[Federal Register: October 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 195)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62323-62326]
[DOCID:fr08oc10-4]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 156

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0327; FRL-8848-8]
RIN 2070-AJ74

Pesticide Management and Disposal; Standards for Pesticide
Containers and Containment; Change to Labeling Compliance Date

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the pesticide container and containment
regulations to provide an 8-month extension of the labeling compliance
date from December 16, 2010 to August 16, 2011. This change is being
made to provide additional time for pesticide registrants to revise
labels to bring them into compliance with the regulations and for EPA
and states to review and approve the revised labels.

DATES: This final rule is effective December 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0327. 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., Confidential Business Information (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 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 Docket Facility is open 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: Nancy Fitz, Field and External Affairs
Division (FEAD) (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a
pesticide formulator. Potentially affected entities may include, but
are not limited to:
     Pesticide formulators (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
establishments that formulate and prepare insecticides, fungicides,
herbicides, antimicrobials or other pesticides from technical chemicals
or concentrates produced by pesticide manufacturing establishments.
    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 under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

II. Background

    On August 16, 2006, EPA promulgated a final rule titled ``Pesticide
Management and Disposal; Standards for Pesticide Containers and
Containment'' (71 FR 47330) (container and containment rule),
establishing 40 CFR part 165 and amending 40 CFR part 156. The
container and containment rule established regulations for the safe
storage and disposal of pesticides to reduce the likelihood of
unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment. The
container and containment regulations include requirements for
pesticide container design; procedures, standards, and label language
to facilitate removal of pesticides from containers prior to their
being reused, recycled, or discarded; and requirements for containment
of stationary pesticide containers and procedures for container
refilling operations. The 2006 rule required that all pesticide
products distributed or sold by a registrant as of August 16, 2009,
bear labels that comply with the rule's label language requirements (40
CFR 156.159). On October 29, 2008, EPA promulgated a final rule that
made various amendments to the container and containment rule,
including extending the original labeling compliance date from August
16, 2009 to August 16, 2010.
    On June 15, 2010 (75 FR 33705), EPA promulgated a final rule that
extended the labeling compliance date from August 16, 2010 to December
16, 2010 to avoid the temporary removal of a significant number of
pesticides from the market while a 1-year extension proposal moves
through the rulemaking process and while pesticide registrants work to
update pesticide labels to comply with the labeling requirements in the
container and containment regulations and EPA and states work to review
and approve those revised labels.
    Also on June 15, 2010 (75 FR 33744), EPA published a proposed rule
to provide a 1-year extension of the labeling compliance date from
August 16, 2010 to August 16, 2011 to address concerns raised by
stakeholders and as a result of further Agency consideration. The
public comment period for this proposed rule closed on July 15, 2010.
EPA received five comments from trade associations and a pesticide
registrant. Four of the comments supported the proposed 1-year
extension while one comment, submitted by a trade association,
supported a longer extension of 18 months to 2 years.

III. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    These final regulations are issued pursuant to the authority given
the Administrator of EPA in sections 2 through 34 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136-136y.
Sections 19(e) and (f) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136a(e) and (f), grant EPA
broad authority to establish standards and procedures to assure the
safe use, reuse, storage, and disposal of pesticide containers. FIFRA
section 19(e) requires EPA to promulgate regulations for the design of
pesticide containers that will promote the safe storage and disposal of
pesticides. FIFRA section 19(f) requires EPA to promulgate regulations
prescribing procedures and standards for the removal of pesticides from
containers prior to disposal. FIFRA section 25(a), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a),
authorizes EPA to issue regulations to carry out provisions of FIFRA.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is amending the pesticide container and containment regulations
to provide an 8-month extension of the labeling compliance date (40 CFR
156.159) from December 16, 2010 to August 16, 2011. This change is
being made to provide additional time for pesticide registrants to
revise labels to bring them into compliance with the regulations and
for EPA and states to review and approve the revised labels.
    As discussed in the June 15, 2010 proposed rule, EPA concluded that
there was not sufficient time to change all labels by August 2010
because of several factors, including:
    1. More antimicrobial products labels than expected require
alterative rinsing instructions, so the label amendments cannot be made
by notification and require more in depth reviews by EPA;
    2. EPA's position on the appropriate container-related statements
(particularly rinsing and treatment of rinsate) for certain pesticides
has changed over time as a result of experience with product-by-product
label reviews; and
    3. The length of time for states to review and approve labels is
understood to be increasing due to the furlough days for staff in some
states and staffing reductions due to budget shortfalls in others.
    Since registrants can decide which registered products they wish to
market at any given time, the Agency does not have a precise count of
the total number of label changes that ultimately will be submitted to
EPA for review. However, based upon a review of Agency actions through
May 2010 and discussions with registrants, EPA estimates that the
majority of label changes have already been submitted and approved. On
the other hand, EPA estimates that there were at least 1,000, and
potentially several thousand, remaining pesticide product labels that
EPA still needed to review. Even taking into account the applications
that have already been submitted, there is not enough time for the
necessary label changes to be approved by EPA, then submitted to and
approved by the states, printed, and

applied to all products that will be released for shipment after August
16, 2010.
    Because EPA contributed to the large number of outstanding label
changes, EPA is extending the compliance date in 40 CFR 156.159 by a
total of 1 year, so that pesticide products released for shipment by a
registrant after August 16, 2011 would have to bear a label that
complies with the container requirements. EPA continues to believe that
one additional year will provide enough time for EPA and the states to
review the label changes and for registrants to incorporate the changes
into their labels, provided that the outstanding applications were
submitted in a timely fashion. Beginning in April 2010 and repeated in
the June 15, 2010 Federal Register notices, EPA encouraged pesticide
registrants to submit applications for label changes for their products
prior to the previous deadline of August 16, 2010. EPA said that the
Agency would give priority to applications submitted prior to August
16, 2010 and that applications submitted after August 16, 2010 would be
processed on a non-priority basis only after all applications submitted
prior to that date have been processed.
    EPA disagrees with the commenter who argued for an 18-month to 2-
year extension. This commenter said a longer extension is necessary to
avoid an interruption in the supply of antimicrobial products because
of ``the need for these products for public health and the industrial
economy, the need for particularized language for antimicrobial
pesticides necessitating amendment instead of notification, the
potential for multiple review cycles, the significant workload facing
the EPA, and state pesticide registration agencies.''
    Based on an evaluation of the resources and time it would take for
EPA to undertake a concerted effort to complete the review of these
remaining labels and discussions with State regulatory agencies who
estimated a range of 3 to 6 months for them to review and approve the
label revisions, EPA continues to believe that label changes that were
submitted by August 16, 2010 will be reviewed by EPA and states in
sufficient time to allow the registrants to make the necessary changes
in their labels in time to comply with the revised compliance date of
August 16, 2011. The number of pesticide product labels submitted by
the August 16, 2010 deadline is comparable to the average number of
label changes that have been reviewed, approved and changed over each
of the past few years. Therefore, EPA believes that EPA, states and
registrants can readily accomplish the steps necessary in order for the
affected products to be in compliance with the pesticide container and
containment regulations by August 16, 2011.
    EPA believes that a longer extension is unjustified because
registrants have had a reasonable amount of time to prepare and submit
their label modification requests. The rule was published over 4 years
ago and EPA has already extended the deadline by 1 year and 4 months.
The prior extension was based on EPA's concern that without an
extension, the prior compliance date of August 16, 2010 could
temporarily remove from the market a significant number of pesticides
important to the protection of public health and the nation's food
supply, without comparable benefits to public health or the
environment. Extending the compliance date to August 2011 was expected
to allow time for the labels of the vast majority of these products to
work through the review and revision process so there should not be a
significant number of non-compliant products by August 16, 2011. While
the number of non-compliant products is still significant, the number
of applications submitted and processed to date gives EPA confidence
that users will have adequate access to compliant products by August
16, 2011.
    EPA continues to believe that the pesticide container labeling
requirements serve important roles in the management of pesticide
risks, as explained in the August 16, 2006, pesticide container and
containment final rule (71 FR 47330). Absent compelling competing
public interests, EPA believes that it is essential for the labels to
clearly identify containers as nonrefillable containers or refillable
containers by August 16, 2011 when compliance is required with the
refillable container and repackaging requirements. Having the label
identify a container as a refillable container is essential to the
successful implementation of the refillable container and repackaging
regulations.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action only amends an existing regulation to extend the
current compliance date, it does not otherwise amend or impose any
other requirements. As such, this action is not subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Nor does it impose or change any
information collection burden that requires additional review by OMB
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). The information collection activities contained in the
regulations are already approved under OMB control number 2070-0133
(EPA ICR No. 1632). An 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. The OMB control numbers
for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that this final
rule does not have a significant adverse economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The extension of the compliance
date is not expected to have any adverse economic impacts on affected
entities, regardless of their size. The factual basis for the Agency's
determination is presented in the 2006 addendum to the economic
analysis, a copy of which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking. In general, EPA strives to minimize potential adverse
impacts on small entities when developing regulations to achieve the
environmental and human health protection goals of the statute and the
Agency. EPA solicits comments specifically about potential small
business impacts.
    State, local, and tribal governments are rarely pesticide
applicants or registrants, so this final rule is not expected to affect
these governments. Accordingly, pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), EPA has determined
that this action is not subject to the requirements in sections 202 and
205 because it does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or for the private sector in any one
year. In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental
mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. For the same
reasons, EPA has determined that this final rule does not have
``federalism implications'' as specified in Executive Order 13132,
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it would
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in the Order. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this final
rule. Nor does it have ``tribal implications'' as specified in
Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). EPA is not
aware of any tribal governments which are pesticide registrants. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    Since this action is not economically significant under Executive
Order 12866, it is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), and Executive Order 13211, entitled
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). In addition, EPA
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety risks, which is not the case in
this final rule.
    This action does not involve technical standards that would require
the consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
(15 U.S.C. 272).
    This action does not have an adverse impact on the environmental
and health conditions in low-income and minority communities.
Therefore, this action does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as specified in Executive Order
12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).

VI. FIFRA Mandated Reviews

    In accordance with FIFRA section 25(a) and (d), the Agency
submitted a draft of this final rule to the Committee on Agriculture in
the House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry in the United States Senate, the Secretary of Agriculture,
and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). The SAP and the
Secretary of Agriculture waived review of this final rule.

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and
the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 156

    Environmental protection, Labeling, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: September 29, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 156--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 156 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 through 136y.

0
2. Revise Sec.  156.159 to read as follows:

Sec.  156.159  Compliance date.

    Any pesticide product released for shipment by a registrant after
August 16, 2011 must bear a label that complies with Sec. Sec.
156.10(d)(7), 156.10(f), 156.10(i)(2)(ix), 156.140, 156.144, 156.146
and 156.156.

[FR Doc. 2010-25425 Filed 10-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 67386-67387]
[DOCID:fr02no10-83]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0947]

Policy for Banning of Foreign Vessels From Entry into United
States Ports

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of policy.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard announces release of policy letter 10-03,
Banning of Foreign Vessels. This policy letter outlines U.S. Coast
Guard procedures for denying entry of certain foreign flagged
commercial vessels into any port or place in the United States as a
result of the vessel's history of operating in a continuous substandard
condition in waters subject to United States jurisdiction.

DATES: This policy became effective on September 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: This notice and the policy letter described within it are
available in the docket and can be viewed by going to http://
www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0947 in the ``Keyword'' box,
and then clicking ``Search.'' This policy letter is also available at
http://www.homeport.uscg.mil under the Port State Control tab; Foreign
Vessel Safety; Banning of Foreign Vessels.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
or the policy, call or e-mail Lieutenant Commander Charles Fluke,
Foreign and Offshore Vessels Division (CG-5432), U.S. Coast Guard,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing material in
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The U.S. Coast Guard Port State Control (PSC) program began in the
United States when Congress, through the 1994 Department of
Transportation Appropriations Bill, required the U.S. Coast Guard to
change its approach to foreign vessel examinations. The bill required
the U.S. Coast Guard to hold those most responsible for substandard
ships accountable, including owners, classification societies, and flag
States.
    Title 33 of the United States Code provides tools and authority for
the U.S. Coast Guard to meet this mandate. 33 U.S.C. 1228 prohibits
vessels from operating in the navigable waters of the United States or
transferring cargo or residue in any port or place under the
jurisdiction of the United States if such vessels: Have a history of
accidents, pollution incidents, or serious repair problems; fail to
comply with applicable regulations, laws, or treaties; discharges oil
or hazardous material in violation of law or treaty; or fails to comply
with vessel traffic service, manning, and language requirements.
    In addition, 33 U.S.C. 1223(b) grants the authority to order any
vessel in a port or place subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States or in the navigable waters of the United States to operate or
anchor as directed if: such vessel does not comply with applicable
regulations, law, or treaty; the vessel does not satisfy the conditions
for port entry as set out in 33 U.S.C. 1228; or in the interest of
safety.
    In 1997, the U.S. Coast Guard published regulations to enforce
International Maritime Organization (IMO) Resolution A.741 (18), titled
``International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for
Pollution Prevention (International Safe Management [ISM] Code)''. The
U.S. Coast Guard also published the Navigation and Vessel Inspection
Circular (NVIC) 04-05, titled, ``Port State Control Guidelines for the
Enforcement of Management for the Safe Operation of Ships (ISM) Code,''
to provide guidance to both Coast Guard and industry personnel
concerning compliance with the requirements of the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, Chapter IX and
the ISM Code.
    The cornerstone for ensuring a vessel is compliant with
international standards, laws, and regulations is a well written and
properly implemented Safety Management System (SMS). Commitment by top
level company management and continuous improvement are two fundamental
objectives of an effective SMS. Companies that do not embrace a safety
culture and that repeatedly operate vessels in a substandard condition
have failed to recognize the importance of complying with international
conventions and standards and put their crews, vessels, and the marine
environment at risk.
    Occasionally, the U.S. Coast Guard intercepts vessels arriving into
United States waters that consistently demonstrate a substandard
condition and, thus, fail to comply with the requirements found in
international conventions and domestic regulations. Previously, there
was no mechanism in place to effectively and consistently respond to
repeat offenders. The U.S. Coast Guard's Banning of Foreign Vessels
policy should provide a systematic approach to addressing these
vessels. This policy aligns the U.S. Coast Guard with other SOLAS
signatory flag States who currently have policies and procedures in
place for processing vessels that repeatedly operate in a substandard
condition.

Policy Implementation

    The U.S. Coast Guard will continue to screen, prioritize, and
coordinate all foreign vessel exams in accordance with existing
policies. When a vessel has been repeatedly detained (meaning three or
more detentions within twelve months) and it is determined by the U.S.
Coast Guard's Foreign and Offshore Vessels Division (CG-5432) that
failure to effectively implement the SMS was a contributing factor for
the substandard condition(s) that led to the detentions, the vessel
will be denied entry into any port or place in the United States in
compliance with 33 U.S.C. 1228 and 1223(b) until specified actions are
completed to the satisfaction of the Coast Guard.

    Authority: This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C.
552, 33 U.S.C. 1223(b), and 33 U.S.C. 1228.

    Dated: October 25, 2010.
Kevin S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-27592 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 250 (Friday, December 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80529-80530]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-301-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Various Jan
1 2023 Releases to be effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/21/22.
    Accession Number: 20221221-5083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-302-000.

    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Third Party Capacity Updates
to be effective 1/21/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/21/22.
    Accession Number: 20221221-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-303-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: REX 2022-12-21 Negotiated Rate
Agreement Amendment to be effective 12/22/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/21/22.
    Accession Number: 20221221-5197.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-304-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement--1/
1/2023 to be effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20221222-5014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-305-000.
    Applicants: Great Basin Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Cancel Tariff--Original Version No.
1 to be effective 1/23/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20221222-5064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-306-000.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates Filing--FPL
to be effective 12/24/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20221222-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-307-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: NRA Filing to be effective 1/
1/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20221222-5110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-308-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Hub, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Mississippi Hub, LLC Tariff
Filing to be effective 1/21/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20221222-5121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-309-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Filing--Golden Pass K150158 to be effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20221222-5131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-310-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Gas Quality Filing 2022 to be
effective 2/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20221222-5247.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1033-003.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: 20221222 Interim Rates to be
effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20221222-5145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/23.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 23, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-28452 Filed 12-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29573-29574]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13299]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-132, OMB Control No. 3235-0158]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 20a-1

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    Rule 20a-1 (17 CFR 270.20a-1) was adopted under Section 20(a) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``1940 Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a-20(a))
and concerns the solicitation of proxies, consents, and authorizations
with respect to securities issued by registered investment companies
(``Funds''). More specifically, rule 20a-1 under the 1940 Act (15
U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) requires that the solicitation of a proxy,
consent, or authorization with respect to a security issued by a Fund
be in compliance with Regulation 14A (17 CFR 240.14a-1 et seq.),
Schedule 14A (17 CFR 240.14a-101), and all other rules and regulations
adopted pursuant to section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``1934 Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78n(a)). It also requires, in certain
circumstances, a Fund's investment adviser or a prospective adviser,
and certain affiliates of the adviser or prospective adviser, to
transmit to the person making the solicitation the information
necessary to enable that person to comply with the rules and
regulations applicable to the solicitation. In addition, rule 20a-1
instructs Funds that have made a public offering of securities and that
hold security holder votes for which proxies, consents, or
authorizations are not being solicited, to refer to section 14(c) of
the

1934 Act (15 U.S.C. 78n(c)) and the information statement requirements
set forth in the rules thereunder.
    The types of proposals voted upon by Fund shareholders include not
only the typical matters considered in proxy solicitations made by
operating companies, such as the election of directors, but also
include issues that are unique to Funds, such as the approval of an
investment advisory contract and the approval of changes in fundamental
investment policies of the Fund. Through rule 20a-1, any person making
a solicitation with respect to a security issued by a Fund must,
similar to operating company solicitations, comply with the rules and
regulations adopted pursuant to Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act. Some of
those Section 14(a) rules and regulations, however, include provisions
specifically related to Funds, including certain particularized
disclosure requirements set forth in Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the
1934 Act.
    Rule 20a-1 is intended to ensure that investors in Fund securities
are provided with appropriate information upon which to base informed
decisions regarding the actions for which Funds solicit proxies.
Without rule 20a-1, Fund issuers would not be required to comply with
the rules and regulations adopted under Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act,
which are applicable to non-Fund issuers, including the provisions
relating to the form of proxy and disclosure in proxy statements.
    The staff currently estimates that approximately 1,333 proxy
statements are filed by Funds annually. Based on staff estimates and
information from the industry, the staff estimates that the average
annual burden associated with the preparation and submission of proxy
statements is 85 hours per response, for a total annual burden of
113,305 hours (1,333 responses x 85 hours per response = 101,660). In
addition, the staff estimates the costs for purchased services, such as
outside legal counsel, proxy statement mailing, and proxy tabulation
services, to be approximately $30,000 per proxy solicitation.
    Rule 20a-1 does not involve any recordkeeping requirements.
Providing the information required by the rule is mandatory and
information provided under the rule will not be kept confidential.
    An 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 control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Riddle, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: June 18, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13299 Filed 6-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 The term EPCRA section 313 properly refers to only the statutory requirements, while the term TRI properly refers to the database where the information collected under section 313 and under section 6607 of the PPA is stored. However, the terms have often been used interchangeably by the public to refer to the statute, the regulatory requirements, the reporting form, the database, and EPA's program to manage the data. In deference to common usage, the terms EPCRA section 313 and TRI are sometimes used interchangeably in this report where doing so will make the report simpler and easier to read.

1 1 CHAPTER ONE BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA), also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ( SARA), created a broad range of emergency response planning and reporting requirements for manufacturers, processors, and users of toxic chemicals in the United States. Under section 313 of EPCRA, certain facilities are required to submit annual reports to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and to States on their release( s), transfer( s), and waste management activities for certain toxic chemicals if they are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above thresholds amounts. In addition, the Pollution Prevention Act ( PPA) of 1990 requires these same facilities to report prevention, recycling, and other waste management information for these same chemicals. EPA maintains the data collected under EPCRA section 313 and the PPA in a database known as the Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI). 1 Since the inception of the TRI Program, EPA has implemented measures that reduce the reporting burden to the regulated universe of facilities. These measures have included compliance assistance activities such as industry specific guidance documents and annual TRI training workshops. Efforts to reduce the time spent completing the form include the Toxics Release Inventory B Made Easy ( TRI ME) software and the Form A certification. In an effort to further expand burden reduction opportunities, EPA is currently considering eliminating some of Form R/ A's unnecessary and redundant data elements and streamlining others.

This report analyzes the economic effects of making certain modifications to the Form R and Form A reporting forms to reduce reporting burden. To understand the effects of the final rule, however, it is first necessary to understand how EPCRA section 313 and TRI currently operate. This chapter provides an overview of TRI followed by a description of the final rule and organization of the report.

1.1 OVERVIEW OF TRI In 1986 Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA, or Title III of SARA). The law was passed in response to the accidental release of methyl isocyanate gas in Bhopal, India, in December 1984, and to a number of chemical accidents in the United States, including one in Institute, West Virginia. These accidental releases highlighted the lack of information readily available to the public about toxic chemicals being manufactured, processed, used, and transported within their communities. EPCRA is based on the premise that the public has the right to know about the use of chemicals, as well as their 1 2 routine and accidental releases. The broad purposes are to encourage planning for response to accidental chemical releases as well as daily management of routine releases, and to provide the public and government agencies with information about the presence, release, and management of toxic chemicals.

EPCRA contains four main provisions:

Planning for chemical emergencies ( sections 301 303),

Emergency notification of chemical accidents and releases ( section 304),

Reporting of hazardous chemical inventories ( sections 311 312), and

Toxic chemical release reporting ( section 313).

Because this rule is being proposed under section 313 ( and not the other sections of EPCRA), the remainder of this overview deals only with TRI provisions of section 313.

The regulations implementing EPCRA section 313 were promulgated on February 16, 1988 ( 53 FR 4500), and are codified at 40 CFR part 372. Under these regulations, owners or operators of regulated facilities must complete the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Form R, which includes information on releases to air, water, and land, as well as on site waste treatment and transfers of the chemical to off site locations.

A facility must report under section 313 if it meets all of the following three criteria:

( 1) It is in a Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) code covered by the regulations;

( 2) It has ten or more full time employees ( or the hourly equivalent of 20,000 hours); and ( 3) It manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses any of the listed toxic chemicals or chemical categories above the applicable reporting threshold.

Facilities must submit the forms each calendar year to both EPA and the States by July 1 of the following year.

A completed Form R must be submitted for each toxic chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at each regulated facility as described in 40 CFR part 372. Over 600 toxic chemicals and chemical compound categories are currently on the list of TRI chemicals.

TRI is unique among environmental databases because of the multimedia data it collects, and because it was designed for public access. EPCRA requires that EPA " establish and maintain in a computer database a national toxic chemical inventory based on data submitted to the Administrator." EPA maintains the section 313 data in the national TRI database. TRI data are available to the public in a variety of paper and electronic formats, including disk, on line, and CD ROM. With its broad dissemination, TRI data is used extensively by the public. Facilities use the data obtained through TRI to better understand their operations, and make better use of 1 3 pollution prevention opportunities. Public interest groups use the data to educate themselves on the presence of toxic chemicals in the environment, and use that improved information to engage in a meaningful, productive dialogue with industry and with all levels of government. In general, TRI data have proven to be a powerful tool in environmental decision making.

1.1.1 Pollution Prevention Act In 1990 Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act ( PPA), which adopted as national policy an environmental hierarchy that establishes pollution prevention as the first choice among waste management options. For waste that cannot be prevented at the source, recycling is considered the next best option. Treatment or disposal should be considered only after source reduction and recycling have been eliminated as options. Section 6607 of the PPA augmented the information available to the public under EPCRA section 313 by requiring facilities to also report information on their pollution prevention, recycling, and other waste management activities on Form R. The data elements required by the Pollution Prevention Act are included as section 8 of Form R.

1.1.2 Changes to the List of Chemicals When Congress passed EPCRA it gave EPA an initial list of approximately 300 chemicals and chemical categories subject to TRI reporting. The statutory list was derived from chemical lists used in New Jersey and Maryland. Congress also included a provision in EPCRA that EPA may amend the list of chemicals. Under section 313( d), EPA has the authority to add a chemical to the list if it determines that the chemical can cause or can be reasonably anticipated to cause:

Adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels reasonably likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous or frequently recurring releases;

Cancer or teratogenic effects, serious or irreversible reproductive dysfunctions, neurological disorders, heritable genetic mutations, or other chronic health effects; or

A significant adverse effect on the environment.

EPA has added chemicals to the list through its authority under section 313( d). Most notably, EPA added 286 chemicals and chemical categories to the list of toxic chemicals subject to TRI on November 30, 1994 ( 59 FR 61432). The majority of these chemicals are pesticides. Many of the remainder are chemicals either regulated or identified as concerns under other environmental statutes such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

EPA may delete a chemical from the list if it does not meet any of the above criteria. According to section 313( e) of EPCRA, any person may petition EPA to add or delete a chemical from the list on the basis of whether or not it meets the above criteria. All changes to the list are made through notice and comment rulemaking.

1.1.3 Alternate Threshold 2 The annual reportable amount is equal to the combined total quantities recycled, combusted for energy recovery, treated, or released. It is the sum of data elements 8.1 through 8.7 on Form R.

1 4 On November 30, 1994, EPA finalized the " TRI Alternate Threshold for Facilities with Low Annual Reportable Amounts" ( 59 FR 61488). This rule was intended to reduce the compliance burden associated with EPCRA section 313. It established a streamlined reporting option for facilities where the annual reportable amount of a listed chemical released or managed does not exceed 500 pounds. 2 Such facilities have the option of applying an alternate manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1 million pounds to that chemical, instead of the standard thresholds of 10,000 or 25,000 pounds. If a facility does not exceed the 1 millionpound threshold, then that facility is eligible to submit Form A for that chemical instead of Form R.

Form A is a simplified reporting form that includes facility identification information and identifies the chemical or chemical category being reported. The form must be submitted on an annual basis, and the information appears in the TRI database in the same manner as information submitted on a Form R.

1.1.4 Executive Order 12856 On August 3, 1993, Executive Order 12856, " Federal Compliance with Right to Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements" was signed by the President ( 58 FR 41981). The Executive Order requires federal facilities to comply with EPCRA requirements beginning with the 1994 reporting year. The Executive Order also asks all federal agencies to set a voluntary goal of 50% reduction from baseline quantities of their releases and transfers by 1999.

1.1.5 Changes to the List of Industries On May 1, 1997, EPA added facilities in seven industry groups to the list of facilities subject to the reporting requirements of section 313 ( 62 FR 23833). Prior to this action, reporting was limited to facilities in the manufacturing sector ( SIC codes 20 39) and federal facilities. This action added facilities in the following sectors:

Metal mining,

Coal mining,

Electric utilities,

Commercial hazardous waste treatment,

Chemicals and allied products wholesale,

Petroleum bulk terminals and plants wholesale, and

Solvent recovery services.

The first reports from these facilities were submitted in 1999 for reporting year 1998.

1.1.6 Changes for Certain PBT Chemicals 1 5 On October 29, 1999, EPA lowered reporting thresholds to 10 or 100 pounds for certain TRI chemicals ( persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals, or PBT chemicals) that are of concern because of their tendency to persist and bioaccumulate ( 64 FR 58666). EPA also added to TRI certain PBT chemicals that were not already listed. At this time EPA made other changes to PBT chemical reporting, such as eliminating the de minimis exemption, range reporting, and Form A reporting. On January 17, 2001, EPA lowered the reporting threshold for lead and lead compounds to 100 pounds ( 40 CFR 372.28).

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE FINAL RULE As described above, EPA has implemented a number of burden reduction measures. To build upon these efforts, EPA conducted a TRI Stakeholder Dialogue between Fall 2002 and early 2004. During this dialogue, improvements to the TRI reporting process were identified and a number of burden reduction options associated with TRI reporting were explored. After reviewing these improvements and reporting options, EPA decided to initiate burden reduction rulemakings in two phases: Phase 1) several relatively simple, quick fix solutions for reducing the time, cost, and complexity of reporting requirements and Phase 2) a broader and more complex set of regulatory burden reduction alternatives. This economic analysis reflects the costs and impacts of the Phase 1 burden reduction rulemaking. The following sections outline the specific changes covered by the final rule. Changes in the rule since proposal are noted below.

1.2.1 Removal of Longitude/ Latitude Reporting Requirement ( Part I, section 4.6)

Under the final rule the longitude and latitude coordinates indicating the geographic location of each TRI reporting facility ( Part I, section 4.6) will be removed from Form R and Form A. Facility locational data will still be made available in the TRI database. Rather than requiring facilities to determine their geographic coordinates, EPA will extract the data from information that is already collected, stored and maintained in its centrally managed database called the Facility Registry System ( FRS). The FRS has been designated as the Agency's definitive source of facility data and serves as a single integrated source of comprehensive environmental information about facilities, sites and ecosystems. It provides high quality, accurate, and authoritative facility identification records through rigorous verification and management procedures that incorporate information from EPA national data systems, state master facility records, data collected from EPA's Central Data Exchange registrations and data management personnel.

1.2.2 Removal of Reporting Requirements for EPA Program Identity Numbers ( Part I, Sections 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10)

EPA will remove three similar reporting requirements from Form R and Form A that identify facilities through EPA program identification numbers ( see Form R, Part I, sections 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10). The identification numbers include the number assigned to facilities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), the permit identification numbers under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES), and all permit numbers issued by EPA or a state to facilities with underground injection wells. FRS integrates into a single record 1 6 all program identification and permit information numbers, including those for the RCRA, NPDES and Underground Injection programs. Therefore, these identification numbers will still be available in FRS.

1.2.3 Removal of Reporting Requirement for Determining the Percentage of the Total Quantity of Toxic Chemicals Contributed by Stormwater ( Part II, Section 5.3 Column C)

Under the final rule, this data element remains on Form R. Under the proposed rule, section 5.3 column C would have been removed from Part II of Form R.

1.2.4 Modifications to the Reporting Requirement for On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency ( Part II, Section 7)

EPA will modify several aspects of Part II, section 7 of the Form R. Under Part II, section 7, facilities report qualitative information regarding their on site waste treatment, energy recovery and recycling of listed chemicals. The modifications either 1) eliminate data elements that EPA believes are not widely used by States and the public or 2) reduce the number of codes a facility must consider when reporting in specific sections. The specific modifications are:

Section 7A On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency: Column b EPA will simplify column b of section 7A by reducing the number of reporting codes. There are currently 64 codes describing the various waste treatment methods applied to listed chemicals treated on site that can be reported in column b. Under the final rule, the 64 codes will be replaced with 18 hazardous waste treatment codes ( H040 129) currently used in EPA's biennial Hazardous Waste Report and the 7 air emissions treatment codes from the original list of waste treatment codes for Section 7A column b. In the proposed rule, the original 64 codes were to be replaced only with the 18 hazardous waste treatment codes ( H040 129).

Section 7A On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency: Columns c and e EPA will eliminate columns c and e of Section 7A as this information does not appear to be widely used by States and the public. Completion of column c requires facilities to enter a numerical code indicating the concentration range of the EPCRA section 313 chemical as it enters the treatment step. Column e requires facilities to indicate " Yes" or " No" as to whether the waste treatment efficiency reported in column d is based on actual operating data such as the case where a facility monitors the influent and effluent wastes from this treatment step. In the proposed rule, column a, general wastestream type, would also have been removed from Section 7A. 1 7 Section 7A On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency: Column d Under the final rule, facilities will report treatment efficiency in column d as a range. The waste treatment efficiency represents the percentage of the TRI chemical destroyed or removed ( based on amount or mass). Currently, facilities must enter an exact percentage in this column of the form. The ranges are:

greater than 99.9999% greater than 95% to 99%

greater than 99.99% to 99.9999% greater than 50% to 95%

greater than 99% to 99.99% greater than 0% to 50%

In the proposed rule, the suggested ranges were:

greater than 99.9% greater than 75% to 90%

greater than 95% to 99.9% greater than 30% to 75%

greater than 90% to 95% 0% to 30%

Section 7C On Site Recycling Processes Under the final rule, the current recycling codes ( 16 in total) in section 7C will be eliminated. They will be replaced with three reclamation and recovery management codes used in EPA's biennial Hazardous Waste Report.

1.2.5 Removal of Reporting Data Field for Optional Submission of Additional Information ( Part II, Section 8.11)

EPA will remove question 8.11 from Part II of the Form R. Additional information describing the source reduction, recycling, or pollution control activities that a facility has implemented in the current or prior reporting years for the listed chemical will still be collected from facilities wishing to submit it. EPA will provide instructions on how to submit this information electronically in the " Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms and Instructions" and the " TRI ME" reporting software.

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT This report examines the potential burden and cost savings to industry that would result from removing or modifying the13 TRI data elements described above. This report also estimates the other impacts of the rule. The remainder of the report is organized as follows:

Chapter 2 presents the methodology used to estimate the data element specific burden, unit costs, and impacts of the final rule. Chapter 3 presents the total burden and cost savings associated with the final rule. 1 8 Chapter 4 examines the impacts of the final rule. Chapter 5 evaluates the " benefits" of the final rule.


Species % a. i. 96 Hour LC50 ( mg/ L) Toxicity Category MRID Number Study Classificationa Bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus) 94 354.4 Practically non toxic 00070193 Core Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) 94 76.1 Practically non toxic 00070193 Core Bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus) 95 > 180b Practically non toxic 00024161 Supplemental aCore: study satisfies guideline; Supplemental: study is scientifically sound, but does not satisfy guideline. b72 hour LC50 The acute studies that were submitted show that naptalam is classified as practically non toxic to freshwater fish. Therefore, Guideline 72 1 is fulfilled.

b. Freshwater Fish, Chronic An freshwater fish early life stage toxicity test using the TGAI is required for naptalam because the pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent regardless of toxicity. Toxicity testing data for freshwater fish to chronic exposures of naptalam were not available from the registrant submitted data. The Guideline 72 4 ( a) has not been fulfilled.

c. Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute A freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity test ( Guideline 72 2) using the TGAI is required to establish the toxicity of naptalam to aquatic invertebrates. The preferred test species is the water flea ( Daphnia magna). Submitted results of acute toxicity tests with freshwater invertebrates are tabulated in Table E 6.  E 7 Table E 6. Freshwater invertebrate acute toxicity.

Species % a. i. 48 Hour LC50 ( mg/ L) Toxicity Category MRID Number Study Classificationa Waterflea ( Daphnia magna) 94 118.5 Practically non toxic 00082971 Core aCore: study satisfies guideline The data that were submitted show that naptalam is classified as practically non toxic to freshwater invertebrates ( i. e., daphnids) with an acute LC50 value of 118.5 mg/ L. Therefore, Guideline 72 2 requirements for acute invertebrate toxicity are fulfilled.

d. Freshwater Invertebrate, Chronic A freshwater aquatic invertebrate life cycle test ( Guideline 72 4) using the TGAI is required if the end use product may be transported to water from the intended use site, and the presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent. Toxicity testing data for freshwater invertebrates to chronic exposures of naptalam were not available from the registrant submitted data. This data requirement has not been met.

III. Toxicity to Estuarine/ Marine Animals a. Estuarine/ Marine Fish, Acute Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/ marine fish using the TGAI is required for naptalam because the end use product is expected to reach this environment because of its use in coastal counties ( i. e., crops). The preferred test species is the sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus). Toxicity testing data for estuarine/ marine fish to acute exposures of naptalam were not available from the registrant submitted data. Therefore, Guideline 72 3a is not fulfilled.

b. Estuarine/ Marine Fish, Chronic An estuarine/ marine fish early life stage toxicity test using the TGAI is required for naptalam because the end use product is expected to be transported to an estuarine/ marine environment and the pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent regardless of toxicity. The preferred test species is the sheepshead minnow ( C. variegatus). Toxicity testing data for freshwater fish to chronic exposures of naptalam were not available from the registrant submitted data. Therefore, Guideline 72 4 ( a) has not been fulfilled.

c. Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrates, Acute Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/ marine invertebrates using the TGAI is required for naptalam because the end use product is expected to reach this environment because of its use in coastal counties ( i. e., crops). The preferred test species are mysid shrimp ( Mysidopsis bahia) and eastern oyster  E 8 ( Crassostrea virginica). Toxicity testing data for estuarine/ marine invertebrates to acute exposures of naptalam were not available from the registrant submitted data. The Guidelines 72 3 ( b) and 72 3 © ) are not fulfilled.

d. Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrates, Chronic An estuarine/ marine invertebrate early life stage life cycle toxicity test using the TGAI is required for naptalam because the end use product is expected to be transported to an estuarine/ marine environment and the pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent regardless of toxicity. The preferred test species is mysid shrimp ( M. bahia). Toxicity testing data for estuarine/ marine invertebrates to chronic exposures of naptalam were not available from the registrant submitted data. Therefore, Guideline 72 4 ( b) has not been fulfilled.

IV. Toxicity to Plants a. Terrestrial Plants Terrestrial plant toxicity testing is required for naptalam as it is an herbicide ( Guideline 122 1 ( a) and ( b). Toxicity testing data for terrestrial plants and naptalam was not available from the registrant submitted data. The guideline is not fulfilled.

b. Aquatic Plants Aquatic plant testing ( Guideline 122 2 [ Tier I]) is required for naptalam as it has outdoor nonresidential terrestrial uses and may move off site by run off ( solubility > 10 ppm in water) or may move by drift ( aerial). Toxicity testing data for aquatic plants and naptalam was not available from the registrant submitted data. The guideline is not fulfilled.

V. Open Literature Search A search of the open literature for toxicity information on naptalam was completed by searching the EPA's Ecotoxicology database ( ECOTOX) as well as TOXLINE and PubMed. ECOTOX is a publicly available database summarizing the ecological effects of single chemicals to aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals ( http:// www. epa. gov/ ecotox).

VI. Literature Cited MRID 00068402 Babish, J. G. ( 1 976) Acute Dermal Toxicity Study in Rabbits: Laboratory No. 52941aA. ( Unpublished study received Nov 30, 1977 under 400 49; prepared by Food and Drug Research Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL: 232478 B).

MRID 00060403 Babish, J. G. ( 1976) Primary Skin Irritation Study with Rabbits: Laboratory No. 52941aA. ( Unpublished study received Nov 30,1977 under 400 49; prepared by Food and Drug Research Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL: 232478 C).  E 9        ELL FATE. 2004. Terrestrial Exposure and Risk Model Version 1.4. April 7, 2004. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.

MRID 00108853 Fink, R. ( 1974) Final Report: Eight day Dietary LCSO Mallard Ducks: Technical Alanapl: Project No. 1 17 105. ( Unpublished study received Aug 20, 1974 under 400 36; prepared by Truslow Farms, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, CT; CDL: 13 1498 A).

MRID 00082969 Fink, R.; Beavers, J. B. ( 1977) Final Report: Eight day Dietary LCSO Bobwhite Quail: Project No. 1 17 122. ( Unpublished study received Nov 30, 1977 under 400 49; prepared by Wildlife In ternational, Ltd., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL: 232477 B).

MRID 00031684 Gephart, L.; Koschier, F. J.; Re, T. A.; et al. ( 1980) Muhigenera tion Evaluation of Alanap Technical in the Sprague Dawley Rat: Laboratory No. 5847. ( Unpublished study received Feb 26, 1980 under 400 49; prepared by Food and Drug Research Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Corn.; CDL: 241 844 A).

MRID 43936401 Hoffmann, G. ( 1 996) An Acute ( 4 Hour) Inhalation Toxicity Study of Naptalam Sodium in the Rat via Nose Only Exposure: Final Report: Lab Proiect Number: 95 5256. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. 61 p.

MRID 00106276 Holsing, G.; Nelson, L. ( 1968) Final Report: Subacute Dietary Administration Rats: Alanap SI: Project No. 798 137. ( Unpubished study received May 16,1970 under OF0904; prepared by Hazleton Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, CT; CDL: 091558 C).

MRID 00106277 Holsing, G.; Kundzins, W.; Nelson, L. ( 1968) Final Report: 13 week Dietary Feeding Dogs: Alanap St: Project No. 798 140. ( Un published study received May 16, 1970 under OF0904; prepared by Hazleton Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, CT; CDL: 091558 D).

MRID 00106320 Knickerbocker, M.; Re, T. ( 1 978) Teratologic Evaluation of Alanap S Technical in Sprague Dawley Rats: Laboratory No. 5888a. ( Un published study received Mar 8, 1979 under 400 49; prepared by Food and Drug Research Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, CT; CDL: 237779 A).

MRID 00070193 Kuc, W. J. ( 1 977) Acute Toxicity of Alanap Technical, Lot BL8 190 ( C 465) to the Bluegill Sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque and Rainbow Trout, Salmo gairdneri& chardson: UCES Proj. # 1 1506 29 05. ( Unpublished study received Nov 30, 1977 under 400 49; prepared by Union Carbide Corp., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL: 232477 D).

MRID 00024161 McCann, J. A. ( 1 968) Sodium Alanap: Toxicity to Bluegilll: Test No. 133. ( U. S. Agricultural Research Service, Pesticides Regu lation Div., Animal Biology  E 10 Laboratory, unpublished report.

MRID 00078530 Piccerillo, V. J. ( 1978) Final Report: Acute Eye Irritation Study in Rabbits: Project No. 798 182. ( Unpublished study received May 5, 1978 under 400 49; prepared by Hazeltton Laboratories America, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL: 233954 A).

MRID 00077053 Serota, D. G.; Kundzins, W.; Alsaker, R. D.; et al. ( 1 981) 104 week Chronic Toxicity Study in Rats 608, Na Salt ( Alanap Technical). Final rept. ( Unpublished study received Jul 14, 198 1 under 400 49; prepared by Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL: 245536 A).

MRID 00060406 Shapiro, R. ( 1977) Acute Dermal Toxicity: Report No. T 216. ( Un published study received Nov 30, 1977 under 400 49; prepired by Nutrition International, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL: 232478 F).

MRID 41057501 Tegeris, A. ( 1988) 12 Month Chronic Oral Toxicity Study in the Dog with Alanap: Project ID No. 87002. Unpublished study prepared by Tegeris Laboratories, Inc. 427 p.

MRID 00082971 Vilkas, A. G. ( 1 977) The Acute Toxicity of Alanap Technical Lot BL 8 190 to the Water Flea, Daphnia magna Straus: UCES Proj. # 1 1506 29 08. ( Unpublished study received Nov 30, 1977 under 400 49; prepared by Union Carbide Corp., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL: 232477 E).  F 1 APPENDIX F. The Risk Quotient Method and Levels of Concern The risks to terrestrial and aquatic organisms are determined based on a method by which risk quotients ( RQs) are compared with levels of concern ( LOCs). This method provides an indication of a chemical's potential to cause an effect in the field from effects observed in laboratory studies, when used as directed. Risk quotients are expressed as the ratio of the estimated environmental concentration ( EEC) to the species specific toxicity reference value ( TRV):

RQ EEC TRV =

Units for EEC and TRV should be the same ( e. g., : g/ L or ppb). The RQ is compared to the LOC as part of a risk characterization. Acute and chronic LOCs for terrestrial and aquatic organisms are given in recent Agency guidance ( EPA, 2004) and summarized in Table F 1 below.

Table F 1. Level of concern ( LOC) by risk presumption category ( EPA, 2004).

Risk Presumption RQ LOC Mammals and Birds Acute Riska EECb/ LC50 or LD50/ sqftc or LD50/ dayd 0.5 Acute Restricted Usee EEC/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft or LD50/ day ( or LD50 < 50 mg/ kg) 0.2 Acute Endangered Speciesf EEC/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft or LD50/ day 0.1 Chronic Risk EEC/ NOEC 1 Aquatic Animals Acute Risk EECg/ LC50 or EC50 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/ LC50 or EC50 0.1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/ LC50 or EC50 0.05 Chronic Risk EEC/ NOEC 1 Terrestrial and Semi aquatic Plants Acute Risk EEC/ EC25 1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/ EC05 or NOEC 1 Table F 1. Level of concern ( LOC) by risk presumption category ( EPA, 2004).

Risk Presumption RQ LOC  F 2 Aquatic Plants Acute Risk EECh/ EC50 1 Acute Endangered Species EECg/ EC05 or NOEC 1 aPotential for acute toxicity for receptor species if RQ > LOC ( EPA, 2004). bEstimated environmental concentration ( ppm) on avian/ mammalian food items cmg/ ft2 dmg of toxicant consumed per day ePotential for acute toxicity for receptor species, even considering restricted use classification, if RQ > LOC ( EPA, 2004). fPotential for acute toxicity for endangered species of receptor species if RQ > LOC ( EPA, 2004). gEEC = ppb or ppm in water hEEC = lbs a. i./ A For acute exposure to terrestrial and aquatic plants, an LOC of 1 is used. Currently the Agency does not perform assessments for chronic risk to plants or acute/ chronic risks to non target insects.

For this Tier I assessment of naptalam, acute exposure to aquatic organisms is represented by the maximum 24 hour EEC value calculated using GENEEC2. EECs used to assess acute and chronic risk to avian and mammalian species were calculated using ELL FATE.

The Agency has developed an Endangered Species Protection Program to identify pesticides whose use may cause adverse impacts on endangered and threatened species, and to implement mitigation measures that will eliminate the adverse impacts. At present, the program is being implemented on an interim basis as described in a Federal Register notice ( 54 FR 27984 28008, July 3, 1989), and is providing information to pesticide users to help them protect these species on a voluntary basis. As currently planned, the final program will call for label modifications referring to required limitations on pesticide uses, typically as depicted in county specific bulletins or by other site specific mechanisms as specified by state partners. A final program, which may be altered from the interim program, will be described in a future Federal Register notice. The Agency is not imposing label modifications at this time. Rather, any requirements for product use modifications will occur in the future under the Endangered Species Protection Program.

Limitations in the use of naptalam may be required to protect endangered and threatened species, but these limitations have not been defined and may be formulation specific. The Agency will notify the registrants if any label modifications are necessary. Such modifications would most likely consist of the generic label statement referring pesticide users to use limitations contained in county Bulletins.  F 3 Literature Cited EPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency: Endangered and Threatened Species Effects Determinations. Office of Prevention, Pesticide, and Toxic Substances. January 23.  G 1 APPENDIX G. Summary of Threatened and Endangered Species Species Detail by State for Preliminary Assessment Cucurbits, all ( 306)

Minimum of 1 Acre.

Alabama ( 4)

BAT, GRAY Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

MOUSE, ALABAMA BEACH Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Cricetidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

MOUSE, PERDIDO KEY BEACH Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Cricetidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Arizona ( 7)

BAT, LESSER (= SANBORN'S) LONG NOSED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Phyllostomidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

JAGUAR Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Felidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Jaguarundi, Sinaloan Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Felidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

OCELOT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Felidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

PRONGHORN, SONORAN Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Antilocapridae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

SQUIRREL, MOUNT GRAHAM RED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Sciuridae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Thursday, September 30, 2004 Page 1 of 14  G 2 Species Detail by State for Preliminary Assessment Cucurbits, all ( 306)

Minimum of 1 Acre.

WOLF, GRAY Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Canidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Arkansas ( 2)

BAT, GRAY Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

BAT, OZARK BIG EARED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

California ( 21)

FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Canidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

FOX, SAN MIGUEL ISLAND Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Canidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

FOX, SANTA CATALINA ISLAND Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Canidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

FOX, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Canidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

FOX, SANTA ROSA ISLAND Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Canidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

KANGAROO RAT, FRESNO Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Heteromyidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

KANGAROO RAT, GIANT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Heteromyidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Thursday, September 30, 2004 Page 2 of 14  G 3 Species Detail by State for Preliminary Assessment Cucurbits, all ( 306)

Minimum of 1 Acre.

KANGAROO RAT, MORRO BAY Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Heteromyidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

KANGAROO RAT, SAN BERNARDINO Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Heteromyidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

KANGAROO RAT, STEPHENS' Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Heteromyidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

KANGAROO RAT, TIPTON Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Heteromyidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

MOUNTAIN BEAVER, POINT ARENA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Aplodontidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

MOUSE, PACIFIC POCKET Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Heteromyidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Cricetidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

OTTER, SOUTHERN SEA Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Mustelidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

RABBIT, RIPARIAN BRUSH Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Leporidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

SEAL, GUADALUPE FUR Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Phocidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

SHEEP, PENINSULAR BIGHORN Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Bovidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Thursday, September 30, 2004 Page 3 of 14  G 4 Species Detail by State for Preliminary Assessment Cucurbits, all ( 306)

Minimum of 1 Acre.

SHREW, BUENA VISTA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Soricidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

VOLE, AMARGOSA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Cricetidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

WOODRAT, RIPARIAN Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Cricetidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Colorado ( 2)

FERRET, BLACK FOOTED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Mustelidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

MOUSE, PREBLE'S MEADOW JUMPING Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Zapodidae Medium: Diet: invertivore Habitat: Terrestrial Connecticut ( 2)

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Balaenidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Delaware ( 2)

SQUIRREL, DELMARVA PENINSULA FOX Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Sciuridae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Balaenidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Florida ( 8)

Thursday, September 30, 2004 Page 4 of 14  G 5 Species Detail by State for Preliminary Assessment Cucurbits, all ( 306)

Minimum of 1 Acre.

BAT, GRAY Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

MANATEE, WEST INDIAN ( FLORIDA) Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Trichechidae Medium: Diet: Habitat: Marine MOUSE, CHOCTAWHATCHEE BEACH Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Cricetidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

MOUSE, SOUTHEASTERN BEACH Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Cricetidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

PANTHER, FLORIDA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Felidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

VOLE, FLORIDA SALT MARSH Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Cricetidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Balaenidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Georgia ( 3)

BAT, GRAY Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Thursday, September 30, 2004 Page 5 of 14  G 6 Species Detail by State for Preliminary Assessment Cucurbits, all ( 306)

Minimum of 1 Acre.

MANATEE, WEST INDIAN ( FLORIDA) Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Trichechidae Medium: Diet: Habitat: Marine Hawaii ( 2)

BAT, HAWAIIAN HOARY Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

SEAL, HAWAIIAN MONK Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Phocidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Illinois ( 1)

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Indiana ( 2)

BAT, GRAY Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Iowa ( 1)

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Kansas ( 1)

FERRET, BLACK FOOTED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Mustelidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Kentucky ( 2)

Thursday, September 30, 2004 Page 6 of 14  G 7 Species Detail by State for Preliminary Assessment Cucurbits, all ( 306)

Minimum of 1 Acre.

BAT, GRAY Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Louisiana ( 1)

BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Ursidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Maine ( 2)

LYNX, CANADA Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Felidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Balaenidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Maryland ( 3)

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

SQUIRREL, DELMARVA PENINSULA FOX Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Sciuridae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Balaenidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Massachusetts ( 2)

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Thursday, September 30, 2004 Page 7 of 14  G 8 Species Detail by State for Preliminary Assessment Cucurbits, all ( 306)

Minimum of 1 Acre.

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Balaenidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Michigan ( 1)

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Minnesota ( 1)

WOLF, GRAY Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Canidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Mississippi ( 1)

BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Ursidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Missouri ( 2)

BAT, GRAY Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Montana ( 2)

BEAR, GRIZZLY Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Ursidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

WOLF, GRAY Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Canidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

New Hampshire ( 1)

Thursday, September 30, 2004 Page 8 of 14  G 9 Species Detail by State for Preliminary Assessment Cucurbits, all ( 306)

Minimum of 1 Acre.

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

New Jersey ( 2)

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Balaenidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

New Mexico ( 5)

BAT, LESSER (= SANBORN'S) LONG NOSED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Phyllostomidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

BAT, MEXICAN LONG NOSED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Phyllostomidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

FERRET, BLACK FOOTED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Mustelidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

JAGUAR Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Felidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

WOLF, GRAY Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Canidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

New York ( 2)

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Thursday, September 30, 2004 Page 9 of 14  G 10 Species Detail by State for Preliminary Assessment Cucurbits, all ( 306)

Minimum of 1 Acre.

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Balaenidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

North Carolina ( 5)

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

MANATEE, WEST INDIAN ( FLORIDA) Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Trichechidae Medium: Diet: Habitat: Marine SQUIRREL, CAROLINA NORTHERN FLYING Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Sciuridae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Balaenidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

WOLF, RED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Canidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Ohio ( 1)

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Oklahoma ( 3)

BAT, GRAY Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Thursday, September 30, 2004 Page 10 of 14  G 11 Species Detail by State for Preliminary Assessment Cucurbits, all ( 306)

Minimum of 1 Acre.

BAT, OZARK BIG EARED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Oregon ( 1)

DEER, COLUMBIAN WHITE TAILED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Cervidae Medium: Diet: herbivore Habitat: Terrestrial Pennsylvania ( 2)

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

SQUIRREL, DELMARVA PENINSULA FOX Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Sciuridae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Rhode Island ( 2)

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Balaenidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

South Carolina ( 3)

MANATEE, WEST INDIAN ( FLORIDA) Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Trichechidae Medium: Diet: Habitat: Marine WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Balaenidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

WOLF, RED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Canidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Thursday, September 30, 2004 Page 11 of 14  G 12 Species Detail by State for Preliminary Assessment Cucurbits, all ( 306)

Minimum of 1 Acre.

South Dakota ( 1)

FERRET, BLACK FOOTED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Mustelidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Tennessee ( 4)

BAT, GRAY Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

SQUIRREL, CAROLINA NORTHERN FLYING Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Sciuridae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

WOLF, RED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Canidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Texas ( 3)

BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Ursidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

JAGUARUNDI, Gulf Coast Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Felidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

OCELOT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Felidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Utah ( 2)

FERRET, BLACK FOOTED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Mustelidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Thursday, September 30, 2004 Page 12 of 14  G 13 Species Detail by State for Preliminary Assessment Cucurbits, all ( 306)

Minimum of 1 Acre.

PRAIRIE DOG, UTAH Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Sciuridae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Vermont ( 1)

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Virginia ( 6)

BAT, GRAY Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

BAT, VIRGINIA BIG EARED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

SQUIRREL, DELMARVA PENINSULA FOX Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Sciuridae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

SQUIRREL, VIRGINIA NORTHERN FLYING Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Sciuridae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Balaenidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Washington ( 4)

BEAR, GRIZZLY Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Ursidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Thursday, September 30, 2004 Page 13 of 14  G 14 Species Detail by State for Preliminary Assessment Cucurbits, all ( 306)

Minimum of 1 Acre.

DEER, COLUMBIAN WHITE TAILED Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Cervidae Medium: Diet: herbivore Habitat: Terrestrial RABBIT, PYGMY Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Leporidae Medium: Diet: herbivore Habitat: Terrestrial WOLF, GRAY Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Canidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

West virginia ( 1)

BAT, INDIANA Endangered Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Vespertilionidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Wisconsin ( 1)

WOLF, GRAY Threatened Critical Habitat Mammal Family: Canidae Medium: Diet: Habitat:

Thursday, September 30, 2004 Page 14 of 14  H 1 APPENDIX H. Data Requirements Tables   Environmental Fate and Effects Ecological Effects Data Requirements Table for Naptalam Table H 1. Ecological effects data requirements for naptalam.

Guideline Number Data Requirement Is Data Requirement Satisfied? Study ID #' s Study Classificationa 71 1( a) Avian Oral LD50 Yes GS 0183 01 Core 71 2 ( a) Avian Dietary LC50 Quail Yes 00082969 Core 71 2 ( b) Avian Dietary LC50 Mallard Yes 00108853 Core 71 4 Avian Reproduction No 72 1 ( a) Freshwater Fish LC50 Bluegill Yes 0070193 Core 72 1 ( b) Freshwater Fish LC50 Rainbow trout Yes 0070193 Core Supplemental 72 2 Freshwater Invertebrate Acute LC50 Yes 00082971 Core 72 3( a) Estuarine/ Marine Fish LC50 No 72 3( b) Estuarine/ Marine Mollusk LC50 No 72 3( c) Estuarine/ Marine Shrimp LC50 No 72 4( a) Freshwater Fish Early Life Stage No 72 4( b) Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle No 72 5 Freshwater Fish Full Life Cycle No 81 1 Acute Oral LD50 Rat 82 1( a) 90 day Subchronic Oral LD50 Rat 82 1( b) Subchronic Oral LD50 Non rodent 83 3 Chronic ( Teratology) NOAEL Rat 83 4 Chronic ( Multgeneration) NOAEL Rat 122 1( a) Seedling Emergence No 122 1 ( b) Vegetative Vigor No 122 2 Aquatic Plant Growth No 123 1( a) Seed Germ./ Seedling Emergence ( Tier II) No 123 1( b) Vegetative Vigor ( Tier II) No 123 2 Aquatic Plant Growth No 144 1 Honey Bee Acute Contact LD50 Yes 00028772 Core Table H 1. Ecological effects data requirements for naptalam.

Guideline Number Data Requirement Is Data Requirement Satisfied? Study ID #' s Study Classificationa  H 2 141 2 Honey Bee Residue on Foliage Not Required aCore: study satisfies guideline; Supplemental: study is scientifically sound, but does not satisfy guideline  H 3 Table H 2. Environmental fate data requirements for naptalam.

Guideline Number Data Requirement MRID #' s Study Classification 161 1 Hydrolysis 43647701 Supplemental 161 2 Photodegradation in Water 41385401 Supplemental 161 3 Photodegradation on Soil 41385402 Supplemental 161 4 Photodegradation in Air

162 1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism 41427201 Acceptable 162 2 Anaerobic Soil Metabolism 41427202 Acceptable 162 3 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism

162 4 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism

163 1 Leaching Adsorption/ Desorption

163 2 Laboratory Volatility

163 3 Field Volatility

164 1 Terrestrial Field Dissipation 41385403 40488901 Unacceptable Unacceptable 164 2 Aquatic Field Dissipation

164 3 Forestry Dissipation

165 4 Accumulation in Fish      D 1


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 71852]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29240]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68311; File No. SR-CHX-2012-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Adoption of Listing Standards for
Compensation Committees and Advisors as Required by Rule 10C-1

 November 28, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On September 26, 2012, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change to
amend certain of its rules relating to listing standards for
compensation committees and advisors. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on October 16, 2012.\4\
The Commission received no comment letters on this proposal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68033 (October 10,
2012), 77 FR 63370. (October 16, 2012) (SR-CHX-2012-13).
    \5\ The Commission notes, however, that fourteen comment letters
were received in total concerning similar rule changes proposed by
other national securities exchanges. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 68313, (November 28, 2012) (Notice of Designation of
Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Changes
Relating to Adoption of Listing Standards for Compensation
Committees and Advisors as Required by Rule 10C-1 for BATS Exchange,
Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca LLC,
and NYSE MKT LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day from the publication of notice of filing of this proposed rule
change is November 30, 2012. The Commission is extending the 45-day
time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on this proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, which would
revise the rules relating to compensation committee and compensation
advisor requirements.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ designates January 14, 2013, as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29240 Filed 12-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 1283]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00175]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4675-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Seminole Tribe of Florida; Amendment No. 3 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 Seminole Tribe of Florida (FEMA-4675-DR), dated September 30,
2022, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued December 9, 2022.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Seminole Tribe of Florida is hereby amended to include
permanent work under the Public Assistance program for those areas
determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a
major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 30,
2022.

    The Seminole Tribe of Florida for permanent work [Categories C-
G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and assistance for
debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and
B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program).

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-00175 Filed 1-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P