[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 168 (Monday, August 31, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52403-52408]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21192]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0531; FRL-9932-26]

Dimethomorph; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes, and removes tolerances for
residues of dimethomorph in or on multiple commodities which are
identified and discussed later in this document. BASF Corporation
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA). EPA is correcting the CAS name of dimethomorph in 40 CFR
180.493(a), 40 CFR 180.493(c), and 40 CFR 180.493(d).

DATES: This regulation is effective August 31, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 30, 2015,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0531, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0531 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
October 30, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0531, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75107) (FRL-
9918-90), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
4F8281) by BASF Corporation, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.493 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide,
dimethomorph in or on strawberry at 1.0 parts per million (ppm) and
removing the established tolerances for

lettuce, head and lettuce, leaf at 10 ppm. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by BASF, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were
received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the tolerance for residues of dimethomorph in or strawberry to
0.90 ppm and is correcting the CAS name of dimethomorph in 40 CFR
180.493(a), 40 CFR 180.493(c), and 40 CFR 180.493(d) to the following
introductory tolerance expression text: 40 CFR 180.493(a): Tolerances
are established for residues of the fungicide dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-
chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl]morpholine,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in
the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in
the following table is to be determined by measuring only dimethomorph
in or on the commodity. 40 CFR 180.493(c): Tolerances with regional
registrations are established for residues of the fungicide
dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-
propen-1-yl]morpholine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined
by measuring only dimethomorph in or on the commodity. 40 CFR
180.493(d): Tolerances are established for the indirect or inadvertent
residues of the fungicide dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-
dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl]morpholine, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the following
table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following
table is to be determined by measuring only dimethomorph in or on the
commodity.
    The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. The target organ for dimethomorph is the liver in rats and
dogs. No biologically significant effect was observed in the rat
subchronic oral toxicity study while decreased body weight and
increased incidence of arteritis in male rats and decreased body
weights and increased incidence of ``ground-glass'' foci in livers of
female rats were observed in the rat chronic toxicity study. In the dog
subchronic oral toxicity study, decreased absolute and relative
prostate weights, and slight liver effects were observed. No toxicity
was observed at the limit dose in the rat 28-day dermal toxicity study.
The developmental toxicity studies showed no increased sensitivity to
offspring of either rats or rabbits as demonstrated by the no-observed-
adverse-effect-levels (NOAELs) equal to or higher than those producing
toxicity in the maternal animals. Likewise, in the 2-generation
reproduction study, there was no toxicity to the offspring at any dose
lower than that causing parental toxicity. There is no evidence that
dimethomorph is a developmental, or reproductive toxicant, and it is
not neurotoxic or immunotoxic.
    The Agency classified dimethomorph as ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans'' based upon lack of evidence of carcinogenicity
in rats and mice and no evidence of mutagenicity. A quantitative cancer
risk assessment is not necessary. Dimethomorph has low acute toxicity
by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route of exposure (Toxicity Category
III or IV). It is not an eye or skin irritant, and is not a skin
sensitizer.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by dimethomorph as well as the NOAEL and the
lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled
``Dimethomorph: Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Establishment
of a Permanent Tolerance for Residues in/on Strawberry'' at pages 29-32
in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0531.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Dimethomorph for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-50       N/A (No appropriate   N/A................  N/A.
 years of age).                     endpoint was
                                    identified
                                    including
                                    developmental
                                    toxicity studies in
                                    rats and rabbits.).
Acute dietary (General population  LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/    Acute RfD = 0.25 mg/ Acute neurotoxicity study in rats.
 including infants and children).   day.                  kg/day.             MRID 48980106.
                                   UFA = 10x...........  aPAD = 0.25 mg/kg/   LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 reduced motor activity and
                                   FQPA SF/UFL = 10x...                        impairment of gait and rearing in
                                                                               both sexes.
Chronic dietary (All populations)  POD = 11 mg/kg/day..  Chronic RfD = 0.11   Co-critical chronic and
                                   UFA = 10x...........   mg/kg/day.           carcinogenicity studies in rats
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD= 0.11 mg/kg/     MRID 42233912, 42233916.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                LOAEL = 46.3 mg/kg/day, based on
                                                                               decreased body weight and
                                                                               increases in liver lesions in
                                                                               female rats.
Incidental oral short-term.......  NOAEL= 15 mg/kg/day.  LOC for MOE = 100..  Subchronic feeding study in dogs.
                                   UFA = 10x...........                       MRID 42233908.
                                   UFH = 10x...........                       LOAEL = 43 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        decreased absolute and relative
                                                                               prostate weights.
Dermal short- and intermediate-    N/A (No toxicity was  N/A................  N/A.
 term.                              observed at the
                                    limit dose in a 28-
                                    day dermal toxicity
                                    study.
                                   No quantitative risk
                                    assessment is
                                    necessary since no
                                    dermal or
                                    developmental
                                    toxicity concern.).
Inhalation short- and              Oral, NOAEL = 15 mg/  LOC for MOE = 1000.  Subchronic feeding study in dogs.
 intermediate-term.                 kg/day (inhalation                        MRID 42233908.
                                    absorption factor =                       LOAEL = 43 mg/kg/day based on
                                    100%).                                     decreased absolute and relative
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        prostate weights.
                                   UFH = 10x...........
                                   UFDB = 10x..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)   Classification: This chemical is classified as ``not likely'' to be a human
                                                                     carcinogen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UFA = extrapolation from
  animal to human (interspecies). UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other data deficiency. UFH =
  potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL
  to extrapolate a NOAEL.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to dimethomorph, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing dimethomorph tolerances in 40
CFR 180.493. EPA assessed dietary exposures from dimethomorph in food
as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for dimethomorph. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat in America (NHANES/WEIA) 2003-2008. The acute analysis
assumed 100% crop treated (CT), Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version
3.16 default processing factors, and tolerance-level residues for all
foods. Drinking water was incorporated directly into the dietary
assessment using the surface water concentration and the FIRST (Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Index Reservoir Screening Tool) model.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/WEIA
2003-2008. The chronic analysis assumed 100% CT, DEEM-FCID Version 3.16
default processing factors, and tolerance-level residues for all foods.
Drinking water was incorporated directly into the dietary assessment
using the surface water concentration and the FIRST model.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that dimethomorph does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use any anticipated residue or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for dimethomorph.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for dimethomorph in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of dimethomorph. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on FIRST model for surface water and Pesticide Root Zone
Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) for ground water, the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of dimethomorph for acute exposures for
non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 81.1 parts per billion (ppb)
for surface water and 20.1 ppb for ground water; and for chronic
exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 24.7 ppb for
surface water and 18.8 ppb (post breakthrough avg. ppb) and 14.6 ppb
(simulation avg. ppb) for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model.
    For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of 81.1
ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of
24.7 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Dimethomorph is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found dimethomorph to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and dimethomorph does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
dimethomorph does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The toxicology data on
dimethomorph provides no indication of enhanced sensitivity of infants
and children based on the results from rat or rabbit developmental
studies as well as a 2-generation rat reproduction study.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined the 10X FQPA SF be retained for
acute dietary exposure scenario for extrapolation of a NOAEL from a
LOAEL. For other exposure scenarios, the FQPA SF is reduced to 1x since
there is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative
susceptibility in the young and exposure estimates are unlikely to
underestimate risk.
    The above decision is based on the following findings:
    i. Although the toxicity database of dimethomorph is incomplete
because a subchronic inhalation study is not available, the available
toxicity database of dimethomorph, including developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits, a 2-generation reproduction study in rats,
acute and subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats, is adequate to
characterize developmental and reproductive effects and to assess the
qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in the young.
    ii. In an acute neurotoxicity study, functional observational
battery (FOB) findings and reduced motor activity were observed at >=
250 mg/kg on day 0 only. These findings were considered an impairment
of the overall condition of the animals following a single gavage dose,
rather than a direct neurotoxic effect of dimethomorph based on the
absence of any neurohistopathological changes in the treated animals
and the transient nature of the observed FOB and neurobehavioral
assessments. In support of this conclusion, no neurotoxic effects were
observed in rats fed dimethomorph up to the highest dose tested at
2,400 ppm (178/204 mg/kg/day for males/females, respectively) in a 90-
day neurotoxicity study. Additionally, the toxicology database does not
reveal evidence of neurotoxic clinical signs, changes in brain weight,
or histopathology of the nervous system in any study with dimethomorph.
    iii. There is no evidence that dimethomorph results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to dimethomorph in drinking water. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by dimethomorph.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to dimethomorph will occupy 39% of the aPAD for children 3 to 5 years
of age,

the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
dimethomorph from food and water will utilize 26% of the cPAD for
children 1 to 2 years of age, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for dimethomorph.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    A short-term adverse effect was identified; however, dimethomorph
is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term
residential exposure. Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term
residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no
short-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has
already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is
at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no
further assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on
the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for
dimethomorph.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
dimethomorph is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
dimethomorph.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. An aggregate cancer
risk was not calculated because dimethomorph was classified as ``not
likely to be carcinogenic to humans''.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to dimethomorph residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid
chromatography with ultraviolet detection (HPLC/UV) method FAMS 002-04
and Method M 2577, a gas chromatographic (GC) method with nitrogen
phosphorus detection (NPD)) are available to enforce the tolerance
expression.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has established MRLs for dimethomorph in or on strawberry
at 0.05 ppm. These MRLs are different than the tolerances established
for dimethomorph in the United States. EPA is not proposing to
harmonize the U.S. tolerance for residues in strawberry with the Codex
due to different application rates (U.S. application rate, 219-237 gram
active ingredient/hectare, and Codex countries' application rate, 150
gram active ingredient/hectare).

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    BASF proposed a tolerance of dimethomorph residues on strawberry at
1.0 ppm. BASF and EPA used the Organization for Economic Cooperation &
Development (OECD) spreadsheet calculator and both determined from the
data set that a tolerance of 0.90 ppm was the recommended OECD
calculator spreadsheet output. However, BASF rounded that value to 1.0
ppm, while EPA's policy is to establish the tolerance at the OECD
calculator output level without rounding; therefore, EPA is
establishing a tolerance on strawberry at 0.90 ppm. EPA established the
tolerance for leafy vegetables (except brassica) crop group 4 in the
Federal Register on May 4, 2012 under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0388. In this ruling, the tolerance for vegetable, leafy, except
brassica, group 4 was established at 30.0 ppm. According to 40 CFR
180.493, the individual tolerances for lettuce, head and lettuce, leaf,
both at 10.0 ppm, were not removed. Based upon the previous
explanation, EPA is removing the tolerances for lettuce, head at 10.0
ppm and lettuce, leaf at 10.0 ppm.
    EPA is correcting the CAS name of dimethomorph in 40 CFR
180.493(a), 40 CFR 180.493(c), and 40 CFR 180.493(d). The CAS name of
dimethomorph is currently incorrect (currently is listed as the
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) name (E,Z)-4-
[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl) acryloyl]morpholine, and is
being revised to the correct CAS name 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-
dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl]morpholine)).

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance for residues of the
fungicide, dimethomorph in or on strawberry at 0.90 ppm and removing
the established tolerances for lettuce, head and lettuce leaf at 10
ppm. EPA is correcting the CAS name of dimethomorph in 40 CFR
180.493(a), 40 CFR 180.493(c), and 40 CFR 180.493(d) to the following
tolerance expressions:
    40 CFR 180.493(a): Tolerances are established for residues of the
fungicide dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-
1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl]morpholine, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the following table. Compliance
with the tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be
determined by measuring only dimethomorph in or on the commodity.
    40 CFR 180.493(c): Tolerances with regional registrations are
established for residues of the fungicide dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-
chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl]morpholine,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in
the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in
the following table is to be determined by measuring only dimethomorph
in or on the commodity.
    40 CFR 180.493(d): Tolerances are established for the indirect or
inadvertent residues of the fungicide dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-
chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-

1-yl]morpholine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in the following table is to be determined by
measuring only dimethomorph in or on the commodity.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: August 10, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.493:
0
a. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a).
0
b. Remove the entries in the table in paragraph (a) for ``Lettuce,
head'', and ``Lettuce leaf''.
0
c. Add alphabetically the entry for ``Strawberry'' to the table in
paragraph (a).
0
d. Revise the introductory text of paragraphs (c) and (d).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  180.493  Dimethomorph; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    Tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide
dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-
propen-1-yl]morpholine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined
by measuring only dimethomorph in or on the commodities.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Parts per
                       Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Strawberry.............................................            0.90

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

* * * * *
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with
regional registrations are established for residues of the fungicide
dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-
propen-1-yl]morpholine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined
by measuring only dimethomorph in or on the commodity.
* * * * *
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. Tolerances are established
for the indirect or inadvertent residues of the fungicide dimethomorph,
4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-1-
yl]morpholine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in the following table is to be determined by
measuring only dimethomorph in or on the commodity.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-21192 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 60980]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24566]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting held
by the Organization of PJM States, Inc. (OPSI):

OPSI's Eighth Annual Meeting

    October 1-3, 2012, 8:45 a.m.-5 p.m., Local Time.
    The W Chicago City Center Hotel, 172 W. Adams Street, Chicago, IL
60603.
    Further information may be found at http://www.opsi.us/annual_meetings.html
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. EL05-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL07-56, Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al,. v.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL07-58, Organization of PJM States, Inc., et al., v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL08-14, Black Oak Energy LLC, et al., v. FERC
Docket No. EL10-52, Central Transmission, LLC v.  PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
Docket No. EL12-45, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL12-50, First Energy Solutions Corporation et al., v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL12-54, Viridity Energy, Inc. v. PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
Docket No. EL12-69, Primary Power LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL12-8, DC Energy, L.L.C. and DC Energy Mid-Atlantic, L.L.C.
vs. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. AD12-1 and ER11-4081, Midwest Independent Transmission
System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1063, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER09-1148, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
Docket No. ER09-1256, Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER09-1589, FirstEnergy Service Company
Docket Nos. ER10-253 and EL10-14, Primary Power, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER10-549, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket Nos. ER11-2814 and ER11-2815, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and
American Transmission Systems, Inc.
Docket Nos. ER11-2875 and EL11-20, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER11-4106, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER11-4628, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-1173, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et. al.
Docket No. ER12-1177, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-1178, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-1204, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-1761, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2080, GenOn Power Midwest, LP
Docket No. ER12-2085, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2260, New York Independent System Operator, Inc
Docket No. ER12-2262, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2274, Public Service Electric and Gas Company
Docket No. ER12-2391, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2399, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2417, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2440, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2442, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2469, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2486, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2518, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2527, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2550, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2574, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2594, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2599, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2604, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2606, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2610, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2616, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2624, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2661, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2663, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2664, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2671, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2688, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-469, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-513, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-718, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-91, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-92, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER11-2183 and EL11-32, American Electric Power Service
Corporation

    For more information, contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-
6139 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 28, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24566 Filed 10-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


              Pedestal Crane Safety on Commercial Fishing Vessels

Injuries and fatalities have resulted on fishing vessels from the failure of shipboard pedestal cranes (e.g., masts, booms, lift cables, etc.).  Cranes must be tested and certified in accordance with OSHA standards -- 29 CFR Part 1919 -- by persons accredited for this purpose (29 CFR 1915.115).  Cranes must be used and maintained as per manufacturer's specifications.  The crane, as well as its components and attachments must never be modified in any form to increase their lifting capacity.  Any modification deemed necessary must be authorized by the manufacturer then carried out based on engineering calculations by or acceptable to the accredited certification agency (29 CFR 1919.14 (e)).

It is recommended that cranes be inspected regularly before use, to ensure they are maintained in a safe and functional condition.  Employers should train operators on how to safely operate the equipment, including an understanding of the safe working loads (SWLs).  Further, specific equipment capacities, operating instructions and hand signals should be posted in an easily accessible area (such as the cab of the crane or pedestal).

Pre-Operation checklist:

oo
oo Safety meeting held
oo Affected workers understand the task and their role
oo Lift Routine or Critical?
   oo Hazards and restrictions understood:
      # Load 75% crane capacity
      # Extreme weather
      # Low visibility
      # Near power lines
      # Near high traffic areas
oo Other potential hazards identified
oo Weight of load known
oo Calculations preformed and understood (SWL)
oo Room for lift and swing
oo Sufficient time to complete task
oo Pre-shift inspection performed
    #        Supporting structure:  Appropriate legible warning labels, hand signal charts.

    #        Rotation system: Proper lubrication.

    #        Boom section: Damaged slide pads, proper lubrication, bent boom tip or grooves in the side plates or the flanges of the sheaves/sheave and sheave pin wear and lubrication.

    #        Winch system/wire rope: Make sure it is spooling correctly; inspect rope for damage (kinking, birdcaging, crushed rope, etc.), broken wires that exceed the number allowed;  mounting bolts and welds that hold it in place, condition of hydraulic hoses; excessive rust or lack of lubrication.

    #        Hydraulic system/hoses: Cracks or leaks, tightened connectors.

    #        Load block: Damaged, bent sheaves, side plates and bolts, sheave pin and keeper, swivel and hook, and wedge socket; host line termination properly secured, and for damaged/broken wires; proper lubrication; bent hooks, bent or missing safety latches on hooks.

    # Rigging gear: Broken, bent or missing pins; bent hooks, bent or missing safety latches on hooks; damaged slings; missing capacity tags. Damaged, bent or elongated chain rings.

    # Attachments/baskets: Load ratings/capacity clearly stated, bent or damaged components that could make it not function properly or increase potential for failure (e.g., doors that don't close on manbaskets).

Operation:

oo
oo Trained and authorized on equipment/task

oo Controls labeled

oo Familiar with control functions
oo Controls appropriately positioned before starting

oo Seat belt fastened

oo Designated signal person in place
oo Any reason you should not operate? (e.g., taking medication that may negatively affect reaction time and decision making abilities, fatigue, poor eyesight, impaired hearing, etc.)

oo Hand signals understood by all

oo Work area (swing radius) cordoned off or secured

oo Verify no obstructions or workers in area

oo No personnel under the load

oo Workers wearing hard hats, high visibility vests, and other required PPE

oo Distractions (cell phones, cameras) eliminated

Post-Operation:

oo
oo Engine off

oo Key removed

oo Controls locked out

oo Lower lift to deck (do not leave load suspended in the air)

oo Ensure safe egress is provided prior to leaving the cab


[Federal Register: September 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 55257-55258]
[DOCID:fr21se06-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54430; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment No. 4 to a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Exchange's Schedule of Fees and
Charges

September 12, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On May 17, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ the proposed rule change to
amend the Trade Related Charges portion of its Schedule of Fees and
Charges (``Schedule''). On May 26, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On June 30, 2006, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. On July 7, 2006, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The
proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the
Federal Register on July 20, 2006.\4\ Two comment letters were
submitted in connection with this filing.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Form 19b-4 dated July 7, 2006 (``Amendment No. 3'').
Amendment No. 3 replaced and superseded the original filing and
Amendments No. 1 and 2 in their entirety.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54130 (July 11,
2006), 71 FR 41305.
    \5\ See letter from Arthur J. Gross, Arthur J. Gross SP, dated
August 9, 2006, and letter from Gennaro J. Lettera, dated August 9,
2006. The Exchange believes that these commenters intended to
address a separate proposed rule change, SR-NYSE-2006-46, not the
instant proposed rule change. See e-mail from Janet Angstadt, Acting
General Counsel, NYSE Arca, to Timothy Fox, Special Counsel,
Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated August 16, 2006.
The Commission believes that the commenters' concerns do not relate
to the instant proposed rule change and, as such, these letters are
not addressed in this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 31, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 4.\6\ This
order grants accelerated approval of Amendment No. 4, and solicits
comments from interested persons on Amendment No. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Amendment No. 4 was filed to reconcile the original filing,
as amended, with the subsequent immediately effective rule filing,
as discussed infra note 9 and accompanying text. Amendment No. 4
replaces and supersedes the original filing and subsequent
amendments in their entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposal

A. Fees for Manually Executed Linkage Orders

    NYSE Arca proposes to combine two existing fees associated with
certain Linkage Orders.\7\ Presently, the Exchange assesses on Linkage
Orders a $0.21 transaction fee and a $0.05 comparison fee.\8\ To
simplify the Schedule, the Exchange proposes combining these fees into
one transaction fee of $0.26 for Linkage Orders executed manually. This
fee is equal to the fee for manually executed orders from broker-
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Linkage Orders'' are immediate or cancel orders containing
certain information that are routed through the Intermarket Linkage
System (``Linkage''). See Section 2(16) of the Plan for the Purpose
of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage (``Linkage
Plan''). As used in this approval order, the term, ``Linkage
Orders,'' refers only to Principal Acting as Agent Orders and
Principal Orders. See Sections 2(16)(a) and 2(16)(b) of the Linkage
Plan.
    \8\ These fees are applicable through an Exchange Pilot Program
due to expire on July 31, 2007. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 54230 (July 27, 2006), 71 FR 44757 (August 7, 2006) (SR-
NYSEArca-2006-41).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Fees for Electronically Executed Linkage Orders

    Under the current NYSE Arca Schedule, electronically executed
orders from broker-dealers are charged $0.50 per contract (``BD
Electronic Transaction Fee''). The BD Electronic Transaction Fee was
recently revised to combine a previously assessed transaction fee of
$0.26 and a BD Surcharge of $0.25.\9\ The current $0.50 BD Electronic
Transaction Fee represents a $0.01 reduction in the total fee for
electronic executions of orders from broker-dealers. In Amendment No.
4, the Exchange proposes to modify its Schedule to make clear that

electronically executed Linkage Orders also will be charged $0.50 per
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54309 (August 11,
2006), 71 FR 48571 (August 21, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange acknowledges that the Exchange's previous version of
its Schedule did not reflect that the BD Surcharge was imposed on
electronically executed Linkage Orders.\10\ In Amendment No. 4, the
Exchange proposes to modify the Schedule to make clear that the BD
Surcharge will be included as a component of the $0.50 fee assessed for
electronically executed Linkage Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Schedule set forth the Transaction and Comparison fees
assessed on Linkage Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change, as
amended, and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\11\ In particular, the Commission believes that
the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ which
requires that the rules of an exchange provide an equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other
persons using its facilities. Under the current NYSE Arca Schedule,
manually executed BD orders are charged $0.26 per contract and
electronically executed orders from broker-dealers are charged $0.50
per contract. The Exchange proposed that manually executed Linkage
Orders be charged $0.26 per contract and electronically executed
Linkage Orders be charged $0.50 per contract. Accordingly, the
Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed Schedule clearly sets
forth the fees imposed on Linkage Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange acknowledges, in Amendment No. 4,
that prior versions of its Schedule did not represent that the $0.25 BD
Surcharge was applied to electronically executed Linkage Orders.
Because the Exchange assessed the BD Surcharge on Linkage Orders prior
to this approval and, therefore, without authority, parties assessed
the BD Surcharge for Linkage Orders prior to the approval of this
proposed rule change may seek reimbursement.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving proposed Amendment
No. 4 before the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of
filing thereof in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act.\13\ The Exchange filed Amendment No. 4 to reconcile the
proposed rules in the original filing, as amended, with the Exchange's
current rules, which reflect an immediately effective proposed rule
change filed after this proposed rule change was published for
comment.\14\ The Commission believes that in Amendment No. 4, the
Exchange proposes no significant changes to the fees proposed in the
original filing. Therefore, the Commission finds good cause exists to
accelerate approval of Amendment No. 4, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \14\ See supra note 9.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning Amendment No. 4, including whether Amendment No. 4
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-2006-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to Amendment No. 4 to SR-NYSEArca-
2006-20. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-
mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments
more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post
all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. 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
Amendment No. 4 to SR-NYSEArca-2006-20 and should be submitted on or
before October 12, 2006.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\16\ that Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-
2006-20) be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-7842 Filed 9-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3051-3053]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00636]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-8467; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-107-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a design review that
revealed no controlled bonding provisions are present on a number of
critical locations inside the fuel tanks or connected to the walls of
the fuel tanks. This proposed AD would require installing additional
and improved bonding provisions in the fuel tanks and revising the
airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by
incorporating fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design
configuration control limitations (CDCCLs). We are proposing this AD to
prevent an ignition source in the fuel tank vapor space, which could
result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL
Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31
(0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
8467; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-8467;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-107-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0108, dated May 8, 2014 (referred to after
this the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V.
Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Prompted by an accident * * *, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) published Special Federal Aviation Regulation
(SFAR) 88 [(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001)], and the Joint Aviation
Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12.
    The review conducted by Fokker Services on the Fokker F28
design, in response to these regulations, revealed that no
controlled bonding provisions are present on a number of critical
locations, inside the fuel tank or connected to the fuel tank wall.
    This condition, if not corrected, could create an ignition
source in the fuel tank vapour space, possibly resulting in a fuel
tank explosions and consequent loss of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services
developed a set of fuel tank bonding modifications.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the
Installation of additional and improved bonding provisions [and a
revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable].
These modifications require opening of the fuel tank access panels.
    More information on this subject can be found in Fokker Services
All Operators Message AOF28.038#02.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
8467.

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001) requires
certain type design (i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type
certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems
can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement
applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport
airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It
requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes
and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel
tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we
intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found
necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these
reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that
is similar to SFAR 88 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). (The JAA is an
associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC)
representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of
European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and
implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under
this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold
type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to
conduct a design review against explosion risks.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Proforma Service Bulletin
SBF28-28-058, dated January 9, 2014, including Appendix SBF28-28-058/
APP01, dated July 15, 2014. The service information describes
procedures for installing improved bonding provisions for the transfer
jet pumps, ventilation float valves, center tank overflow valves, and
level control pilot valves wiring conduit, and applicable related
investigative and corrective actions.
    Fokker Services B.V. has also issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-
28-050, Revision 3, dated December 11, 2014. The service information
describes certain fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical
design configuration control limitations.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.
    This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and/or CDCCLs.
Compliance with these actions and/or CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR
91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered,
or repaired in the areas addressed by this AD, the operator may not be
able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(j)(1) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes
to the required actions that will ensure the continued operational
safety of the airplane.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 21 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $8,925, or $1,785 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative,

on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2015-8467; Directorate
Identifier 2014-NM-107-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 7, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000,
2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes, certificated in any category, all
serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a design review that revealed no
controlled bonding provisions are present on a number of critical
locations inside the fuel tanks or connected to the walls of the
fuel tanks. We are issuing this AD to prevent an ignition source in
the fuel tank vapor space, which could result in a fuel tank
explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Installation of Bonding Provisions

    At the next scheduled opening of the fuel tanks after the
effective date of this AD, but no later than 84 months after the
effective date of this AD, install additional and improved bonding
provisions in the fuel tanks, and do the applicable related
investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Services Proforma Service
Bulletin SBF28-28-058, dated January 9, 2014, including Appendix
SBF28-28-058/APP01, dated July 15, 2014.

(h) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Before further flight after completing the installation
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 30 days after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Revise the
airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by
incorporating the fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical
design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) specified in
paragraph 1.L.(1)(c) of Fokker Services Proforma Service Bulletin
SBF28-28-058, dated January 9, 2014, including Appendix SBF28-28-
058/APP01, dated July 15, 2014. The initial compliance times for the
tasks are at the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1),
(h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.
    (1) At the applicable time specified in Fokker Service Bulletin
SBF28-28-050, Revision 3, dated December 11, 2014.
    (2) Before further flight after completing the installation
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (3) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

(i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and CDCCLs

    After accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (h)
of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals,
or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, or CDCCLs are
approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance: The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Fokker B.V. Service's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2014-
0108, dated May 8, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be
found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8467.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130
EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31
(0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 5, 2016.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-00636 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 41074]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16471]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4117-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Oklahoma; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4117-DR), dated May 20, 2013, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 26, 2013.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of May 20, 2013.

    Okfuskee, Okmulgee, and LeFlore Counties for Individual
Assistance.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-16471 Filed 7-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Harrington, R. M., et al. ( 1995): Subchronic toxicity of sodium chlorite in the rat. J Am Coll Toxicol 14: 21 33. 42301601 Ridgway, P.( 1992) 13 Week Oral( Gavage) Toxicity Study in the Rat: Lab Project Number: CMA/ 13/ R: CD 6.0 Tox. Unpublished study prepared by Toxicol Labs Ltd for the CMA/ Chlorine Dioxide Panel. 329p.

Kurokawa, Y., et al. ( 1984): Studies on the promoting and complete carcinogenic activities of some oxidizing chemicals in skin carcinogenesis. Cancer Lett 24: 299 304.

Meier, J. R., et al. ( 1985): Evaluation of chemicals used for drinking water disinfection for production of chromosomal damage and sperm head abnormalities in mice. Environ Mutagen 7: 201 211. Page 47 of 49 Miller, R. G., et al. ( 1986): Results of toxicological testing of Jefferson Parish pilot plant samples. Environ Health Perspect 69: 129 139.

MRID 31610. Fletcher, D. 1973. Acute Oral Toxicity Study with Sodium Chlorite in Bobwhite Quail. Unpublished Data. Conducted by Industrial BIO TEST Laboratories, Inc. for Olin Corporation.

MRID 69809. 1978. Acute Toxicity of Sodium Chlorite to Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus). Unpublished Data. Conducted by EG& G, Bionomics, Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory for Olin Chemicals.

MRID 69810. 1979. Acute Toxicity of Sodium Chlorite to Rainbow Trout ( Salmo gairdneri). Unpublished Data. Conducted by EG& G, Bionomics, Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory for Olin Chemicals.

MRID 130649. Fink, R. 1977. Eight day Dietary LC50  Bobwhite Quail   Sodium Chlorite. Unpublished Data. Conducted by Wildlife International, Ltd. for Olin Corporation.

MRID 130650. Fink, R. 1977. Eight day Dietary LC50   Mallard Duck   Sodium Chlorite. Unpublished Data. Conducted by Wildlife International, Ltd. for Olin Corporation.

MRID 131350. Vilkas, A. G. 1976. Acute Toxicity of Textone to the Water Flea Daphnia magna Strauss. Unpublished Data. Conducted by Aquatic Environmental Sciences for Olin Corporation.

MRID 131351. Sleight III, B. H. 1971. Acute Toxicity of Sodium Chlorite to Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus) and Rainbow Trout ( Salmo gairdneri). Unpublished Data. Conducted by Bionomics, Inc.

MRID 141149. Hoberg, J. R. and D. C. Surprenant. 1984. Acute Toxicity of AC 66 to Daphnids ( Daphnia magna). Unpublished Data. Conducted by Springborn Bionomics, Inc. for Calgon Corporation.

MRID 146162. Barrows, 1984. The Acute Toxicity of Sodium Chlorite Technical to the Water Flea, Daphnia magna in a Static Test System. Unpublished Data. Conducted by Biospherics Incorporated for Degussa Corporation.

MRID 40168704. 1985. Acute Dermal LD50 on Rabbit   Sodium Chlorite Powder, Lot # 110984 15. Gibraltar Biological Lab, Inc. ( Fairfield, NJ), Internaltional Dioxcide, Inc. Study Number GBL 024065, April 23, 1985.

MRID 41843101. Backus, P., K. E. Crosby and L. J. Powers. 1990. Effect of Sodium Chlorite on Vegetative Vigor of Plants ( Tier I). Unpublished Data. Conducted by Ricerca, Inc. for the Sodium Chlorite Reregistration Task Force. Page 48 of 49 MRID 41843102. Backus, P., K. E. Crosby and L. J. Powers. 1990. Effect of Sodium Chlorite on Seed Germination/ Seedling Emergence ( Tier I). Unpublished Data. Conducted by Ricerca, Inc. for the Sodium Chlorite Reregistration Task Force.

MRID 41880403. Ward, T. J. and R. L. Boeri. 1991. Static Acute Toxicity of Sodium Chlorite to the Freshwater Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum. Unpublished Data. Conducted by EnviroSystems Division, Resource Analysis, Inc. for the Sodium Chlorite Reregistration Task Force.

MRID 42587501. Popendorf, W.; Selim, M.; Kross, B. 1992. Chemical Manufacturers Association Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Study: Second Replacement to MRID 41761201: Lab Project Number: Q626. Unpublished study prepared by The University of Iowa. MRID 43259401. Yurk, J. J. and M. A. Overman. 1994. Acute Toxicity of Sodium Chlorite to the Sheepshead Minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus). Conducted by Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc. for the Chemical Manufacturers Association.

MRID 43259402. Yurk, J. J. and M. A. Overman. 1994. Acute Toxicity of Sodium Chlorite to Mysid Shrimp. Conducted by Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc. for the Chemical Manufacturers Association.

MRID 43259403. Yurk, J. J. and M. A. Overman. 1994. Effect of Sodium Chlorite on New Shell Growth in Eastern Oyster ( Crassostrea virginica). Conducted by Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc. for the Chemical Manufacturers Association.

MRID 94068005. Johnson, G. 1984. Avian Dietary LC50 Bobwhite Quail ( Colinus virginianus). Unpublished Data. Conducted by Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc. for Degussa Corporation.

MRID 94068006. Sousa and Surprenant, 1984. Acute Toxicity of A 66 ( Technical Sodium Chlorite) to Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus). Unpublished Data. Conducted by Springborn Binomics, Inc for Calgon Corporation.

MRID 94068007. Barrows, B. 1984. The Acute Toxicity of Sodium Chlorite Technical to the Rainbow Trout, Salmo gairdneri, in a Static Test System. Unpublished Data. Conducted by Biospherics Incorporated for Degussa Corporation.

MRID 94068008. Johnson, G. 1984. Avian Dietary LC50 Mallard Duck ( Anas platyrhynchos). Unpublished Data. Conducted by Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc. for Degussa Corporation.

MRID 94068009. Nachrord, S. 1984. Daphnia LC50 Bioassay. Unpublished Data. Conducted by Anater Tesconi Circle for Rio Linda Chemical Company, Inc.

MRID 41715701. Irvine, Lorraine F. Sodium Chlorite: Rabbit Teratology Study ( Drinking Water Administration). Toxicol. Labs, Ltd., Ledbury, UK, Study Number CMA/ 3/ R, September 21, 1990. Page 49 of 49 MRID 42484101. Acute Inhalation Toxicity Evaluation in Rats. International Research and Development Corporation ( IRDC), Mattawan, MI. Lab. Project No. 632 001, August 14, 1992.

MRID 43441903. Primary Eye Irritation Study in Rabbits. Stillmeadow, Inc., Sugar Land, TX, Lab. Project No. 1441 94, October 11, 1994.

MRID 43558601. Abdel Rahman, et al., " Toxicity of Alcide," published in J. Appl. Toxicol. 2( 3): 160 164, 1982.

Orme, J., et al. ( 1985): Effects of chlorine dioxide on thyroid function in neonatal rats. J Toxicol Environ Health 15: 315 322.

Paulet G and S. Desbrousses ( 1970): On the action of ClO2 at low concentrations on laboratory animals. Arch Mal Prof 31: 97 106.

Paulet G and S. Desbrousses ( 1972): On the toxicology of chlorine dioxide. Arch Mal Prof 33: 59 61.

Paulet G and S. Desbrousses ( 1974): Action of a discontinuous exposure to chlorine dioxide ( ClO2) on the rat. Arch Mal Prof 35: 797 804.

PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide. 1998. Estimates of Worker Exposure from the Pesticide Handler Exposure Database Version 1.1. August, 1998.

Robinson, M; Bull, RJ; Schmaer, M; Long, RF. ( 1986) Epidermal hyperplasia in the mouse skin following treatment with alternate drinking water disinfectants. Environ Health Perspect 69: 293 300.

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency  Endangered and Threatened Species Effects Determinations, 1/ 23/ 04.

USEPA. 2000a. Toxicological Review of Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite, Integrated Risk information System ( IRIS).

USEPA. 2000b. Residential SOPs. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs  Human Health Division. Dated April 5, 2000.

USEPA. 1998. AD Memo by Tim McMahon and A. Najm Shamim to Norm Cook, March, 1998.