
provisions in Rules 900 through 958A. The following Trading of Option
Contracts Rules shall apply to the trading of option contracts on the
ANTE System: 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 915, 916,
917, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 930, 932, 940, 942,
943, 944, 952, [953,] 954, 956, 957, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964, 965,
966, 967, 970, 971, 972, 980, 981, 982, 990, 991, and 992. In addition,
the following Trading of Option Contract Rules, which have been amended
to reflect usage in the ANTE System, shall apply to the trading of
options contracts on the ANTE System. Moreover, the Rules in this
Chapter (Trading of Options Contracts) shall be applicable to (i) the
trading on and through the facilities of the Exchange of option
contracts issued by the Options Clearing Corporation and the terms and
conditions thereof; and (ii) the exercise and settlement, the handling
of orders, and the conduct of accounts and other matters, relating to
option contracts dealt in by any member or member organization. Except
to the extent that specific Rules in this Chapter govern, or unless the
context otherwise requires, the provisions of the Constitution and of
all other Rules and policies of the Board of Governors shall be
applicable to the trading on the Exchange of option contracts. Pursuant
to the provisions of Article I, Section 3(i) of the Constitution,
option contracts (as defined below) are included within the definition
of ``security'' or ``securities'' as such terms are used in the
Constitution and the Rules of the Exchange.
    (b)-(d) No change.
    Commentary * * *
    .01 No change.
* * * * *

Rule 950--ANTE

Rules of General Applicability
    (a)-(c) No change.
    (d) The provisions of Rule 126, with the exception of subparagraphs
(a) and (b) thereof, shall apply to Exchange option transactions and
the following additional commentary shall also apply:
    Commentary * * *
    .01 When a member holding a spread order, a straddle order, ratio
order, [or] a combination order, a stock-option order, or a security
future-option order and bidding or offering on the basis of a total
credit or debit for the order has determined that the order may not be
executed by a combination of transactions with or within the bids and
offers established in the marketplace, then the order may be executed
as a spread, straddle, ratio, [or] combination, stock-option, or
security future-option order at the total credit or debit with one
other member without giving priority to either bids or offers
established in the marketplace that are not better than the bids or
offers comprising such total credit or debit, provided that, (i) in
executing a spread order, the member does not buy at the established
bid for the option contract to be bought and sell at the established
offer for the option contract to be sold or, (ii) in executing a
straddle or combination order, the member does not either buy both
sides of the order at the established bids or sell both sides of the
order at the established offers. Stock-option orders and security
future-option orders have priority over bids or offers of the trading
crowd but not over bids or offers of public customers in the limit
order book.
    .02-.07 No change.
    (e) The types of orders specified in Rule 131 and the following
additional types of orders shall be applicable to Exchange option
transactions:
    (i)-(vii) No change.
    (viii) Combination Orders with Non-Equity Options Legs--One or more
legs of an order may be to purchase or sell a stated number of units of
another security.
    (1) Stock-Option Order--A stock-option order is an order to buy or
sell a stated number of units of an underlying or related security
coupled with either (a) the purchase or sale of option contract(s) on
the opposite side of the market representing either the same number of
units of the underlying or related security or the number of units of
the underlying security necessary to create a delta neutral position;
or (b) the purchase or sale of an equal number of put and call option
contracts, each having the same exercise price, expiration date, and
each representing the same number of units of stock, as and on the
opposite side of the market from, the underlying or related security
portion of the order.
    (2) Security Future-Option Order--A security future-option order is
an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of a single stock
future or a security convertible into a security future (``convertible
security future'') coupled with either (a) the purchase or sale of
option contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing
either the same number of the underlying for the security future or
convertible security future, or the number of units of the underlying
for the security future or convertible security future necessary to
create a delta neutral position; or (b) the purchase or sale of an
equal number of put and call option contracts, each having the same
exercise price, expiration date, and each representing the same number
of underlying for the security future or the convertible security
future, as and on the opposite side of the market from, the stock
underlying for the security future or convertible security future
portion of the order.
    (ix) Strangle Order--A strangle order is an order to buy (sell) a
number of call option contracts and the same number of put option
contracts in the same underlying security, which contracts have the
same expiration date (e.g., an order to buy two XYZ June 35 calls and
to buy two XYZ June 40 puts).
    (x) Butterfly Spread Order--A butterfly spread order is an order
involving three series of either put or call options all having the
same underlying security and time of expiration and, based on the same
current underlying value, where the interval between the exercise price
of each series is equal, which orders are structured as either (i) a
``long butterfly spread'' in which two short options in the same series
offset by one long option with a higher exercise price and one long
option with a lower exercise price or (ii) a ``short butterfly spread''
in which two long options in the same series are offset by one short
option with a higher exercise price and one short option with a lower
exercise price.
    (xi) Box/Roll Spread Order: Box spread means an aggregation of
positions in a long call option and short put option with the same
exercise price (``buy side'') coupled with a long put option and short
call option with the same exercise price (``sell side'') all of which
have the same aggregate current underlying value, and are structured as
either: A) a ``long box spread'' in which the sell side exercise price
exceeds the buy side exercise price or B) a ``short box spread'' in
which the buy side exercise price exceeds the sell side exercise price.

    (xii) Collar and Risk Reversal Orders--A collar order (risk
reversal) is an order involving the sale (purchase) of a call (put)
option coupled with the purchase (sale) of a put (call) option in
equivalent units of the same underlying security having a lower
(higher) exercise price than, and same expiration date as, the sold
(purchased) call (put) option.
    (f)-(n) No change.
* * * * *

Rule 953--ANTE

Acceptance of Bid or Offer

    (a) All bids or offers for option contracts dealt in on the
Exchange made and accepted in accordance with these Rules shall
constitute binding contracts between the parties thereto but shall be
subject to the exercise by the Board of Governors of the powers in
respect thereto vested in said Board by the Constitution, and to the
Rules of the Exchange, and said contracts shall also be subject to the
rules of The Options Clearing Corporation and to the exercise by The
Options Clearing Corporation of the powers reserved to it in the rules
of The Options Clearing Corporation.
    (b) Stock-option orders and security future-option orders.
    (i) A bid or offer that is identified to the Exchange trading crowd
as part of a stock-option order, as defined in Rule 950--ANTE
(e)(viii)(1) or, or a security future-option order, as defined in Rule
950--ANTE (e)(viii)(2), is made and accepted subject to the following
conditions:
    (A) at the time the stock-option order or security future-option
order is announced, the member initiating the order must disclose to
the crowd all legs of the order and must identify the specific
market(s) on which and the price(s) at which the non-option leg(s) of
the order is to be filled, and
    (B) concurrent with execution of the options leg of the order, the
initiating member and each member that agrees to be a contra-party on
the non-option leg(s) of the order must take steps immediately to
transmit the non-option leg(s) to the identified market(s) for
execution.
    (ii) A trade representing the execution of the options leg of a
stock-option order or a security future-option order may be cancelled
at the request of any member that is a party to that trade only if
market conditions in any of the non-Exchange market(s) prevent the
execution of the non-option leg(s) at the price(s) agreed upon.
    (c) Failure to observe the requirements set forth in paragraph
(b)(i)(A) and (B) above shall be considered conduct inconsistent with
just and equitable principles of trade.
* * * * *

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 Amex included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 lifted the ban on
the trading of single stock futures and futures on narrow based
security indices (together, ``security futures'') in the United States.
The Amex is proposing to (i) adopt a new definition for stock-option
orders and security futures option orders (``security future-option
order''), (ii) grant certain execution priorities to stock-option
orders and security future-option orders, (iii) authorize the execution
of stock-option orders and security future-option orders, and (iv) add
additional language to the Amex rules regarding different types of
complex orders.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt language to allow for the execution
of stock-option orders and security future-option orders. The Exchange
believes that complex orders involving orders consisting of stock or
securities futures and option legs are effective hedging strategies
that would permit members to initially offset the risk of price
movements in an option position with a corresponding purchase or sale
of stock underlying the option position or securities futures.
Therefore, complex orders consisting of stock or security futures and
options legs that fall within their proposed definition would be
entitled to the same priorities that spreads, straddles, ratio, and
combination orders are afforded.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .01 to Amex Rule 950-
ANTE(d), to permit members to execute stock-option orders and security
future-option orders, the options legs of which will have priority over
bids or offers of the trading crowd but not over bids or offers of
public customers in the limit order book. The proposed rules also
provide that members holding stock-option orders or security future-
option orders and bidding or offering on a net debit or credit basis
may execute the order with another member without giving priority to
equivalent bids or offers in the trading crowd or the book, provided
that at least one leg of the order betters the corresponding bid or
offer in the book.
    The Exchange further proposes to adopt new Amex Rule 953--ANTE to
provide execution procedures for stock-option orders and security
future-option orders. The proposed rule text provides that the
initiating member and the contra-parties with respect to the non-option
leg(s) must take steps to transmit the non-option leg(s) to the
appropriate market concurrently with the execution of the options
leg(s) of the order. Because security futures products may not be
fungible between markets, the member initiating the security future-
option order must identify the specific market of execution. If the
security or security futures leg of the order cannot be executed at the
price(s) agreed upon due to market conditions, a trade representing the
execution of the options leg of the transaction may be cancelled at the
request of any member that is a party to that trade.
    Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to amend Amex Rule 950--ANTE(e)
to include the definitions of additional types of complex orders.
Specifically, a strangle order, a butterfly spread order, a box/roll
spread order, and a collar and risk reversal order. The proposed rule
defines a strangle order as an order to buy or sell a certain number of
call option contracts and the same number of put option contracts in
the same underlying security, which have the same expiration date. A
butterfly spread order is defined as an order involving three series of
either put or call options all having the same underlying security and
time of expiration and, based on the same current underlying value,
where the interval between the exercise price of each series is equal.
These orders are structured as either (i) a ``long butterfly spread''
in which two short options in the same series offset by one long option
with a higher exercise price and one long option with a lower exercise
price or (ii) a ``short butterfly spread'' in which two long options in
the same series are offset by one short option with a higher exercise
price and one short option with a lower exercise price. A box/roll
spread order is defined as an aggregation of positions in a long call
option and short put option with the same exercise price (``buy side'')

coupled with a long put option and short call option with the same
exercise price (``sell side'') all of which have the same aggregate
current underlying value, and are structured as either: (A) A ``long
box spread'' in which the sell side exercise price exceeds the buy side
exercise price or (B) a ``short box spread'' in which the buy side
exercise price exceeds the sell side exercise price. A collar and risk
reversal order is defined as an order involving the sale or purchase of
a call or put option, coupled with the purchase or sale of a put or
call option in equivalent units of the same underlying security having
a lower or higher exercise price than, and same expiration date as, the
sold or purchased call or put option.
    Finally, the Exchange seeks to make housekeeping changes to the
rules: (1) To add an additional reference to ``ratio order'' into
Commentary .01 of Amex Rule 950--ANTE(d), that was inadvertently
omitted when the Exchange originally sought immediate effectiveness to
trade ratio orders \6\ and (2) to remove the reference to Amex Rule 953
in Amex Rule 900--ANTE, as an option rule that will be applicable to
the trading of options contracts on the ANTE System because the Amex
has proposed to adopt new Amex Rule 953--ANTE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50525 (October 13,
2004), 69 FR 61875 (October 21, 2004) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of SR-Amex-2004-77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general and furthers the objective
of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular in that it is designed
to perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and the national
market system, protect investors and the public interest, and promote
just and equitable principles of trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 believes that the proposed rule change would impose no
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 forgoing 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
after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate, it 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\11\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange provided the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file this proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule
change. In addition, the Exchange has requested that the Commission
waive the 30-day pre-operative delay. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day pre-operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and in the public interest because it will
allow the Amex to immediately implement rules and procedures governing
the execution of complex orders involving options and securities
futures that are substantially similar to the rules of other
exchanges.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 46390 (August 21,
2002), 67 FR 55290 (August 28, 2002) (Order approving File No. SR-
ISE-2002-18); and 49367 (March 5, 2004), 69 FR 11678 (March 11,
2004) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of SR-CBOE-2002-
14). For the purposes only of waiving the pre-operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Act.

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 No. SR-Amex-2006-28 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2006-28. 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. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Amex. 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 No. SR-Amex-2006-28 and should be submitted on or before May 1,
2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-5151 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P