UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: December 18, 2001 SUBJECT: Asulam. Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment for the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision Document ( TRED); PC codes 106901; DP Barcode D279592.

FROM: José J. Morales, Chemist Reregistration Branch III Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

THROUGH: Catherine Eiden, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch III Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

and Chemistry Science Advisory Council ( Chem SAC) Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

and Jennifer Tyler Sherrie Kinard Dietary Exposure Science Advisory Council ( DESAC) Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

TO: Demson Fuller, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch I Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C) [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

1 EPA Reviewer: , Date STUDY TYPE: Asulam. Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment for the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision Document ( TRED).

ACTIVE INGREDIENT: Sodium Asulam SYNONYMS: Asulox ® RESIDUE OF CONCERN: The qualitative nature of the residue in plants is adequately understood based on sugarcane metabolism studies. The terminal residues of concern are free and conjugated asulam, sulfanilamide, N4 acetylasulam, and N4 acetylsulfanilamide determined as a common moiety.

The qualitative nature of the residue in animals is adequately understood based on acceptable poultry and ruminant metabolism studies. The terminal residues of concern are free and conjugated asulam, sulfanilamide, N4 acetylasulam, and N4 acetylsulfanilamide determined as a common moiety.

Executive Summary A chronic dietary exposure assessment was requested to determine the dietary exposure estimates associated with the use of asulam in/ on sugarcane to support the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Document. Sugarcane is the only registered use for this chemical.

Anticipated residues were calculated using field trial data. No monitoring data exist for asulam. In addition, estimates of percent crop treated (% CT) generated by BEAD were used to refine the assessment.

Risk estimates were generated for chronic ( longer term) dietary exposure using the most recent version of the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEM   , Version 7.73), and toxicological doses and endpoints selected by the HED Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

2 ( HIARC) for asulam risk assessments. The committee did not select an acute dietary endpoint for asulam.

A refined Tier 2/ 3 chronic dietary risk assessment was conducted for all supported ( i. e., currently registered and proposed) asulam food uses. Dietary risk estimates are provided for the general U. S. population and various population subgroups. This assessment concludes that for all commodities, the chronic risk estimates are below the Agency's level of concern (< 100% cPAD1) for the general U. S. population (< 1% of the cPAD) and all population subgroups. The chronic dietary exposure estimate for children 1 6 years [ highest exposed population subgroup] is 1% of the cPAD.

I. Introduction Exposure to pesticides can occur through food, water, residential and occupational means. Risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a given pesticide. The risk is expressed as a percentage of a dose that could be expressed as a daily or a long term dose, to pose no unreasonable adverse effects. This is called the population adjusted dose ( PAD), and is expressed as % PAD. References are available on the EPA/ pesticides web site which discuss the acute and chronic risk assessments in more detail: " Available Information on Assessing Exposure from Pesticides, A User's Guide", 6/ 21/ 2000, web link: http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/ EPA PEST/ 2000/ July/ Day 12/ 6061. pdf ; or see SOP 99.6, 8/ 20/ 99.

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the results of the dietary risk assessment for the general U. S. population and various population subgroups resulting from exposure to asulam through food. This risk assessment is the first dietary risk analysis that has been conducted for asulam under FQPA. A previous chronic dietary risk assessment was done by the former Science Analysis Branch in HED using DRES ( E. Doyle, 1/ 3/ 95, no DP Barcode).

II. Toxicological Information In a previous meeting ( March 19, 1998), the Health Effects Division's Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee ( HIARC) met to evaluate the toxicology data base for asulam and to select doses and endpoints for the human health risk assessment. The HIARC met again on November 13, 2001 for a revisit of asulam for toxicological endpoint selection for use in occupational/ residential exposure risk assessments. In addition, the potential for increased susceptibility of infants and children from exposure to asulam was re evaluated.

The FQPA Safety Factor Committee met on 12/ 10/ 01 to evaluate both the hazard and exposure databases and recommended that the 10x FQPA Safety Factor for asulam be retained. A summary of the doses and endpoints relevant to dietary exposure assessment are presented in Table [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

3 I.

Table I. Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Asulam for Use in Dietary Exposure Assessment Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF FQPA SF* and Endpoint for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Acute Dietary An appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose was not identified.

Chronic Dietary all populations NOAEL= [ 36 ] mg/ kg/ day UF = [ 100 ] Chronic RfD = [ 0.36 ] mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF = [ 10x ] cPAD = chronic RfD / FQPA SF = [ 0.036 ] mg/ kg/ day Combined Chronic Toxicity/ Oncogenicity in the rat. The LOAEL was 180 mg/ kg/ day based on hyperplastic changes in the adrenal medulla and in thyroid follicular cells of males.

Cancer The Carcinogenicity Peer Review Committee classified asulam as a " Group C," possible human carcinogen.

III. Residue Information Asulam Use:

A tolerance is established for negligible residues of asulam per se in/ on sugarcane at 0.1 ppm [ 40 CFR § 180.360]. HED has recommended that the tolerance expression be revised to include all metabolites containing the sulfanilamide moiety. An adequate enforcement method is available for the determination of combined residues of asulam and all metabolites containing the sulfanilamide moiety in/ on sugarcane.

HED's recommendations as to tolerance reassessment are summarized below:

Tolerance Reassessment for Asulam 1. The existing tolerance of 0.1 ppm for asulam residues on sugar cane established in 40 CFR § 180.360 has been reassessed. HED recommends the tolerance be raised to 1.0 ppm; [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

4 2. HED recommends a tolerance of 30 ppm for asulam residues in molasses from sugar cane be established in 40 CFR § 180.360;

3. HED recommends a tolerance of 0.05 ppm for asulam residues in milk, and meat and fat from cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep be established in 40 CFR § 180.360;

4. HED recommends a tolerance of 0.2 ppm for asulam residues in meat byproducts from cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep be established in 40 CFR § 180.360;

5. Because there are no poultry feed items associated with asulam's use, tolerances on poultry tissues and eggs are not warranted.

Chronic Assessment:

There are no available monitoring data for asulam. Residue data were reviewed in the following document:

" Asulam ( List A, Case 0265, Chemical 106901/ 02). Sugarcane Field Trials. CBRS No. 16299. DP Barcode D219787. S. Funk. 2/ 22/ 96."

The highest residue found for a use pattern of 2 X 3.34 lbs. a. i./ A and a 100 day PHI is 0.213 ppm. Correction for loss in storage gives a residue value of 0.71 ppm. Thus, an appropriate tolerance for the combined residue of asulam and sulfanilamide containing metabolites in/ on sugarcane is 1 ppm.

Asulam residues concentrate in blackstrap molasses by a factor of about 48X ( S. Funk, CBRS None, DP Barcode None, 01/ 21/ 95). Molasses is considered to be ready to eat as an animal feed item. Therefore, a tolerance of 30 ppm ( 48 X 0.167 HAFT ppm / 0.30) would be appropriate for asulam residues in molasses [ the highest average field trial residue ( 2 X 3.34 lbs. a. i./ A, 100 day PHI) is 0.167 ppm, and this value is corrected for 70% loss in storage].

Table II ( 09/ 95) lists " molasses" as a processed commodity, and " molasses" encompasses both blackstrap and human food molasses. Most molasses mixtures are prepared from A strike sugar and would be expected to contain pesticide residue equal or less in concentration than those of refined sugar. Because Table II does not distinguish animal feed blackstrap from human molasses, the chronic residue value calculated for blackstrap should be used in dietary exposure analysis for human molasses.

Sugarcane and sugarcane molasses are considered blended commodities ( HED SOP 99.6, [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

5 8/ 20/ 99).

The anticipated residues for chronic dietary risk assessment are presented in Table II.

Table II. Asulam Anticipated Residues for Chronic Dietary Risk Assessment Commodity Asulam and Sulfanilamide Containing Metabolites Existing Tolerance ( ppm) Revised Tolerance ( ppm) Chronic Anticipated Residue ( ppm)

Sugar3 0.1 1 0.51 Molasses None 30 242,4 1 The average of the average residues for mainland trials, corrected for 70% loss, or 0.126 / 0.30 = 0.42. Percent crop treated ( 42%) was not incorporated in the calculations. 2 The chronic anticipated residue for sugar ( 0.5 ppm) multiplied by the concentration factor for processing from cane to blackstrap, 48, or 48 X 0.5 = 24, and rounded to two significant figures. Percent crop treated ( 42%) was not incorporated in the calculations. 3 No significant concentration ( 1  1.3X) occurred in processing cane into refined sugar. 4 The highest average field trial result ( HAFT) multiplied by the 48X concentration factor for the conversion of cane to blackstrap molasses. Blackstrap molasses, defined as the final strike residue or C molasses from conventional sugarcane processing, is not a significant human food item. However, these values should be used for human molasses, prepared from A strike sugar.

Animal Commodity Tolerances The reassessed tolerance of 1 ppm for asulam in sugarcane yields a maximum ruminant diet of 4 ppm asulam, resulting from ingestion of molasses ( 10% diet, tolerance 30 ppm, 75% dry matter).

Based on the 5 ppm feeding study level ( See Table III below) and the results of the animal metabolism study, the anticipated residues in animal commodities are summarized, as follows in Table IV: [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

6 Table III. Asulam Residues from Feeding Study Commodity Asulam and Sulfanilamide Containing Metabolites 5 ppm Diet ( 1.2X) 50 ppm Diet ( 12X) 20 ppm Radiolabeled2 ( 7 days)

Milk1 < 0.025 0.11 0.021 Fat < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.005 Kidney 0.12 0.34 0.162 Liver < 0.05 0.08 0.090 Muscle < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.005 1 The residue plateaued in milk on day 13. 2 TRR, including all radiolabeled residue.

Table IV. Asulam Anticipated Residues for Animal Commodities Commodity Asulam and Sulfanilamide Containing Metabolites Initial Tolerance ( ppm) Reassesse d Tolerance ( ppm) Anticipated Residue1 ( ppm)

Milk None 0.05 0.025 Cattle, meat None 0.05 0.05 Cattle, mbyp None 0.2 0.12 Cattle, fat None 0.05 0.05 Goats, meat None 0.05 0.05 Goats, mbyp None 0.2 0.12 Goats, fat None 0.05 0.05 Hogs, meat None 0.05 0.05 Hogs, mbyp None 0.2 0.12 Hogs, fat None 0.05 0.05 Horses, meat None 0.05 0.05 Horses, mbyp None 0.2 0.12 [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

7 Horses, fat None 0.05 0.05 Sheep, meat None 0.05 0.05 Sheep, mbyp None 0.2 0.12 Sheep, fat None 0.05 0.05 1 Anticipated residue for determination of human dietary risk. Percent crop treated ( 42%) was not incorporated in the calculations.

Percent Crop Treated Information:

Based on pesticide usage information mainly for 1992 through 2000 for agriculture and 1994 through 1999 for non agriculture, total annual domestic usage of sodium asulam is approximately 1.3 million pounds active ingredient ( a. i.) allocated by site mainly to sugarcane ( 95%), lawn care operators and sod farms ( 2% each) and institutional turf ( 1%). The average percent crop treated for sugarcane, the only registered agricultural crop, is about 42%. States of most usage are Florida, Louisiana and Texas ( A. Halvorson, 7/ 25/ 01). This information was incorporated into the dietary assessment.

IV. DEEM   Program and Consumption Information Asulam chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEM   ) software Version 7.73, which incorporates consumption data from USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals ( CSFII), 1989 1992. The 1989 92 data are based on the reported consumption of more than 10,000 individuals over three consecutive days, and therefore represent more than 30,000 unique " person days" of data. Foods " as consumed" ( e. g., apple pie) are linked to raw agricultural commodities and their food forms ( e. g., apples cooked/ canned or wheat flour) by recipe translation files internal to the DEEM software. Consumption data are averaged for the entire US population and within population subgroups for chronic exposure assessment, but are retained as individual consumption events for acute exposure assessment.

For chronic exposure and risk assessment, an estimate of the residue level in each food or food form ( e. g., orange or orange juice) on the commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily consumption estimate for that food/ food form. The resulting residue consumption estimate for each food/ food form is summed with the residue consumption estimates for all other food/ food forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total estimated exposure. Exposure estimates are expressed in mg/ kg body weight/ day and as a percent of the cPAD. This procedure is performed for each population subgroup.

HED notes that there is a degree of uncertainty in extrapolating exposures for certain population [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

8 subgroups from the general U. S. population which may not be sufficiently represented in the consumption surveys, ( e. g., nursing and non nursing infants or Hispanic females). Therefore, risks estimated for these population subgroups were included in representative populations having sufficient numbers of survey respondents ( e. g., all infants or females, 13 50 years).

V. Results/ Discussion Exposures > 100% of the cPAD exceed HED's level of concern. That is, estimated exposures above this level are of concern, while estimated exposures at or below this level are not of concern. The DEEM analyses estimate the dietary exposure of the U. S. population and 26 population subgroups. The results reported in Table V are for the U. S. Population ( total), all infants (< 1 year old), children 1 6, children 7 12, females 13 50, males 13 19, males 20+, and seniors 55+ years of age. The results for the other population subgroups are not reported in Table V. This is because the numbers of respondents in the other subgroups were not sufficient, and thus the exposure estimates for these subgroups contained higher levels of uncertainty. However, the respondents in these subgroups were also part of larger subgroups which are listed in Table V. For example, nursing and non nursing infants are included in all infants. The subgroups which are broken down by region, season, and ethnicity are also not included.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis Table V. Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis Population Subgroup cPAD ( mg/ kg/ day) Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD U. S. Population ( total) 0.036 0.000157 < 1%

All Infants (< 1 year) 0.036 0.000300 < 1%

Children 1 6 years 0.036 0.000449 1%

Children 7 12 years 0.036 0.000275 < 1%

Females 13 50 years 0.036 0.000107 < 1%

Males 13 19 years 0.036 0.000185 < 1%

Males 20+ years 0.036 0.000105 < 1% [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

Population Subgroup cPAD ( mg/ kg/ day) Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD 9 Seniors 55+ years 0.036 0.000087 < 1%

VI. Discussion of Uncertainties This tier 2/ 3 dietary risk assessment is the most refined to date for asulam. However, there are some uncertainties associated with this assessment as follows:

C Residue Issues No available residue data exist for asulam. The anticipated residues were calculated using field trial data. The anticipated residues were adjusted by percent crop treated data provided by BEAD. Tolerances for this chemical were based on quantifiable residues found in the field trials. Also, the residue values from the field trials were adjusted for 70% loss in storage. This would tend to overestimate the exposure of asulam in sugarcane.

Use of molassess AR in the assessment: the molassess AR is based on residues expected in the animal feed " black strap" molassess. These residues are expected to overestimate residues in human food molassess.

C Processing Factors DEEM default processing factors for dry beef were used.

C DEEM Uncertainties HED notes that there is a degree of uncertainty in extrapolating exposures for certain population subgroups which may not be sufficiently represented in the consumption surveys, ( e. g., nursing and non [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

10 nursing infants or Hispanic females). Therefore, risks estimated for these subpopulations were included in representative populations having sufficient numbers of survey respondents ( e. g., all infants or females, 13 50 years).

VII. Conclusions A Tier 2/ 3 chronic dietary risk assessment was conducted for all supported asulam food uses. Dietary risk estimates are provided for the general U. S. population and various population subgroups. This assessment concludes that for all supported registered commodities, the chronic risk estimates are below the Agency's level of concern (< 100% cPAD) for the general U. S. population (< 1% of the cPAD) and all population subgroups. The chronic dietary exposure estimate for children 1 6 years ( the highest exposed population subgroup) is 1.2% of the cPAD.

Table VI. Summary of Dietary Exposure and Risk for Asulam Population Subgroup** Chronic Dietary Dietary Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD U. S. Population ( total) 0.000157 < 1%

All Infants (< 1 year) 0.000300 < 1%

Children 1 6 years 0.000449 1%

Children 7 12 years 0.000275 < 1%

Females 13 50 0.000107 < 1%

Males 13 19 0.000185 < 1%

Males 20+ years 0.000105 < 1%

Seniors 55+ 0.000087 < 1%

cc: Jose Morales ( RRB3), RRB3 Reading File RDI: C. Eiden ( 12/ 18/ 01); J. Tyler ( 12/ 18/ 01); S. Kinard ( 12/ 17/ 01) [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

11 VIII. Attachments U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. DEEM Chronic analysis for ASULAM 1989 92 Residue file: C:\ My DEEM\ Asulam\ chronic. RS7 Adjust. # 2 Analysis Date 12 10 2001 Residue file dated: 12 10 2001/ 15: 36: Reference dose ( RfD) = 0.036 mg/ kg bw/ day Comment: Chronic Run for the TRED   Food Crop RESIDUE Adj. Factors Comment Code Grp Food Name ( ppm) # 1 # 2        283 O Sugar cane 0.500000 1.000 0.420 284 O Sugar cane/ molasses 13 Baked 24.000000 1.000 0.420 98 Refined 24.000000 1.000 0.420 318 D Milk nonfat solids 0.025000 1.000 0.420 319 D Milk fat solids 0.025000 1.000 0.420 321 M Beef meat byproducts 0.120000 1.000 0.420 322 M Beef other organ meats 0.120000 1.000 0.420 323 M Beef dried 0.050000 1.920 0.420 324 M Beef fat w/ o bones 0.050000 1.000 0.420 325 M Beef kidney 0.120000 1.000 0.420 326 M Beef liver 0.120000 1.000 0.420 327 M Beef lean ( fat/ free) w/ o bones 0.050000 1.000 0.420 328 M Goat meat byproducts 0.120000 1.000 0.420 329 M Goat other organ meats 0.120000 1.000 0.420 330 M Goat fat w/ o bone 0.050000 1.000 0.420 331 M Goat kidney 0.120000 1.000 0.420 332 M Goat liver 0.120000 1.000 0.420 333 M Goat lean ( fat/ free) w/ o bone 0.050000 1.000 0.420 334 M Horsemeat 0.050000 1.000 0.420 335 M Rabbit 0.050000 1.000 0.420 336 M Sheep meat byproducts 0.120000 1.000 0.420 337 M Sheep other organ meats 0.120000 1.000 0.420 338 M Sheep fat w/ o bone 0.050000 1.000 0.420 339 M Sheep kidney 0.120000 1.000 0.420 340 M Sheep liver 0.120000 1.000 0.420 341 M Sheep lean ( fat free) w/ o bone 0.050000 1.000 0.420 342 M Pork meat byproducts 0.120000 1.000 0.420 [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

12 343 M Pork other organ meats 0.120000 1.000 0.420 344 M Pork fat w/ o bone 0.050000 1.000 0.420 345 M Pork kidney 0.120000 1.000 0.420 346 M Pork liver 0.120000 1.000 0.420 347 M Pork lean ( fat free) w/ o bone 0.050000 1.000 0.420 398 D Milk based water 0.025000 1.000 0.420 424 M Veal fat w/ o bones 0.050000 1.000 0.420 425 M Veal lean ( fat free) w/ o bones 0.050000 1.000 0.420 426 M Veal kidney 0.120000 1.000 0.420 427 M Veal liver 0.120000 1.000 0.420 428 M Veal other organ meats 0.120000 1.000 0.420 429 M Veal dried 0.050000 1.920 0.420 430 M Veal meat byproducts 0.120000 1.000 0.420 [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

13 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. DEEM Chronic analysis for ASULAM ( 1989 92 Residue file name: C:\ My DEEM\ Asulam\ chronic. RS7 Adjustment factor # 2 used. Analysis Date 12 10 2001/ 15: 41: 38 Residue file dated: 12 10 2001/ 15: 36: 16/ 8 Reference dose ( RfD, Chronic) = .036 mg/ kg bw/ day COMMENT 1: Chronic Run for the TRED ============================================================================== = Total exposure by population subgroup

Total Exposure  Population mg/ kg Percent of Subgroup body wt/ day Rfd    U. S. Population ( total) 0.000157 0.4%

U. S. Population ( spring season) 0.000156 0.4% U. S. Population ( summer season) 0.000160 0.4% U. S. Population ( autumn season) 0.000161 0.4% U. S. Population ( winter season) 0.000152 0.4%

Northeast region 0.000153 0.4% Midwest region 0.000170 0.5% Southern region 0.000155 0.4% Western region 0.000150 0.4%

Hispanics 0.000173 0.5% Non hispanic whites 0.000156 0.4% Non hispanic blacks 0.000156 0.4% Non hisp/ non white/ non black 0.000158 0.4%

All infants (< 1 year) 0.000300 0.8% Nursing infants 0.000075 0.2% Non nursing infants 0.000394 1.1% Children 1 6 yrs 0.000449 1.2% Children 7 12 yrs 0.000275 0.8% [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

14 Females 13 19 ( not preg or nursing) 0.000147 0.4% Females 20+ ( not preg or nursing) 0.000092 0.3% Females 13 50 yrs 0.000107 0.3% Females 13+ ( preg/ not nursing) 0.000130 0.4% Females 13+ ( nursing) 0.000120 0.3%

Males 13 19 yrs 0.000185 0.5% Males 20+ yrs 0.000105 0.3% Seniors 55+ 0.000087 0.2% Pacific Region 0.000144 0.4%

  [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

15 Quantitative Usage Analysis for Sodium Asulam Case No. 265 PC Code No. 106902 Date: 7 25 01 Analyst: Alan Halvorson Based on pesticide usage information mainly for 1992 through 2000 for agriculture and 1994 through 1999 for non agriculture, total annual domestic usage of sodium asulam is approximately 1.3 million pounds active ingredient ( a. i.) allocated by site mainly to sugarcane ( 95%), lawn care operators and sod farms ( 2% each) and institutional turf ( 1%). The average percent crop treated for sugarcane, the only registered agricultural crop, is about 42%, while its average use rate per acre is 2.5 pounds a. i. per application and 3.0 pounds a. i. per year. States of most usage are Florida, Louisiana and Texas.

Sodium Asulam Case #: 265 AI #: 106902 EPA QUANTITATIVE USAGE ANALYSIS Analyst: Alan Halvorson 7 25 01   Acres Acres Treated ( 000) % Crop Treated Lb AI Appl'd ( 000) Avg Applic Rates/ Acre States of Most Usage ( 000)     (% of total lb ai Site Grown Est Est Est lb ai/ # appl/ lb ai/ used by these states) Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max year year appl

Sugarcane 939 398 498 42% 53% 1,211 1,513 3.04 1.2 2.46 FL LA TX 100% Lawn Care Operators(*)      26 40    FL 100% Sod Farms      21 32    FL ( most) Institutional Turf(**)      17 25     Ornamentals      3 4    FL TX  Golf Courses      2 3    FL GA  TOTAL 1,280 1,600 FL LA 97%

NOTES ON TABLE DATA   Usage data primarily cover 1992  2000 for agriculture and 1994  1999 for non agriculture.  Calculations of the above numbers may not appear to agree with each other because they are displayed as rounded. [ D279592] ~ DRAFT ~

[ Asulam / 106901]

16  A dash() indicates that information is not readily available or is not applicable.

CROP/ SITE GROUPS AND DEFINITIONS  (*) Lawn care operators make applications to commercial, not residential, turf. (**) Institutional turf consists of maintained turf of educational facilities, cemeteries and parks.

DATA SOURCES   US EPA, proprietary data, 1994  2000.  NCFAP, circa 1992.

cc: Include typical reviewer information here. Include one copy for ( HED Staff/ CEB1), where staff = Mohsen Sahafeyen or LaShonia Richardson). Include names of secondary reviewers and review dates.


[Federal Register: October 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 61562-61563]
[DOCID:fr05oc10-164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Fillmore & Western Railroad Co.

[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2010-0139]

    The Fillmore & Western Railroad Company (FWRY) seeks a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Railroad Freight Car Safety
Standards, 49 CFR 215.303, which requires stenciling of restricted
cars; as well as 49 CFR 224.3, which requires Reflectorization for
freight cars. FWRY owns sixteen rail cars that are older than 50 years
from their date of original construction, and are restricted by the
provision of 49 CFR 215.203(a). FWRY is concurrently seeking special
approval to continue to use these cars under proceeding according to 49
CFR 215.203(b).
    To support its petition to seek relief from the stenciling and
reflectorization requirements, FWRY states that the cars subject to
this waiver are only used for tourist passengers, films, movies, props,
still photos and the like. Although FWRY is considered a general system
railroad, these subject cars are not interchanged in or with the
general system, and are not freight revenue cars. FWRY asks for this
waiver due to the fact that the movie and television companies, still
photographers and the like want the cars to be authentic in their
antiquated and historic look.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2010-0139) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 28, 2010.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-25002 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: August 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 169)]
[Notices]
[Page 51033-51035]
[DOCID:fr29au08-144]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58413; File No. SR-NYSE Arca-2008-84]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. To Discontinue
Its Policy of Requiring Legal Opinions in Connection With Listings of
Securities

August 22, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on August 8, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit comments on
the proposal from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NYSE Arca, through its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities''), proposes to discontinue its practice of
requiring the delivery of an opinion of counsel in connection with any
application to list securities on the Exchange. In lieu thereof, the
Exchange will require companies to (i) furnish the Exchange with copies
of opinions of counsel filed in connection with recent public offerings
or private placements or (ii) if no opinions of counsel exist, provide
to the Exchange a certificate of good standing from the company's
jurisdiction of incorporation. In addition, the Exchange is
discontinuing its policy of requiring an opinion of counsel to the
effect that the company is in compliance with all of the Exchange's
corporate governance requirements at the time of listing and, in lieu
thereof, will require that companies provide a revised form of initial
written affirmation evidencing

their compliance with the applicable corporate governance
requirements.\3\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site (http://www.nyse.com), at the Exchange's Office
of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exhibit 3 to this filing, which includes the revised
initial and annual written affirmation (Rule 5.3--Corporate
Governance and Disclosure Policies) marked to show changes from the
initial written affirmation previously used by the Exchange. The
Commission notes that pursuant to the General Instructions for Form
19b-4, if any form, report, or questionnaire is referred to in a
proposed rule change, then the form, report, or questionnaire must
be attached and shall be considered as part of the proposed rule
change. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50486 (October 4,
2004), 69 FR 60287 (October 8, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to discontinue its practice of requiring the
delivery of an opinion of counsel in connection with any application to
list securities on the Exchange. In lieu thereof, the Exchange will
require companies to (i) furnish the Exchange with copies of opinions
of counsel filed in connection with recent public offerings or private
placements or (ii) if no opinions of counsel exist, provide to the
Exchange a certificate of good standing from the company's jurisdiction
of incorporation. In addition, the Exchange is discontinuing its policy
of requiring an opinion of counsel to the effect that the company is in
compliance with all of the Exchange's corporate governance requirements
at the time of listing and, in lieu thereof, will require that
companies provide a revised form of initial written affirmation
evidencing their compliance with the applicable corporate governance
requirements.
    The Exchange has had a longstanding policy of requiring the
delivery of an opinion of counsel addressed to the Exchange in
connection with each application to list securities, including
applications to list additional shares of a previously listed class.\4\
The Exchange believes that its opinion requirement is duplicative of
several safeguards that now exist to protect investors in listed
securities. In particular, an issuer's independent auditor reviews the
issuance of securities as part of its annual audit. Additionally, the
underwriters of securities sold in a public offering receive legal
opinions as to the validity of the issuance of the securities they
purchase, as well as performing their own due diligence on the company
and the securities. Furthermore, a legal opinion as to the legality of
the issuance of the securities being registered is delivered to the SEC
in connection with the filing of any registration statement.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to end its policy of requiring legal
opinions in connection with listing applications, including
applications to list additional shares of a previously listed class.
Through its standard condition letter, the Exchange will require
issuers to (i) furnish the Exchange with copies of opinions of counsel
filed in connection with recent public offerings or private placements
or (ii) if no opinions of counsel exist, provide to the Exchange a
certificate of good standing from the company's jurisdiction of
incorporation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The required opinion relates to: The legality and valid
existence of the issuer; the issuer's qualification to do business
in jurisdictions other than its jurisdiction of incorporation; the
validity of authorization and issuance of the securities; whether
the securities are fully paid and non-assessable; the validity of
the securities; any government orders or proceedings that are a
prerequisite to the issuance of the securities; whether registration
of the securities is required; whether such registration has
occurred; and that the company is in compliance with the Exchange's
corporate governance listing requirements.
    \5\ The Exchange will also put companies on notice of this
requirement by including a reference to it in the list of required
documentation in connection with listing applications presented on
its Web site and the checklist of required documentation sent out to
listing applicants. See the revised list of required documentation
included in Exhibit 3 hereto. The Exchange has significantly revised
and shortened the section of its Web site dealing with the listing
application process, primarily by deleting text that relates to
procedures that are no longer in use and have not been for some
time. In revising the Web site, the Exchange has not changed its
listing policies or procedures in any way that is not disclosed
elsewhere in this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the Commission approved a rule filing by
the American Stock Exchange (the ``Amex'') in 2000 to eliminate opinion
requirements from the Amex Company Guide under the same conditions NYSE
Arca is proposing in this filing.\6\ Additionally, to the Exchange's
knowledge, Nasdaq does not require legal opinions in connection with
new listings. As such, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to
conform its listing procedure in this regard to those of its direct
competitors. In doing so, the Exchange will avoid the possibility of
any competitive harm arising out of the imposition of this additional
burden on issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42539 (March 17,
2000), 65 FR 15672 (March 23, 2000) (SR-Amex-99-39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No other major exchange requires as a condition to listing an
opinion with respect to the issuer's compliance with the exchange's
corporate governance requirements. The Exchange believes that it has
two different sources of assurance that, at the time of initial
listing, a company is in compliance with the Exchange's corporate
governance requirements. First, the company provides a listing
application executed by an authorized officer of the company in which
it affirms that, at the time of filing the application, it has ``read
and understood the Exchange's Listings Rule, and fully believes itself
to be in compliance with, and, if approved for listing, intends to
continue to be in compliance with, the Exchange's listing and corporate
governance rules and requirements, as amended.'' Second, the Company
provides a written affirmation at the time of listing that it is in
compliance with the Exchange's board and audit committee independence
requirements. The Exchange intends to amend the written affirmation so
that it includes affirmations of compliance with the Exchange's
nominating and compensation committee independence requirements and
thereby comprehensively covers the Exchange's corporate governance
requirements. The revised affirmation is included in Exhibit 3 to the
filing.\7\ The Exchange believes that the affirmation in the listing
application and the written affirmation provide sufficient evidence of
a company's compliance with the corporate governance requirements at
the time of listing and that requiring a corporate governance opinion
is unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See note 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of section 6 \8\ of the Act in general and furthers
the objectives of section 6(b)(5),\9\ in particular, in that it is
designed to promote just and

equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments, and to perfect
the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
proposed amendment specifically seeks to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market by conforming the
Exchange's listing procedures to those of Nasdaq and the Amex, thereby
eliminating any competitive disadvantage the Exchange may suffer as a
result of imposing a legal opinion requirement with respect to
securities listings. In addition, the Exchange's procedures will
continue to protect the interests of investors by imposing requirements
that will ensure that listed companies are duly and validly organized
and in good standing in their jurisdiction of incorporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    The proposed rule change has taken effect upon filing pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange asserts that the proposed rule change (i) will not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest, (ii) will not impose any significant burden on competition,
and (iii) will not become operative for 30 days after the date of this
filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description
and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior
to the date of the filing of the proposed rule change as required by
Rule 19b-4(f)(6).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 C.F.R. 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-84 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-84. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2008-84 and should be submitted on or before September 19,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20063 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 20100]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07683]

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

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: RP13-711-000
    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Non-Conforming Service Agreements DB Energy, Rainbow,
NJR to be effective 4/1/2013
    Filed Date: 3/26/13
    Accession Number: 20130326-5209
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-712-000
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America
    Description: Renaissance Negotiated Rate to be effective 4/1/2013
    Filed Date: 3/26/13
    Accession Number: 20130326-5294
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-713-000
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: DTI--NAESB Extension of Time Removal to be effective
4/26/2013
    Filed Date: 3/26/13
    Accession Number: 20130326-5367
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-714-000
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC
    Description: Hardy Cost of Service Extension
    Filed Date: 3/26/13
    Accession Number: 20130326-5379
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-715-000
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America
    Description: Negotiated Rate--Integrys Energy to be effective 4/1/
2013
    Filed Date: 3/26/13
    Accession Number: 20130326-5438
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/13

    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: RP13-35-002
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 03/26/13 FERC Order 587-V NAESB 2.0 Extension
Requirements to be effective 3/27/2013
    Filed Date: 3/26/13
    Accession Number: 20130326-5450
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/13

    Any person desiring to protest in any of 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 by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service 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 (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: March 27, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.
Deputy Secretary
[FR Doc. 2013-07683 Filed 4-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25417-25418]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08775]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2023-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2329]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before July 25, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2329, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and

Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the
FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Nicholas A. Shufro
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Marion County, Kansas and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Project: 20-07-0019S Preliminary Date: January 13, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Burns..........................  City Hall, 102 North
                                          Washington, Burns, KS 66840.
City of Durham.........................  Marion County Offices, 200
                                          South 3rd Street, Marion, KS
                                          66861.
City of Florence.......................  City Hall, 511 North Main
                                          Street, Florence, KS 66851.
City of Goessel........................  City Hall, 101 South Cedar
                                          Street, Goessel, KS 67053.
City of Hillsboro......................  City Hall, 118 East Grand
                                          Avenue, Hillsboro, KS 67063.
City of Marion.........................  City Office, 208 East Santa Fe
                                          Street, Marion, KS 66861.
City of Peabody........................  City Hall, 300 North Walnut
                                          Street, Peabody, KS 66866.
City of Ramona.........................  City Hall, 302 D Street,
                                          Ramona, KS 67475.
City of Tampa..........................  Marion County Offices, 200
                                          South 3rd Street, Marion, KS
                                          66861.
Unincorporated Areas of Marion County..  Marion County Offices, 200
                                          South 3rd Street, Marion, KS
                                          66861.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-08775 Filed 4-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P