[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13442]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5579]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64043; File No. S7-24-89]

Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving Amendment No. 25 to the
Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection,
Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction
Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an
Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis Submitted by the BATS Exchange, Inc.,
BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated,
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., International Securities
Exchange LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc., Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC,
NYSE Amex, Inc., and NYSE Arca, Inc.

March 7, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On December 23, 2010 the operating committee (``Operating
Committee'' or ``Committee'') \1\ of the Joint Self-Regulatory
Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation, and
Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-
Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privilege
Basis (``Nasdaq/UTP Plan'' or ``Plan'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') pursuant to Rule 608 \2\ under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \3\ a proposal to amend the
Plan \4\ to permit ministerial amendments to the Plan under the
signature of the Chairman of the Nasdaq/UTP Plan Operating Committee.
The proposed amendment was published for comment in the Federal
Register on January 28, 2011.\5\ No comment letters were received in
response to the Notice. This order approves the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Plan Participants (collectively, ``Participants'') are
the: BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''); BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.(``BATS
Y''); Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'');
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX''); EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGA''); EDGX Exchange, Inc.(``EDGX''); Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''); International Securities
Exchange LLC (``ISE''); NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''); NASDAQ OMX
PHLX, Inc. (``PHLX''); Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'');
National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX''); New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE''); NYSE Amex, Inc. (``NYSEAmex''); and NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSEArca'').
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.608.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \4\ The Plan governs the collection, processing, and
dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation information and
transaction reports in Eligible Securities for each of its
Participants. This consolidated information informs investors of the
current quotation and recent trade prices of Nasdaq securities. It
enables investors to ascertain from one data source the current
prices in all the markets trading Nasdaq securities. The Plan serves
as the required transaction reporting plan for its Participants,
which is a prerequisite for their trading Eligible Securities. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55647 (April 19, 2007) 72 FR
20891 (April 26, 2007).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63756 (January 21,
2011), 76 FR 5224 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Currently, Section XVI of the Nasdaq/UTP Plan requires each
Participant to execute most amendments \6\ to the Plan before the
amendments can be filed with the Commission. The Participants proposed
to amend the Plan to permit the submission of ministerial Plan
amendments to the Commission under the signature of the Chairman of the
Nasdaq/UTP Plan Operating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Some Plan amendments do not require a unanimous vote;
therefore not every Participant would have to execute the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The categories of ministerial Plan amendments that may be submitted
under the signature of the Chairman include amendments to the Plan that
pertain solely to any one or more of the following:
    (1) Admitting a new Participant into the Plan;
    (2) Changing the name or address of a Participant;
    (3) Incorporating a change that the Commission has implemented by
rule and that requires no conforming language to the text of the Plan
(e.g., the Commission rule establishing the Advisory Committee);
    (4) Incorporating a change (i) that the Commission has implemented
by rule, (ii) that requires conforming language to the text of the Plan
(e.g., the Commission rule amending the revenue allocation formula),
and (iii) that a majority of all Participants has voted to approve; \7\
and,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Participants would vote only to approve the conforming
language to the Plan, as the Commission's action in approving its
rule would bind the Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Incorporating a purely technical change, such as correcting an
error or an inaccurate reference to a statutory provision, or removing
language that has become obsolete (e.g., language regarding ITS).

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed
amendment to the Plan is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder,\8\ and, in particular,
Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act \9\ and Rule 608 thereunder \10\ in that
they are necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a
national market system. Permitting the Chairman of the Nasdaq/UTP Plan
Operating Committee to submit ministerial amendments will increase the
efficiency of the administration of the Plan and increase the
timeliness of updating the Plan for accuracy. The proposed amendment
streamlining the process for admitting new Participants removes
impediments to competition by facilitating the timely admission of a
new Participant to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Commission has considered the proposed amendments'
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act,\11\
and Rule 608 thereunder,\12\ that the proposed amendment to Nasdaq/UTP
Plan (File No. S7-24-89) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.608.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5579 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 47)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11468-11471]
[DOCID:fr11mr10-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief,
Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-2820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administrator has resolved any appeals resulting from this
notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at

selected locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * Elevation in
                                                                      feet (NGVD)  +
                                                                    Elevation in feet
                                                                    (NAVD)
           Flooding source(s)              Location of referenced     Depth in feet       Communities affected
                                                 elevation             above ground
                                                                    [caret] Elevation
                                                                     in  meters (MSL)
                                                                         Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Mobile County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-7732
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branch B...............................  Approximately 2,900 feet                 +87  City of Mobile, City of
                                          downstream of Golfway                         Prichard.
                                          Street.
                                         Approximately 3,300 feet                +172
                                          downstream of Golfway
                                          Street.
Branch C...............................  Approximately 50 feet                    +42  City of Prichard.
                                          downstream of U.S. Route
                                          45.
                                         Approximately 1,200 feet                 +91
                                          upstream of West Meyers
                                          Road.
Branch D...............................  Approximately 100 feet                   +56  City of Prichard.
                                          downstream of West
                                          Meyers Road.
                                         Approximately 500 feet                  +117
                                          upstream of Cochran Road.
Branch D Tributary.....................  At the confluence with                   +88  City of Prichard.
                                          Branch D.
                                         Approximately 1,100 feet                +127
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with Branch D.
Branch E...............................  Approximately 2,100 feet                 +18  City of Prichard.
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with
                                          Eightmile Creek.
                                         Approximately 1,800 feet                 +35
                                          upstream of Aldock Road.
Branch F...............................  Approximately 1,100 feet                 +15  City of Prichard.
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with
                                          Eightmile Creek.
                                         Approximately 3,800 feet                 +32
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with
                                          Eightmile Creek.
Branch G...............................  Approximately 800 feet                   +28  City of Prichard.
                                          downstream of West Main
                                          Street.
                                         Approximately 250 feet                   +44
                                          upstream of Wolf Ridge
                                          Road.
Gum Tree Branch........................  Approximately 100 feet                   +25  City of Prichard.
                                          upstream of Turner Road.
                                         Approximately 600 feet                   +29
                                          upstream of Caledonia
                                          Street.
Miller Creek...........................  Approximately 2,600 feet                +153  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of Snow Road.                        Mobile County.
                                         Approximately 12,420 feet               +183
                                          upstream of Snow Road.
Unnamed Branch.........................  Approximately 100 feet                   +88  City of Prichard.
                                          downstream of Bear Fork
                                          Road.
                                         Approximately 1,100 feet                +149
                                          upstream of Forrest Park
                                          Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Mobile
Maps are available for inspection at 205 Government Street, 3rd Floor, Mobile, AL 36602.

City of Prichard
Maps are available for inspection at 216 East Prichard Avenue, Mobile, AL 36610.

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Mobile County
Maps are available for inspection at 1110 Schillinger Road, Suite 100, Mobile, AL 36608.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Madison County, Mississippi, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Creek.............................  9,400 feet upstream of                  +266  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Weiss Road.                                   Madison County.

                                         1,600 feet downstream of                +287
                                          Reunion Parkway.
Beaver Creek...........................  400 feet upstream of U.S.               +316  City of Ridgeland.
                                          Route 51.
                                         400 feet upstream of                    +323
                                          Planters Grove.
Brashear Creek.........................  1,800 feet downstream of                +328  City of Madison,
                                          Grandview Boulevard.                          Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Madison County.
                                         100 feet upstream of                    +350
                                          Highland Colony Parkway.
Panther Creek..........................  1,800 feet upstream of                  +214  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Stokes Road.                                  Madison County. City of
                                                                                Ridgeland.
                                         5,000 feet downstream of                +240
                                          Catlett Road.
Purple Creek...........................  2,000 feet downstream of                +314  .........................
                                          U.S. Route 51.
                                         1,500 feet downstream of                +332
                                          I-55.
Reunion Lake 1................  Entire shoreline.........               +327  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Madison County.
Reunion Lake 2................  Entire shoreline.........               +327  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Madison County.
School Creek...........................  500 feet upstream of Old                +298  City of Ridgeland.
                                          Canton Road.
                                         1,100 feet downstream of                +309
                                          Lake Harbour Drive.
School Creek Tributary 1...............  600 feet downstream of                  +312  City of Ridgeland.
                                          Lake Harbour Drive.
                                         700 feet upstream of                    +328
                                          Wendover Way.
School Creek Tributary 2...............  750 feet downstream of                  +325  City of Ridgeland.
                                          Camellia Lane.
                                         350 feet downstream of                  +328
                                          Camellia Lane.
Stream 0...............................  200 feet upstream of I-55               +270  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Madison County.
                                         200 feet downstream of                  +272
                                          Gluck stadt Road.
Stream Q...............................  1,800 feet upstream of I-               +274  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          55.                                           Madison County.
                                         800 feet upstream of                    +295
                                          Gluckstadt Road.
Stream R...............................  4,500 feet downstream of                +299  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Dewees Road.                                  Madison County.
                                         1,100 feet downstream of                +304
                                          Dewees Road.
White Oak Creek Tributary 1............  250 feet upstream of                    +360  City of Ridgeland.
                                          Oakhurst Trail.
                                         600 feet downstream of                  +375
                                          Bridgewater Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Madison
Maps are available for inspection at 525 Post Oak Road, Madison, MS 39110.

City of Ridgeland
Maps are available for inspection at 304 U.S. Route 51, Ridgeland, MS 39157.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Madison County
Maps are available for inspection at 146 West Center Street, Canton, MS 39046.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: March 3, 2010.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-5233 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER
EPA Registration Division contact: Erin Malone,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Syngenta Crop Protection LLC. PP#2F8135

EPA has received a pesticide petition PP#2F8135 from Syngenta Crop Protection LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.434.
   1. by establishing tolerance for residue of Propiconazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl] methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole and its metabolites determined as 2,4,-dichlorobenzoic acid and expressed as parent compound in or on the raw agricultural commodity Rapeseed subgroup 20A at 0.3 parts per million (ppm).
EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
A. Residue Chemistry.  Syngenta conducted complete magnitude of residue trials on canola in Canada to support the requested use of propiconaozle. These residue trials satisfy the requested tolerance on rapeseed.
      1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of propiconazole as well as the nature of the residues is adequately understood for purposes of the tolerances.  Plant metabolism has been evaluated in five diverse crops, wheat, grapes, celery, peanuts and carrots which should serve to define the similar metabolism of propiconazole in a wide range of crops.  The plant metabolism pathway for propiconazole is well understood.  Parent metabolite CGA-64250 is the major compound found in crops.  Comparison of the metabolism of propiconazole in different plant species shows that the differences between the respective metabolic pathways to be quantitative in nature.
	2. Analytical method. The metabolism data in plants and animals suggest that analytical methods to detect either the phenyl or the triazole ring would be appropriate for the measurement of residues.  However, because of the natural occurrence of compounds that interfere with the measurement of triazoles, methods designed to detect this moiety have been proven unreliable and unacceptable.  Conversely, conversion of phenyl moiety to 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid (DCBA) has proven to be satisfactory for all agricultural products analyzed to date.  Analytical methods AG-626 and AG-454A were developed for the determination of residues of propiconazole and its metabolites containing the DCBA moiety.   Analytical method AG-626 has been accepted and published by EPA as the tolerance enforcement method for crops.  The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for the method is 0.05 ppm].
	3. Magnitude of residues. . [IR-4 conducted magnitude of residue trials on several crops under OPPTS 860.1500 to support the requested use of propiconaozle in/on rapeseed subgroup 20A. The maximum residue of propiconaozle on canola was 0.22 ppm. These residue trials satisfy the proposed tolerances for these crops. ]
B. Toxicological Profile
      1. Acute toxicity. Propiconazole exhibits low toxicity.  Data indicated the following:  a rat acute oral LD50 of 1,517 milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg); a rabbit acute dermal LD50 >6,000 mg/kg; a rat inhalation LC50 >5.8 mg/liter air; minimal skin and slight eye irritation; and nonsensitization.
      2. Genotoxicty. Propiconazole exhibits low toxicity.  Data indicated the following:  a rat acute oral LD50 of 1,517 milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg); a rabbit acute dermal LD50 >6,000 mg/kg; a rat inhalation LC50 >5.8 mg/liter air; minimal skin and slight eye irritation; and nonsensitization.

      3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In an oral teratology study in the rabbit, a maternal no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 30 mg/kg was based on reduced food intake but without any fetotoxicity even at the top dose of 180 mg/kg.  In an oral teratology study in the rabbit, a maternal NOAEL of 100 mg/kg was based on reductions in body weight gain and food consumption and a fetal NOAEL of 250 mg/kg was based on increased skeletal variations at 400 mg/kg.  In an oral teratology study in the rat, a maternal and fetal NOAEL of 100 mg/kg was based on decreased survival, body weight gain, and food consumption in the dams and delayed ossification in the fetuses at 300 mg/kg.  In a second teratology study in the rat, a maternal and fetal NOAEL of 30 mg/kg was based on reductions in body weight gain and food consumption in the dams and delayed development in the fetuses at 90 and 360/300 mg/kg.  A supplemental teratology study in the rat involving eight times as many animals per group as usually required showed no teratogenic potential for the compound.  A 2-generation reproduction study in the rat showed excessive toxicity at 5,000 ppm without any teratogenic effects.  A 2-generation reproduction study in the rat showed no effects on reproductive or fetal parameters at any dose level.  Postnatal growth and survival were affected at the top dose of 2,500 ppm, and parental toxicity was also evident.  The NOAEL for development toxicity is 500 ppm.
      4. Subchronic toxicity. In a 21-day dermal study in the rabbit, a NOAEL of 200 mg/kg was based on clinical signs of systemic toxicity.  In a 28-day oral toxicity study in the rat, a NOAEL of 50 mg/kg was based on increased liver weight. In a subchronic feeding study in the mouse, a NOAEL of 20 ppm (3 mg/kg) was based on liver pathologic changes. In a 13 week feeding study in the male mouse, a NOAEL of 20 ppm (3 mg/kg) was based on liver pathologic changes.  In a 90 day feeding study in rats, the NOAEL was 240 ppm (24 mg/kg) based on a reduction in body weight gain. In a 90 day feeding study in dogs, the NOAEL was 250 ppm (6.25 mg/kg) based on reduced food intake and stomach histologic changes.]
      5. Chronic toxicity. In a 12-month feeding study in the dog, a NOAEL of 50 ppm (1.25 mg/kg) was based on stomach histologic changes.  In a 24 month oncogenicity feeding study in the mouse, the NOAEL was 100 ppm (15 mg/kg).  The MTD was exceeded at 2,500 ppm in males based on decreased survival and body weight. Increased incidence of liver tumor was seen in these males but no evidence of carcinogenicity was seen at the next lower dose of 500 ppm in either sex.  In a 24 month chronic feeding/oncogenicity study in the rat, a NOAEL of 100 ppm (5 mg/kg) was based on body weight and blood chemistry.  The MTD was 2,500 ppm based on reduction in body weight gain and no evidence of oncogenicity was seen.  Based on the available chronic toxicity data, Syngenta believes the Reference dose (RfD) for propiconazole is 0.0125 mg/kg/day.  This RfD is based on a 1 year feeding study in dogs with a NOAEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day (50 ppm) and an uncertainly factor of 100.  No additional modifying factor for the nature of effects was judged to be necessary as stomach mucous hyperemia was the most sensitive indicator of toxicity in that study.
 Using the Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment published on September 24, 1986 (51 FR 33992), the USEPA has classified propiconazole in group C for carcinogenicity (evidence of possible carcinogenicity for humans).  The compound was tested in 24 month studies with both rats and mice.  The only evidence of carcinogenicity was an increase in liver tumor incidence in male mice at a dose level that exceeded the maximum tolerated dose (MTD).  Dosage levels in the rat study were appropriate for identifying a cancer risk.  The Cancer Peer Review Committee recommended the RfD approach for quantitation of human risk.  Therefore, the RfD is deemed protective of all chronic human health effects, including cancer.]
 	6. Animal metabolism. Metabolism in animals is similar to plant metabolism. In animals both the rat and the goat rapidly metabolize and excrete propiconazole.  Neither animal retains significant amounts of propiconazole or its metabolites in tissues.  Significant quantities of parent or metabolites do not appear in goat's milk.  Similar metabolites are produced by both species, and unconjugated (phase I) metabolites are similar in plants and animals.
 The metabolism profile supports the use of an analytical enforcement method that accounts for combined residues of propiconazole and its metabolites that contain the 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid (DCBA) moiety.
       7. Metabolite toxicology. There are no metabolites of concerned based on a differential metabolism between plants and animals.
       8. Endocrine disruption. Developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and reproduction studies in rats gave no indication that propiconazole might have any effects on endocrine function related to development and reproduction.  The subchronic and chronic studies also showed no evidence of a long - term effect related to the endocrine system.  Further, due to the moderate rate of degradation of the product, there is no risk that propiconazole may accumulate in the environment.  In animals, propiconazole is quickly excreted and has no tendency for accumulation in the body.  Based on these results, it is very likely that propiconazole has no potential to interfere specifically with the endocrine system.
C. Aggregate Exposure
1. Dietary exposure. Tier I acute, short-term, and chronic aggregate exposure assessments were performed for propiconazole using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID[TM], version 2.16) from Exponent.  Propiconazole is currently registered for use on alfalfa (indirect), avocado (Section 18), bananas, barley, berries (Crop Groups 13-07A, 13-07B, and 13-07G), carrots, cilantro, corn (field, sweet, and popcorn), cranberries (regional), garden beets, grasses, leaf petioles (Crop Subgroup 4B), mushrooms, nectarines and peaches (Section 18, expires 31-Dec-2013), oats, onions (bulb and green), parsley, peanuts, peppermint, pineapples (seed piece treatment), pistachios, rice, rye, sorghum, soybeans, spearmint, stone fruits (Crop Group 12), strawberries, sugar beets, tree nuts (Crop Group 14), wheat, wild rice (regional), and turf and ornamental uses, a revised use on mint (7-day PHI), revised use patterns for Propi-Shield(TM) brand paint and stain additive products, IR-4 foliar uses on succulent and dried legumes (Crop Group 6), post-harvest uses on citrus fruit (Crop Group 10-10), stone fruit (Crop Group 12), and tomatoes (Crop subgroup 8 - 10A).  Pending uses include a foliar use on sugarcane and foliar use on small cereal grains including barley, oats, rye, and wheat.  Existing (40CFR180.434) or estimated tolerances were used for all commodities.  DEEM(TM) (version 7.87) default processing factors were used for all processed commodities except citrus oil (185X), orange juice (0.011X), pineapple juice (0.11X), pineapple process residue (1.49X), sugarcane sugar (0.02X), and sugarcane molasses (0.49X).  No adjustments were made for "percent crop treated," i.e., 100%CT was assumed.  For livestock commodities, established tolerances were used where available for beef and dairy, however for livestock commodities that do not already have established tolerances (i.e., pork meat, fat, and all poultry commodities), anticipated residues were calculated by constructing theoretical "maximum reasonably balanced diet" (MRBD) livestock diets.  Drinking water estimates were selected using the higher of the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for surface and ground water.  All consumption data for these assessments were taken from the USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intake by individuals (CSFII) with the 1994-1996 consumption database and the Supplemental CSFII children's survey (1998) consumption database.

i. Food

Acute Food Risk:  The acute dietary (food only) risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups with an acute reference dose (aRfD) of 0.3 mg/kg-bw/day based on an acute no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 30 mg/kg-bw/day from an acute neurotoxicity study in rats and an uncertainly factor of 100X.  The 100X safety factor included intra- and inter-species variations.  No additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessment, the exposure value was expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each sub-population.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the acute reference dose (%aRfD).  At the 95th percentile, acute exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 667 or 15.0% of the aRfD (Benchmark = 100; aRfD = 0.3 mg/kg-bw/day).  Acute exposure to the most sensitive subpopulation (children 1-2 years old) resulted in a MOE of 277 or 36.0% of the aRfD (Benchmark = 100; aRfD = 0.3 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment is 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the benchmark or below 100% of the reference dose, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute dietary (food) exposure to residues arising from all current, pending, and proposed uses for propiconazole.

Chronic Food Risk:  The chronic dietary (food only) risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups with a chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day based on a 24-month oncogenicity study in mice with a NOAEL of 10 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainly factor of 100X.  The 100X safety factor included intra- and interspecies variations.  No additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessment, the exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each sub-population.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the chronic reference dose (%cRfD).  Chronic exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 720 or 13.9% of the cRfD (Benchmark = 100; cRfD = 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).  Chronic exposure to the most exposed sub-population (children 1-2 years old) resulted in a MOE of 273 or 36.6% of the cRfD (Benchmark = 100; cRfD = 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment is 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the benchmark or below 100% of the reference dose, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic dietary (food) exposure to residues arising from all current, pending, and proposed uses for propiconazole.

Cancer Risk:  A quantitative risk assessment using a cancer endpoint was not performed.  The chronic risk assessment is adequately protective for cancer risk as well as other chronic effects.

      ii. Drinking Water. The Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) of propiconazole were determined using Tier l SCI-GROW (version 2.3) which estimates pesticide concentration in ground water and Tier II PRZM/EXAMS (PE version 5.0) which estimates pesticide concentration in surface water.  This drinking water assessment was conducted to assess all currently registered uses, the pending change to the use pattern for mint, and the proposed use on legume vegetables (succulent and dried) as well as proposed post-harvest uses on citrus, stone fruit, and tomatoes.  The post-harvest uses have no impact on drinking water because post-harvest treatment is an indoor use posing negligible impact to drinking water concentrations.  For groundwater, the currently registered use on turf provided the highest EDWC of 0.725 ppb (acute and chronic).  For surface water, the currently registered use on turf provided an acute EDWC of 101.826 ppb and a chronic EDWC of 52.438 ppb.  No Percent Cropped Area (PCA) adjustments were made for surface water EDWCs.  Since the surface water EDWCs exceed the ground water EDWC, the surface water values were used for risk assessment purposes and will be considered protective for any ground water exposure concerns.

Acute Exposure from Drinking Water.  The acute surface water EDWC of 101.826 ppb was input directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources" to model the acute drinking water exposures.  Exposure contributions at the 95%-ile of exposures were determined by taking the difference between the aggregate (food + drinking water) exposures and the food (alone) exposures for each sub-population.  Acute drinking water exposure U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 3,467 (0.9% of the aRfD of 0.30 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed sub-population was children 1-2 years old, with a MOE of 2,227 (1.3% of the aRfD of 0.30 mg/kg/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the benchmark or below 100% of the aRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute drinking water exposure to residues arising from all current, pending, and proposed uses for propiconazole.

Chronic Exposure from Drinking Water.  The chronic surface water EDWC of 52.438 ppb was input directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources" to model the chronic drinking water exposures.  Chronic drinking water exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 9,048 (1.1% of the cRfD of 0.10 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed sub-population was infants <1 year old, with a MOE of 2,760 (3.6% of the cRfD of 0.10 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the benchmark or below 100% of the cRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic drinking water exposure to residues arising from the current, pending, and proposed uses for propiconazole.

      2. Non-dietary exposure. Short-term exposure assessments were conducted to assess exposures resulting from non-dietary uses of propiconazole arising from registered turf and ornamental uses and from Propi-Shield(TM) brand paint and stain additive products containing propiconazole.  Adult turf and ornamental handler scenarios assessed included low-pressure hand wand sprayer, garden hose-end sprayer, granular push spreader, hand held belly grinder spreader, and spreading granular formulation by hand.  Adult and youth post-application exposure scenarios included high contact activities (lawns) and golf.  For children, re-entry to treated turfgrass areas resulted in dermal and non-dietary oral exposures via hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and ingestion of treated soil.  A dermal absorption value of 40% was used to calculate exposure for turf and ornamental uses.  For Propi-Shield(TM) brand paint additive products, adult applicator scenarios assessed included paintbrush and roller applications of in-can treated paint and stain, airless sprayer application of in-can treated paint and stain, and low-pressure hand wand sprayer application of wood preservative stains.  Dermal absorption values of 1.0% and 26.6% for consumers applying paint or stain, respectively, were taken from a recent EPA assessment (DP# D364956, Nov. 2009).  For all turf and ornamental scenarios assessed, the worst-case combined short-term MOE was 181 (Benchmark = 100) for children 1-6 years old for combined dermal and non-dietary oral exposures resulting from post-application exposures to propiconazole treated turfgrass.  Post-application exposure to ornamental plants is negligible; and was, therefore, not assessed.  For all paint and stain scenarios assessed, the worst-case combined short-term MOE was 160 (Benchmark = 100) for all adults 20+ years old applying in-can treated stain with an airless sprayer.  Exposure risks were also assessed for children's accidental ingestion of lawn granules (MOE = 331) and paint chips (MOE = 4,500) containing propiconazole and were found to be acceptable (Benchmark MOE = 100); the ingestion of lawn granules and paint chips by children is considered to be episodic in nature and is not aggregated with dietary or other residential exposures.  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the benchmark, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from short-term non-dietary exposures arising from all current, pending, and proposed uses for propiconazole.

D. Cumulative Effects
Cumulative Exposure to Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity.  Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) 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".  Propiconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of pesticides.  Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a relationship between this pesticidal activity and their mechanism of toxicity in mammals.  Structural similarities do not constitute a common mechanism of toxicity.  There is currently no evidence to indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity and the EPA is not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for the conazoles.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Using the conservative assumptions described above, and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the acute aggregate (food plus water) exposure calculation for all current, pending, and proposed uses of propiconazole provided a MOE of 621 for the U.S. population.  For short-term exposures, chronic dietary (food and water) exposures were aggregated with residential exposures, resulting in a worst-case short-term aggregate MOE of 148 for the U.S. population.  The chronic aggregate exposure analysis (food and water) showed that exposures from all current, pending, and proposed propiconazole uses resulted in a MOE of 649 for the U.S. population.  Since the worst case aggregate MOE of 148 (short-term risk) exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to the U.S. population from aggregate exposures arising from all current, pending, and proposed uses for propiconazole.

	2. Infants and children.  Using the conservative assumptions described above, and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the acute aggregate (food plus water) exposure calculation for all current, pending, and proposed uses of propiconazole provided a MOE of 267 for children 1-2 years old.  For short-term exposures, chronic dietary (food and water) exposures were aggregated with residential exposures resulting in a short-term aggregate MOE of 150 for children 1-6 years old.  The chronic aggregate exposure analysis (food and water) showed that exposures from all current, pending, and proposed propiconazole uses resulted in a MOE of 262 for children 1-2 years old.  Since the worst case aggregate MOE of 150 (short-term risk) exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to infants and children from aggregate exposures arising from all current, pending, and proposed uses for propiconazole.

F. International Tolerances
	The Codex Alimentarius Commission has established several maximum residue limits (MRLs) for propiconazole in or on various raw agricultural commodities.  The Codex MRLs are expressed in terms of propiconazole per se.  In addition, both Canada and Mexico have established MRLs/tolerances on several commodities which also have U.S. tolerances.  The U.S. tolerance expression includes all metabolites determined as 2,4-dichloro-benzoic acid.  In conjunction with the reregistration process EPA intends to revise the tolerance expression to propiconazole per se.  To the extent possible, for the present petitions, U.S. tolerances have been numerically harmonized with Codex, Canadian and Mexican MRLs; however, differences in use patterns and the supporting residue data have precluded reducing many tolerances.  A summary of Codex MRLs, Canadian MRLs and Mexican tolerances and the corresponding U.S. tolerances for propiconazole is discusses at www.regulations.gov Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0347-0004; pages 53-54


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15106-15107]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06219]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0272; FRL-9944-00-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; State and Federal Emission Guidelines for
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``State and Federal Emission
Guidelines for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (40 CFR
part 60, subpart Ce and 40 CFR part 62, subpart HHH) (Renewal)'' (EPA
ICR No. 1899.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0422) to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31,
2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal
Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015 during a 60-day comment period.
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A
fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated
burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and
a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 20,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2011-0272, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required
to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements for the
general provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart A and 40 CFR part 62,
subpart A as well as the specific requirements at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Ce and 40 CFR part 62, subpart HHH. This includes submitting
initial notifications, performance tests and periodic reports and
results, and maintaining records of the occurrence

and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation
of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring
system is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine
compliance with the standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Hospital, medical, infectious waste
incinerators.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Ce and Part 62, Subpart HHH).
    Estimated number of respondents: 58 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually and
annually.
    Total estimated burden: 38,800 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $4,370,000 (per year), includes $479,000
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an overall decrease in the
respondent and Agency burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory
of Approved Burdens due to a decrease in the respondent universe since
the previous ICR. Based on the 2013 Agency analysis, 21 HMIWI units (16
privately owned, 1 federally owned, and 4 state owned) have been shut
down over the past several years. The revised estimate results in a
decreased in respondent labor hours, number of responses, and capital/
O&M costs.
    However, there is a slight adjustment increase in respondent hours
for States due to a change in assumption. In this ICR, we assume all
respondents will take some time to re-familiarize themselves with the
regulatory requirements.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-06219 Filed 3-18-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58125-58126]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23033]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-506-000]

Trunkline Gas Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on August 30, 2012, Trunkline Gas Company, L.L.C.
(Trunkline), P.O. Box 4967, Houston, Texas, 77210, filed in Docket No.
CP12-506-000, a Prior Notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and
157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act for
authorization to abandon Trunkline's existing compressor unit located
in Jackson County, Texas. Specifically, Trunkline propose to abandon,
in place, the existing 1,675 horsepower compressor unit and related
auxiliary equipment at the Edna Compressor Station. Due to the
construction of the Eagle Plant Interconnect and its delivery pressure,
Trunkline has determined that the compression at the Edna Compressor
Station will no longer be needed. Trunkline has not operated the Edna
Compressor Station during the last twelve months and no service to
existing customers will be impacted, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to
Stephen T. Veatch, Senior Director of Certificates and Tariffs,
Trunkline Gas Company, L.L.C., 5051 Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas
77056, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Dated: September 11, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23033 Filed 9-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P