[Federal Register: December 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 233)]
[Notices]
[Page 73640-73644]
[DOCID:fr03de08-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0046; FRL-8390-4]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

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

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

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

     EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petitions described in this document contain the data or information
prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully
evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether
the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. Additional data
may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these
pesticide petitions.

     Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available on-line at http://
www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)),
EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

New Tolerances

     1. PP 8E7425. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0768). Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540 and Makhteshim-Agan of North America, Inc., 4515 Falls of Neuse
Road, Raleigh, NC 27609, proposes to establish a tolerance for residues
of the insecticide novaluron, N-[[[3-chloro-4-[1,1,2-trifluoro-2-
(trifluoromethoxy)ethoxy]phenyl]amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide,
in or on bushberry, subgroup 13-07B at 7 parts per million (ppm).
Makhteshim-Agan of North America, Inc., is the manufacturer and basic
registrant of novaluron. Makhteshim-Agan of North America, Inc.,
prepared and summarized the following information in support of the
subject pesticide petition for novaluron. An adequate analytical
method, gas chromatography/electron capture detector (GC/ECD), as
published in the Federal Register of April 5, 2006 (71 FR 17009 )(FRL-
7756-8) is available for enforcing tolerances of novaluron residues in
or on stone fruit, bushberries, leafy Brassica and turnip greens. The
method verification trial supports a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of
0.05 ppm, and the limit of detection (LOD) is 0.005 ppm for the
different matrices. The limit of quantitation (LOQ = 0.05 ppm) was
taken as the lowest level validated by this method. Contact: Laura
Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>     2. PP 8E7426. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0769). Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540 and Makhteshim-Agan of North America, Inc., 4515 Falls of Neuse
Road, Raleigh, NC 27609, proposes to establish a tolerance for residues
of the insecticide novaluron, N-[[[3-chloro-4-[1,1,2-trifluoro-2-
(trifluoromethoxy)ethoxy]phenyl]amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide,
in or on fruit, stone, group 12 at 8 parts per million (ppm); Brassica,
leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 25 ppm; and turnip greens at 25 ppm.
Makhteshim-Agan of North America, Inc., is the manufacturer and basic
registrant of novaluron. Makhteshim-Agan of North America, Inc.,
prepared and summarized the following information in support of the
subject pesticide petition for novaluron. An adequate analytical
method, gas chromatography/electron capture detector (GC/ECD), as
published in the Federal Register of April 5, 2006 (71 FR 17009) (FRL-
7756-8), is available for enforcing tolerances of novaluron residues in
or on stone fruit, bushberries, leafy Brassica and turnip greens. The
method verification trial supports a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of
0.05 ppm, and the limit of detection (LOD) is 0.005 ppm for the
different matrices. The limit of quantitation (LOQ = 0.05 ppm) was
taken as the lowest level validated by this method. Contact: Laura
Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>     3. PPs 8E7434 and 8E7436. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0773). Interregional
Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes to establish tolerances for residues of
the herbicide prometryn, 2,4-bis(isopropylamino)-6-methylthio-s-
triazine (CAS Number 7287-19-6) in or on carrot at 0.7 parts per
million (ppm); celeriac, roots at 0.05 ppm; celeriac, tops at 0.05 ppm;
cilantro, fresh at 4.0 ppm; cilantro, dried at 15 ppm; okra at 0.05
ppm; parsley, leaves at 0.7 ppm (all the preceding in PP 8E7434); and
leafy petiole, subgroup 4B at 0.5 ppm in (PP 8E7436). The Pesticide
Analytical Manual (PAM) lists a gas chromatography (GC) method for
determining residues in or on plants using a microcoulometric sulfur
detection system that determines residues of prometryn. No tolerances
are needed for prometryn residues in livestock commodities; therefore,
no enforcement analytical methods are needed for these animal
commodities. Contact: Susan Stanton,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     4. PP 8F7256. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0764). FMC Corporation, 1735 Market
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, proposes to establish a tolerance for
residues of the insecticide carbofuran in or on cotton by products
including gin trash at 2.0 parts per million (ppm). A practical
analytical methodology for detecting and measuring levels of carbofuran
and 3-hydroxy-carbofuran in or on raw agricultural commodities has been
submitted. The limit of detection (LOD) for each analyte using this
method is 0.01 ppm, and the limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.05 ppm.
The method is based on sample acid hydrolysis and residue determination
using gas chromatography. Contact: John Hebert,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     5. PP 8F7409. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0770). E. I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company, DuPont Crop Protection, P.O. Box 30, Newark, DE 19714-0030,
proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the insecticide
chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo-N-4-chloro-2-methyl-6-
(methylcarbamoyl)phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridine-2-yl)-1H-pyrazole-5-
carboxamide in or on nut, tree, group 14 at 0.07 parts per million
(ppm); almond, hulls at 5 ppm; and pistachio at 0.07 ppm. Since
chlorantraniliprole and its metabolic degradates are not of
toxicological concern, analytical methods are not applicable. Contact:
Kable Davis,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>     6. PP 8F7413. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0771). Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box
12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709,
proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the insecticide
clothianidin, (E)-1-(2-chloro-1,3-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)-3-methyl-2-
nitroguanidine and its metabolite, TMG, N-(2-chloro-5-thiazolylmethyl)-
N-'-methylguanidine, in or on vegetable, root, except sugar beet,
subgroup 01B at 0.6 parts per million (ppm); vegetable, tuberous and
corm, subgroup 01C at 0.2 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 03 at 0.2 ppm;
vegetables, leafy greens, except brassica, subgroup 04A at 1.1 ppm;
vegetable, Brassica, leafy, group 5 at 0.35 ppm; and residues of
clothianidin, (E)-1-(2-chloro-1,3-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)-3-methyl-2-
nitroguanidine in vegetables, fruiting, group 08 at 0.01 ppm;
vegetable, cucurbit, group 09 at 0.01 ppm; grain, cereal, except rice,
group 15 at 0.01 ppm, wheat, forage at 0.35 ppm, wheat, hay at 0.07 ppm
and wheat, straw at 0.04 ppm. In plants and plant products, the residue
of concern, parent clothianidin, can be determined using high
performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with electrospray tandem mass
spectrometry (MS/MS) detection. In an extraction efficiency testing,
the plant residues method has also demonstrated the ability to extract
aged clothianidin residue. Although the plant residues liquid
chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method is highly
suitable for enforcement method, an LC/UV (ultraviolet) method has also
been developed which is suitable for

enforcement (monitoring) purposes in all relevant matrices. Contact:
Kable Davis,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>     7. PP 8F7414. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0772). Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box
12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709,
proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the insecticide
imidacloprid, 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl
moiety, all expressed as the parent, in or on vegetable, bulb, group 3
at 2.5 parts per million (ppm). The analytical method is a common
moiety method for imidacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6-
chloropyridinyl moiety using a permanganate oxidation, silyl
derivatization, and capillary gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/
MS) selective ion monitoring. This method has successfully passed a
petition method validation in EPA labs. There is a confirmatory method
specifically for imidacloprid and several metabolites utilizing GC/MS
and high performance liquid chromatography/ ultraviolet (HPLC/UV) which
has been validated by the EPA as well. Imidacloprid and its metabolites
are stable for at least 24 months in the commodities when frozen.
Contact: Kable Davis,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>     8. PP 8F7415. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0772). Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box
12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709,
proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the insecticide
imidacloprid, 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl
moiety, all expressed as the parent, in or on cereal, grain, group 15
at 0.05 parts per million (ppm). Bayer CropScience is also proposing
use of the currently established tolerances for residues of
imidacloprid, 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl
moiety, all expressed as the parent, in or on the raw agricultural
commodity vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 01B; vegetable,
tuberous and corm, subgroup 01C; vegetable, leafy greens, except
Brassica, subgroup 04A; vegetable, Brassica, leafy, group 05;
vegetable, fruiting, group 08; and vegetable, cucurbit, group 09 to
support the use of imidacloprid as a seed treatment on these crops. All
required analytical methods have previously been submitted to the
Agency and validated. Therefore, no additional methods are needed.
Contact: Kable Davis,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>     9. PP 8F7417. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0262). EPA has requested a notice
of filing identified as a deficiency in the submitted petition from
Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709, to support the 30-day plant back interval for
soybeans planted after a potato seed piece treatment with clothianidin
at a rate of 420 g ai/ha. Soybean rotational residue data showed no
residues greater than the level of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.01 parts per
million (ppm) for soybeans planted 30 days after treatment of bare soil
with Poncho 600 FS at a rate of 420 g ai/ha. This supports a 30-day
plant back interval for soybeans after potato seed piece treatment at
the above rate. No rotational crop tolerances are required. Therefore,
no further data is required in this notice of filing. Contact: Kable
Davis,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    10. PP 8F7437. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0704). Arysta LifeScience North
America Corporation, 15401 Weston Parkway, Suite 150, Cary, NC 27513,
proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the fungicide
fluoxastrobin (1E)-[2-[[6-(2-chlorophenoxy)-5-fluoro-4-
pyrimydinyl]oxy]phenyl](5,6-dihydro-1,4,2-dioxazin-3-yl)methanone O-
methyloxime, and its Z isomer, (1Z)-[2-[[6-(2-chlorophenoxy)-5-fluoro-
4-pyrimydinyl]oxy]phenyl](5,6-dihydro-1,4,2-dioxazin-3-yl)methanone O-
methyloxime in or on corn, field, grain at 0.02 parts per million
(ppm); corn, field, aspirated grain fractions at 0.50 ppm; corn, field,
forage at 3.0 ppm; corn, field, fodder/stover at 4.5 ppm; soybean, seed
at 0.05 ppm; soybean, aspirated grain fractions at 0.40 ppm; soybean,
forage at 9.0 ppm; soybean, hay at 1.2 ppm; and soybean, hulls at 0.40
ppm. Adequate analytical methodology using high performance liquid
chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS) detection is
available for enforcement purposes. Contact: John Bazuin, (703) 305-
7381<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    11. PP 8F7438. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0781). Valent U.S.A. Corporation,
1600 Riviera Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, proposes to
establish a tolerance for residues of the herbicide flumioxazin, 2-[7-
fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-
4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione and its metabolites APF
(3-oxo-4-prop-2-ynyl-6-amino-7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-1,4-benzoxazin) and
482-HA (N-(7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-prop-2-ynyl-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-
6-yl)cyclohex-1-ene-1-carboxamide-2-carboxylic acid) in or on
freshwater fish at 1.5 parts per million (ppm). An analytical method
for detecting flumioxazin and its metabolites in fish tissue has been
submitted with this petition. The level of quantitation (LOQ) of
flumioxazin and its metabolites in the analytical method for fish
tissue is 0.01 ppm, which will allow monitoring for residues at the
levels proposed for the tolerance. Contact: James M. Stone, (703) 305-
7391<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     12. PP 8F7444. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0262). Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box
12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709,
proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the insecticide
spiromesifen; butanoic acid, 3,3-dimethyl-, 2-oxo-3-(2,4,6-
trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-4-yl ester, and its enol
metabolite; 4-hydroxy-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-
en-2-one, calculated as parent compound equivalents in or on tomato,
paste at 0.8 parts per million (ppm). Adequate analytical methodology
using liquid chromatography/ tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)
detection is available for enforcement purposes. Contact: Kable Davis,
(703) 306-0415<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Amendment to Existing Tolerances

     1. PP 8E7426. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0769). Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR–4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540 and Makhteshim–Agan of North America, Inc.,
4515 Falls of Neuse Road, Raleigh, NC 27609, proposes to amend the
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.598 by increasing the tolerance for residues of
the insecticide novaluron, N-[[[3-chloro-4-[1,1,2-trifluoro-2-
(trifluoromethoxy)ethoxy] phenyl]amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide
in or on egg from 0.05 parts per million (ppm) to 0.07 ppm. Makhteshim-
Agan of North America, Inc., is the manufacturer and basic registrant
of novaluron. Makhteshim-Agan of North America, Inc., prepared and
summarized the following information in support of the subject
pesticide petition for novaluron. An adequate analytical method, gas
chromatography/electron capture detector (GC/ECD), as published in the
Federal Register of April 5, 2006 (71 FR 17009) (FRL-7756-8), is
available for enforcing tolerances of novaluron residues in or on stone
fruit, bushberries, leafy Brassica and turnip greens. The method
verification trial supports a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm,
and the limit of detection (LOD) is 0.005 ppm for the different

matrices. The limit of quantitation (LOQ = 0.05 ppm) was taken as the
lowest level validated by this method. Contact: Laura Nollen, (703)
305-7390<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     2. PP 7E7428. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0097). Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540, proposes to amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.474 by raising the
existing tolerance for residues of the fungicide tebuconazole (alpha-
[2-(4-chlorophenyl)-ethyl]-alpha-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-
1-ethanol) tebuconazole (alpha-[2-(4-chlorophenyl)-ethyl]-alpha-(1,1-
dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol) in or on cherry from 4.0 to
5.0 parts per million (ppm). An enforcement method for plant
commodities has been validated on various commodities. It has undergone
successful EPA validation and has been submitted for inclusion in the
(Pesticide Analytical Manual II (PAM II). The animal method has also
been approved as an adequate enforcement method. Contact: Laura Nollen,
(703) 305-7390<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
New Exemptions from an Inert Tolerance

    1. PP 5E7003. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0310). Stepan Company, 951 Bankhead
Hwy., Winder, GA 30680, proposes to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.920 for residues of the Alkyl
(C10-C18) Dimethyl Amine Oxides (ADAOs) pre-harvest (including CAS
Numbers 1643-20-5, 2571-88-2, 2605-79-0, 3332-27-2, 61788-90-7, 68955-
55-5, 70592-80-2, 7128-91-8, 85408-48-6, and 85408-49-7) when used as a
pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide formulations in or on all raw
agricultural commodities. Because this petition is a request for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, no analytical method is
required. Contact: Karen Samek,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 8E7336. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0666). Goldschmidt Chemical
Corporation, Degussa, 710 South Sixth Avenue, Hopewell, VA 23860,
proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
in 40 CFR 180.960 for residues of Castor oil, ethoxylated, oleate,
minimum average molecular weight (in amu) 2,000 (CAS No. 220037-02-05)
when used as a pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide formulations in
or on all raw agricultural commodities. Because this petition is a
request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, no
analytical method is required. Contact: Deirdre Sunderland, (703) 603-
0851<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     3. PP 8E7374. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0710). The Joint Inerts Task Force,
Cluster Support Team 19, EPA Company Number 84949, c/o CropLife
America, 1156 15th Street, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005,
proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
in 40 CFR 180.910 and 180.930 for residues of the Ethylene oxide
adducts of 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decynediol, the ethylene oxide content
averages 3.5, 10, or 30 moles (CAS No. 9014-85-1) when used as a
pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide formulations in or on all raw
agricultural commodities. Because this petition is a request for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, no analytical method is
required. Contact: Karen Samek,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>     4. PP 8E7423. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0739). The Joint Inerts Task Force,
Cluster Support Team 13, EPA Company Number 84949, c/o CropLife
America, 1156 15th Street, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005,
proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
in 40 CFR 180.920 for residues of Sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates
pre-harvest including: Sodium 1,4-dihexyl sulfosuccinate (Butanedioic
acid, sulfo, 1,4-bis dihexyl ester, sodium salt) (CAS No. 3006-15-3);
Sodium 1,4-diisobutyl sulfosuccinate (Butanedioic acid, sulfo, 1,4-bis
diisobutyl ester sodium salt) (CAS No. 127-39-9); and Sodium 1,4-
dipentyl sulfosuccinate (Butanedioic acid, sulfo, 1,4-bis dipentyl
ester sodium salt) (CAS No. 922-80-5) when used as a pesticide inert
ingredient in pesticide formulations in or on all raw agricultural
commodities. Because this petition is a request for an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance, no analytical method is required.
Contact: Karen Samek,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

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

    Dated: November 25, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-28666 Filed 12-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62558-62559]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24569]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2021-0027; OMB No. 1660-NW141]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; National Business Emergency Operation Center (NBEOC)
Membership Agreement Form

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

ACTION: 60-day notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an existing
information collection in use without an OMB control number. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks
comments concerning FEMA's compilation and information sharing
leveraging the National Business Emergency Operation Center (NBEOC)
stakeholder listing. FEMA seeks to voluntarily continue the standing
practice of collecting entity specific information for dissemination
during an event to assist in response/recovery operations.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 10, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-
2021-0027. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID, and will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal
information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes
it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and Security Notice that is
available via a link on the homepage of www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Donald J. Odell, Operations and
Insight Management Branch Chief, Office of Business Industry, and
Infrastructure Integration (OB3I),<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]. You may contact the Information Management
Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) is requesting the information written on this form to establish
your identity and your consent to disclose the information provided on
the National Business Emergency Operations Center Membership Agreement
form under the form's ``NBEOC contact information'' section, to all
NBEOC members and participants of NBEOC meetings or events. Written
consent is requested pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C.
552a(b). The program for which this form may be used is authorized by
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121 -5207; The Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6
U.S.C. 311-321j; 44 CFR 206.2(a)(27); the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-193); and
Exec. Order No. 13411, Improving Assistance for Disaster Victims.
    Information collected is as follows: Entity Name, Entity
Representative, Duty Title, Work Phone, Work Email, Your full name,
Current Address, Place of Birth, Date of Birth, and Signature.
    FEMA may externally share the information you provide as generally
permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, the
``routine uses'' published in DHS/ALL-002 Department of Homeland
Security Mailing and Other Lists System 73 FR 71659 (November 25,
2008), and as authorized by your written consent. The information
provided to FEMA regarding you and your entity may be subject to
release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). A complete
list of the routine uses can be found in the system of records notice
DHS/ALL-002 Department of Homeland Security Mailing and Other Lists
System 73 FR 71659 (November 25, 2008). The Department's full list of
systems of record notices can be found on the Department's website at
http://www.dhs.gov/system-records-notices-sorns.

Collection of Information

    Title: National Business Emergency Operation Center (NBEOC)
Membership Agreement Form.
    Type of Information Collection: Existing collection in use without
an OMB control number.
    OMB Number: 1660-NW141.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-145-FY-21-101, National Business Emergency
Operation Center (NBEOC) Membership Agreement Form.
    Abstract: FEMA's NBEOC collects this data for the primary purpose
of maintaining a private sector stakeholder roster and mailing list for
information dissemination, outreach, and coordination. FEMA leverages
this information to engage stakeholders to coordinate disaster response
operations, garner donations, and gain situational awareness around
private sector actions that will help inform FEMA Leadership and assist
evidence-based decision making.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit
institutions, Federal Government, and State, Local or Tribal
Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 232.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 232.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 116.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $6,817.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $7,165.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent L. Brown,
Acting Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2021-24569 Filed 11-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-24-P


for notification. Alzheimer's Assoc. suggested reducing the period from
two business days to 24 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See CAI.
    \85\ See FSR and FSI.
    \86\ See IRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters suggested not requiring notification within a
specific time period. Wells Fargo suggested requiring notification
``promptly'' or ``as is reasonable under the circumstances.'' Because
the two-business-day period may be insufficient, SIFMA suggested
requiring ``reasonable efforts'' to notify the appropriate parties
without imposing a specific time period.
    Given the need for urgency in dealing with financial exploitation,
FINRA has proposed retaining the requirement to notify all parties
authorized to transact business on an account not later than two
business days after the hold is placed. To ease members' administrative
and operational burdens, FINRA has proposed eliminating the requirement
to contact an immediate family member under proposed Rule 2165.
    Commenters suggested clarifying when the time period would begin
and end.\87\ Many FINRA rules require calculating business days. For
purposes of calculating the two-business-day period within which a
member must provide notification of the temporary hold to parties
authorized to transact business on the account, and consistent with the
approach taken in FINRA Rule 9138(b) (Computation of Time), the day
when the member places the temporary hold should not be included, so
the two-business-day period would begin to run on the next business day
and would thus run until the end of the second business day thereafter.
For example, assuming no intermediate federal holiday, if a member
placed a temporary hold on a Monday, the two-business-day period would
run until the end of Wednesday. If a member placed a hold on a Friday,
then the two-business-day period would run until the end of the
following Tuesday, again assuming no intermediate federal holiday.
FINRA intends this same approach to be used for the calculation of the
period for the temporary hold under proposed Rule 2165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See CAI and FSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Internal Review
    Under the Notice 15-37 Proposal, if a member places a temporary
hold, proposed Rule 2165 would require the member to immediately
initiate an internal review of the facts and circumstances that caused
the qualified person to reasonably believe that financial exploitation
of the specified adult has occurred, is occurring, has been attempted
or will be attempted.
    PIRC supported requiring members to immediately initiate an
internal review. SIFMA commented that the requirement to immediately
initiate an internal review is unnecessarily duplicative because the
proposed rule change already tacitly requires members to initiate an
internal review prior to placing the temporary hold. CAI suggested
requiring members to initiate an internal review as soon as reasonably
practicable. FINRA intends the requirement to immediately initiate an
internal review to signify that a member should not delay in reviewing
the appropriateness of the temporary hold and determining appropriate
next steps. Moreover, because a member's internal review is part of
determining appropriate next steps once a hold has been placed, FINRA
does not believe that the requirement is unnecessarily duplicative of
any other requirements in the proposed rule change.
    FSR requested that FINRA clarify the scope of the internal review
requirement, including what factors should be considered and the nature
of the inquiry. FINRA believes that the appropriate internal review
will depend on the facts and circumstances of the situation. Members
have discretion in conducting a reasonable internal review under
proposed Rule 2165.
Policies and Procedures
    Proposed Rule 2165 would require a member that anticipates using a
temporary hold in appropriate circumstances to establish and maintain
written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to achieve
compliance with the Rule, including, but not limited to, procedures on
the identification, escalation and reporting of matters related to
financial exploitation of specified adults. In the Notice 15-37
Proposal, FINRA requested comment on whether to mandate specific
procedures for escalating matters related to financial exploitation.
    Lincoln commented that FINRA should not prescribe or mandate any
specific procedures for escalating matters. On the other hand, Miami
Investor Rights Clinic supported requiring all members to establish
written supervisory procedures for all registered persons related to
the identification and escalation of matters involving financial
exploitation.
    FINRA has proposed retaining the approach in the Notice 15-37
Proposal requiring policies and procedures reasonably designed to
achieve compliance with proposed Rule 2165. FINRA is committed to
protecting seniors and other vulnerable adults and

believes that the proposed rule change would assist members in
addressing financial exploitation of such individuals. FINRA recognizes
however that placing holds on disbursements, even on a temporary basis,
could have negative implications for the customer's financial situation
and the member-customer relationship. In light of the complexities
surrounding financial exploitation and to help protect against
potential misapplication of the proposed rule, FINRA believes that
members must have written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to
achieve compliance with proposed Rule 2165. Such procedures would help
to ensure that members give careful consideration to their
responsibilities in identifying and escalating matters related to
financial exploitation of specified adults and that there is a
consistent approach across the member's organization.
Training
    Under the Notice 15-37 Proposal, the proposal would also require
members to develop and document training policies or programs
reasonably designed to ensure that registered persons comply with the
requirements of the Rule. Some commenters supported requiring broad
training of the members' staffs regarding the risks of financial
exploitation.\88\ Miami Investor Rights Clinic supported requiring
members to establish training policies and programs for all registered
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See NAELA and AARP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GSU suggested that FINRA oversee training policies or programs
related to proposed Rule 2165, including the creation of continuing
education requirements for registered persons and web-based training
for all qualified persons. Commonwealth supported FINRA providing
guidance on appropriate training of registered persons related to
proposed Rule 2165, including FINRA-created training modules.
    FINRA has proposed retaining the approach in the Notice 15-37
Proposal to require members to develop and document training policies
or programs. FINRA has modified the requirement to mandate training for
associated persons--not just registered persons. Because the proposed
rule change permits an associated person of the member who serves in a
supervisory, compliance or legal capacity for the member to place,
terminate or extend a temporary hold on behalf of the member, FINRA
believes that it is appropriate to require members to develop and
document training policies or programs reasonably designed to ensure
that associated persons--not just registered persons--comply with the
proposed rule.
    FINRA believes that the requirement will further strengthen
compliance by members and associated persons that anticipate placing
holds on disbursements of funds or securities consistent with the
requirements of the Rule. The proposed rule change provides members
with reasonable discretion in determining how best to structure such
training policies or programs. FINRA has developed material for the
Continuing Education Regulatory Element Program that addresses the
financial exploitation of senior investors. FINRA will consider whether
to develop additional continuing education content specifically
addressing financial exploitation of seniors and providing additional
guidance to members, as appropriate.
Reporting
    Some commenters supported revising the proposal to require members
to report financial exploitation to local adult protective services and
law enforcement.\89\ Some commenters also supported revising the
proposal to require members to report financial exploitation to
FINRA.\90\ SIFMA also supported providing members with explicit
permission to share records with local adult protective services and
law enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See NAELA, PIABA, Miami Investor Rights Clinic, NAIFA,
PIRC, Alzheimer's Assoc., AARP, NASAA and SIFMA.
    \90\ See PIRC and NASAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAI commented that FINRA needs to provide a more definitive
mechanism under which members may refer a matter to the proper agency
or governmental body for handling. NAPSA supported requiring members to
report financial exploitation to adult protective services under the
Regulation S-P exceptions for allowing sharing of information in order
to prevent actual or potential fraud and to comply with authorized
civil investigations. FSR suggested that the proposed rule change
should permit members to petition a government agency for a
determination concerning a proposed disbursement, which would allow the
applicable jurisdiction's adult protective services to intervene. FSI
suggested that requiring the reporting of potential financial
exploitation or exposing members to potential civil liability will lead
to members reporting even the slightest suspicions to regulators,
thereby over-taxing regulatory resources.
    The proposed rule change does not require that members report a
reasonable belief of financial exploitation to a state or local
authority. Some states mandate such reporting by financial
institutions, including broker-dealers. Given the varying and evolving
reporting requirements under state law, FINRA believes that states are
well positioned to determine whether a broker-dealer or any other
entity has satisfied its reporting requirements under state law. FINRA
would expect members to comply with all applicable state requirements,
including reporting requirements.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See Interagency Guidance clarifying that reporting
suspected financial abuse to appropriate local, state, or federal
agencies does not, in general, violate the privacy provisions of the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or its implementing regulations, including
Regulation S-P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alzheimer's Assoc. supported requiring members to document any
referral to an external agency, as well as the final outcome of any
holds placed. Because the proposed rule change would not require
referring matters to an external agency, proposed Rule 2165 does not
require members to document any such referrals. However, FINRA would
expect members to comply with all applicable state recordkeeping
requirements.
Costs
    In the Notice 15-37 Proposal, FINRA requested comment on the costs
that may result from the proposed rules. Commonwealth stated that it
will need to make changes to existing account profile systems that will
require development time, at an estimated cost of approximately
$40,000. Wells Fargo stated that it will need to incorporate the
trusted contact person into the account opening process and make other
necessary system updates, at an estimated cost of approximately $1.25
million.
    Other commenters indicated that the proposed rule change will
result in costs to members but did not attempt to quantify such costs.
GWFS commented that in order to capture, retain and periodically update
trusted contact person information, systems changes will be required
resulting in additional costs to the member. FSR suggested that the
proposed recordkeeping requirement will result in significant costs for
members.
    FSR suggested that FINRA's economic impact assessment present
findings that show evidence that a customer designating a trusted
contact person is, or is likely to be, an effective mitigant

against the financial exploitation the proposed rule change is designed
to address.
    PIRC suggested that FINRA seek more information on the logistics
and costs of expanding the proposed rule change to apply to all
investors or to otherwise expand the definition of ``specified
adults.''
    As discussed in greater detail in Item 4 of this filing, FINRA does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose undue operational
costs on members. While FINRA recognizes that there will be some
operational costs to members in complying with the proposed trusted
contact person requirement, FINRA has lessened the cost of compliance
by not requiring members to notify the trusted contact person of his or
her designation as such. Furthermore, the proposed rule change would
permit a member to deliver the disclosure and notification required by
Rule 4512 or Rule 2165 to trusted contact persons in paper or
electronic form thereby giving the member alternative methods of
complying with the requirements.
    FIBA suggested that the reasonable costs associated with due
diligence and investigatory processes, including responding to
inquiries from the trusted contact person, immediate family members and
other parties, should be borne by the customer and chargeable against
the relevant account(s). FINRA would closely examine the reasonableness
of a member charging a customer for costs associated with placing a
temporary hold on the customer's account.
Additional Privacy Considerations
    FIBA commented that the disclosure of confidential information
pursuant to the proposed rule change may run afoul of U.S. and foreign
privacy laws. The proposed rule change addresses Regulation S-P
requirements. Members will need to separately consider any applicable
non-U.S. privacy requirements in determining whether to place temporary
holds consistent with the requirements of proposed Rule 2165.
    CAI questioned whether the Regulation S-P exception for disclosure
of information pursuant to a law or rule would be available if proposed
Rule 2165 permits, but does not require, a temporary hold. FINRA
believes that a member disclosing information pursuant to proposed Rule
2165 would be consistent with the Regulation S-P exception for
disclosures to comply with federal, state, or local laws, rules and
other applicable legal requirements.
Additional Suggestions for Clarification or Guidance
    CAI requested guidance on the status of funds during the time of
the temporary hold and, in particular, on the obligations of different
parties related to the temporary hold on disbursements of funds related
to a variable annuity contract withdrawal or surrender, or how to
address such funds when the member is not authorized to hold customer
funds. Proposed Rule 2165 applies to disbursements of funds or
securities out of a customer account and does not apply to redemptions
of securities or other transactions. As such, FINRA does not anticipate
a member that is not authorized to hold funds being required to hold
funds under the proposed rule change. Rather, while the temporary hold
on a disbursement is in effect, the funds or securities would remain in
a customer's account and would not be released.
    GWFS requested clarification as to the application of the proposed
rule to members primarily involved with the retirement plan business,
such as where a retirement plan sponsor's relationship is with a
financial intermediary unaffiliated with the member but the member
provides recordkeeping services. GWFS questioned which broker-dealer is
``responsible for rule compliance.''
    More than one financial institution may be providing services in
some arrangements and business models (e.g., retirement plans or
introducing and clearing firm arrangements). In such arrangements, the
financial institution that has a reasonable belief that financial
exploitation is occurring may not hold the assets that are subject to
the disbursement request. For example, with respect to introducing and
clearing firm arrangements, an introducing firm may make the
determination that placing a temporary hold pursuant to the proposed
rule change is appropriate. The clearing firm may then place the
temporary hold at the direction of and in reasonable reliance on the
information provided by the introducing firm. FINRA recognizes that
members making a determination or recommendation to place a hold on a
disbursement may not be in the position to place the actual hold on the
funds or securities.
Coordination With Other Regulators
    As noted above, NASAA has separately proposed model legislation
relating to financial exploitation of seniors and other vulnerable
adults. NASAA stated that it hopes that the final outcomes of the FINRA
proposal and the NASAA model are complementary. Some commenters
recommended consistency between the FINRA proposal and NASAA model as
being in the best interests of both investors and financial
institutions.\92\ Other commenters stated that FINRA should coordinate
with NASAA and state regulators to develop a cohesive framework.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See ICI, Lincoln, AARP and FSI.
    \93\ See FSR, IRI, BDA and SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposed rule change and NASAA model are not identical,
FINRA and NASAA have worked together to achieve consistency where
possible and appropriate. Both the proposed rule change and NASAA model
would apply to accounts of natural persons age 65 and older and would
permit temporary holds of up to 25 business days, including the initial
and subsequent periods. Proposed Rule 2165 also would incorporate the
concept of a temporary hold being terminated or extended by a state
regulator or agency or court of competent jurisdiction.
Implementation Period
    Some commenters requested that if the proposed rule change is
approved, FINRA allow at least 12 months for members to implement the
requirements so as to provide adequate time to make updates to members'
systems and written supervisory procedures.\94\ If the proposed rule
change is approved, FINRA will consider the need for members to make
necessary changes to their systems, forms, and supervisory procedures
in establishing an implementation date for the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See Commonwealth, CAI and Wells Fargo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2016-039 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-FINRA-2016-039. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and
printing 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 such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2016-039 and should be
submitted on or before November 28, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-26797 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 92)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27628-27631]
[DOCID:fr12my06-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0380; FRL-8169-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Operating
Permits Program; State of Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Missouri State
Implementation Plan (SIP) and Operating Permits Program. EPA is
approving a revision to the Missouri rule entitled ``Submission of
Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information.'' This revision
will ensure consistency between the state and the Federally-approved
rules.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 11, 2006, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 12, 2006.
If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2006-0380, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Amy Algoe-
Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2006-0380. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal
holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

What is a SIP?
What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?
What Does Federal Approval of a State Regulation Mean to Me?
What Is the Part 70 Operating Permits Program?
What Is the Federal Approval Process for an Operating Permits
Program?
What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision Been Met?
What Action Is EPA Taking?

What Is a SIP?

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop
air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state
air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards
established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under
section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria
pollutants. These pollutants are: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
    Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to
us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.
    Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by
addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be
extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents
and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring
networks, and modeling demonstrations.

What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?

    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements.
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking
body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide
public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed
Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are
received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by
us.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part 52, entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The actual state regulations
which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR
outright but are ``incorporated by reference,'' which means that we
have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.

What Does Federal Approval of a State Regulation Mean to Me?

    Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is
incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state
responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we
are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens
are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in
section 304 of the CAA.

What Is the Part 70 Operating Permits Program?

    The CAA Amendments of 1990 require all states to develop operating
permits programs that meet certain Federal criteria. In implementing
this program, the states are to require certain sources of air
pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements
under the CAA. One purpose of the part 70 operating permits program is
to improve enforcement by issuing each source a single permit that
consolidates all of the applicable CAA requirements into a Federally-
enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable
requirements for a facility into one document, the source, the public,
and the permitting authorities can more easily determine what CAA
requirements apply and how compliance with those requirements is
determined.
    Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program
include ``major'' sources of air pollution and certain other sources
specified in the CAA or in our implementing regulations. For example,
all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size,
must obtain permits. Examples of major sources include those that emit
100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds, carbon
monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, or PM10;
those that emit 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) (specifically listed under the CAA); or those that emit 25 tons
per year or more of a combination of HAPs.
    Revision to the state and local agencies operating permits program
are also subject to public notice, comment, and our approval.

What Is the Federal Approval Process for an Operating Permits Program?

    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable Title V operating permits program, states must
formally adopt regulations consistent with state and Federal
requirements. This process generally includes a public notice,

public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a
state-authorized rulemaking body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to us for inclusion into the approved operating
permits program. We must provide public notice and seek additional
public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state
submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed
prior to any final Federal action by us.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 502 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved operating permits program. Records of such actions are
maintained in the CFR at Title 40, part 70, appendix A, entitled
``Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs.''

What Is Being Addressed in This Document?

    Missouri, in its letter of January 18, 2006, requested that EPA
approve a revision to the SIP and Operating Permits Program to include
revisions to rule 10 CSR 10-6.110, ``Submission of Emission Data,
Emission Fees, and Process Information''. This rule deals with
submittal of emissions information, emission fees, and public
availability of emissions data. It provides procedures for collection,
recording, and submittal of emissions data and process information on
state-supplied Emission Inventory Questionnaire and Emission Statement
forms so that the state can calculate emissions for the purpose of
state air resource planning.
    By State statute, the emission fees are set annually to fund the
reasonable cost of administering the program. MDNR continually
evaluates the Operating Permits Program financial situation. Section
(3)(D)1. was amended to establish an emissions fee of $34.50 per ton of
regulated air pollutant starting for calendar year 2005. This amount
represents a $1.50 increase from the emissions fee of $33.00 per ton of
regulated pollutant for calendar year 2004.
    Sections (3)(D)2.E. and (3)(D)2.F. state when emission fees and
Emission Inventory Questionnaire forms (or equivalent) are due to the
Department of Natural Resources. Language was added to these sections
to clarify that the fees and forms are due for all United States
Department of Labor Standard Industrial Classifications except for
Standard Industrial Classification 4911 Electric Services, which shall
be due June 1 each year.

Have the Requirements for Approval of the SIP Revision and Part 70
Revision Been Met?

    The submittal satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. In addition, the state submittal has met the public
notice requirements for SIP submission in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102
and met the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA including section
110 and 40 CFR 51.211, relating to submission of emissions data.
    Finally, the submittal met the substantive requirements of Title V
of the 1990 CAA Amendments and 40 CFR part 70, including the
requirement in 40 CFR 70.9 relating to emission fees.

What Action Is EPA Taking?

    We are approving a revision to the Missouri SIP and incorporating
the revised rule 10 CSR 10-6.110, ``Submission of Emissions Data,
Emission Fees, and Process Information.''
    We are also approving section (3)(D) of this rule as a program
revision to the state's Part 70 Operating Permits Program.
    We are processing this action as a direct final action because the
revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are
noncontroversial, and make regulatory revisions required by state
statute. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please
note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if
that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse
comment.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does 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 Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP and Title V permit submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus
be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 11, 2006. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 70

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 1, 2006.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator , Region 7.

0
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320(c) the table is amended under Chapter 6 by revising
the entry for ``10-6.110'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
        Missouri citation                  Title          effective    EPA  approval  date       Explanation
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources

                                                 * * * * * * *
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.110.........................  Submission of            12/30/05  5/12/06 [insert FR    Section (3)(D),
                                    Emission Data,                     page number where     Emission Fees, has
                                    Emission Fees, and                 the document          not been approved
                                    Process Information.               begins].              as part of the SIP

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 70--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

Appendix A--[Amended]

0
2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraph (q) under
Missouri to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs

* * * * *
    Missouri
* * * * *
    (q) The Missouri Department of Natural Resources submitted
revisions to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.110, ``Submission of Emission
Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information'' on January 5, 2006,
approval of section (3)(D) effective July 11, 2006.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-4432 Filed 5-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P