EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: [insert name and telephone number with area code]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

[Nippon Soda Co., Ltd.]

[0F7812]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([0F7812]) from [Nippon Soda Co., Ltd.], [c/o Nisso America Inc., 45 Broadway, Suite 2120, New York, NY, 10006] 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 by establishing a tolerance for residues of [acetamiprid] in or on the raw agricultural commodity [food/feed handling establishments] at [0.05] 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  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

	1. Plant metabolism. [The metabolism of acetamiprid in plants is well understood, having been investigated in eggplant, apples, cabbage, carrots, and cotton.]

	2. Analytical method. [Based upon the metabolism of acetamiprid in plants and the toxicology of the parent and metabolites, quantification of the parent acetamiprid is sufficient to determine toxic residues.  As a result a method was developed that involves extraction of acetamiprid from composite meals with a solvent followed by a decantation and filtration and finally analysis by a LC/MS/MS method.  The limit of quantification (LOQ) and the limit of detection for the method are calculated to be 0.05 ppm and 0.01 ppm for composite meals, respectively.  The method was reliable for composite meal analyses with an overall average recovery of 93 +- 14%.]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [Magnitude of residue was determined in a test designed to simulate a representative worst-case exposure of various stored covered and uncovered food products to spot or crack & crevice treatment of acetamiprid in a restaurant, warehouse, food processing plant or other food/feed handling establishment.  The trial was conducted as specified in the Residue Chemistry Guideline OPPTS 860.1460 with applications at both 2X and 8X maximum label use rate.  No residue was detected in any composite meal that was analyzed.]

B. Toxicological Profile

   	1. Acute toxicity.  [Acute Toxicity for Technical Acetamiprid- The acute oral LD-50 for acetamiprid was 146 mg/kg for female Sprague-Dawley rats and 217 for male rats.  The acute dermal LD-50 for acetamiprid was greater than 2000 mg/kg in rats.  The acute 4 hour inhalation LC-50 for acetamiprid was greater than 1.15 mg/L, the highest attainable concentration.  Acetamiprid was not irritating to the eyes or skin and was not considered to be a sensitizing agent. The NOEL for acute neurotoxicity was 10mg/kg and no evidence of neuropathy was noted.      Acute Toxicity for Formulated Acetamiprid 70WP-The acute oral LD-50 for Acetamiprid 70WP was 944 mg/kg for female Sprague-Dawley rats and 1107mg/kg for male rats.  The acute dermal LD-50 for formulated acetamiprid was greater than 2000mg/kg in rats. The acute inhalation LC-50 (four hour) for Acetamiprid 70WP was determined to be greater than 2.88 mg/L, the highest attainable concentration.  Acetamiprid 70WP was concluded to be a mild eye irritant and slight skin irritant.  There were no indications of skin sensitization for the formulated product.    Acute Toxicity for Formulated Acetamiprid F4688 50 WSP  -  The acute oral LD-50 for F4688 50 WSP in the rat was 550 mg/kg.  The acute dermal LD-50 for F4688 50 WSP in the rabbit was >2000 mg/kg.  The acute inhalation (4 hour exposure) in the rat resulted in a LC-50 of >0.51 mg/l.  Ocular administration of F4688 50 WSP in the rabbit produced irritation which cleared within 72 hours.  F4688 50 WSP is not considered a dermal irritant nor is it considered a skin sensitizer.    Acute Toxicity for Formulated Acetamiprid F5688 11% ME  -  The acute oral LD-50 for F5688 11% ME in the rat was 1035 mg/kg.  The acute dermal LD-50 for F5688 11% ME in the rat was >5000 mg/kg.  The acute inhalation (4 hour exposure, nose only) in the rat resulted in a LC-50 of >2.2 mg/l.  Ocular administration of F5688 11% ME in the rabbit produced mild irritation.  F5688 is not considered a dermal irritant nor is it considered a skin sensitizer.]

	2. Genotoxicty. [Based on the weight of the evidence provided by a complete test battery, acetamiprid is neither mutagenic nor genotoxic.  The compound was found to be devoid of mutagenic activity (with and without metabolic activation) in Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli (Ames assay).  Acetamiprid was also not mutagenic in an in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation assay on Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells (HPRT locus, with and without metabolic activation).  Acetamiprid did not induce unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) in either rat liver primary cell cultures or in mammalian liver cells in vivo.  In an in vitro chromosomal aberration study using CHO cells, acetamiprid was positive when tested under metabolic activation at cytotoxic dose levels; no effect was detected without metabolic activation.  Acetamiprid was non-clastogenic in an in vivo chromosomal aberration study in rat bone marrow.  It also was negative in an in vivo mouse bone marrow micronucleus assay.]

   	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [In the multi-generation rat reproduction study a NOEL of 100 ppm was established based on decreased body weight gains and a reproduction NOEL of 800 ppm (highest dose tested) was established for reproductive performance and fertility. In the rat teratology study the developmental NOEL was 50 mg/kg/day (maternal NOEL of 16 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight and food consumption) and in the rabbit teratology study the developmental NOEL was 30 mg/kg/day (maternal NOEL of 15 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight and food consumption).  In both the rat and rabbit studies there were no fetotoxic or teratogenic findings.     A developmental neurotoxicity study in rats with acetamiprid was conducted.  The test article was administered orally by gavage to Crl:CD(SD)IGS BR rats once daily from gestation day 6 through lactation day 21 inclusive at dosage levels of 2.5, 10, and 45 mg/kg/day.  One female in the 45 mg/kg/day group died during parturition on gestation day 23, following delivery of one pup.  All other females survived to the scheduled necropsies.  No adverse clinical signs were noted.  F0 maternal toxicity was expressed at a dose level of 45 mg/kg/day by a single mortality and reductions in body weight gain and food consumption.  No maternal toxicity was exhibited at dose levels of 2.5 and 10 mg/kg/day.  F1 developmental toxicity was expressed at a dose level of 45 mg/kg/day by early postnatal mortality and reduced post-weaning body weights.  No developmental toxicity was exhibited at dose levels of 2.5 and 10 mg/kg/day.  Deficits in auditory startle response occurred in the 45 mg/kg/day group F1 males and females without concomitant effects in other functional endpoints (FOB), neuropathology or brain morphometry.  Based on the results of this study, the NOAEL for maternal toxicity, developmental toxicity and developmental neurotoxicity is considered to be 10 mg/kg/day.]

   	4. Subchronic toxicity. [In the 3-month dog feeding study a NOEL of 800 ppm (32 mg/kg/day for both males and females) was established based on growth retardation and decreased food consumption.     In the 3-month rat feeding study a NOEL of 200 ppm (12.4 and 14.6 mg/kg/day respectively for male and female rats) was established based on liver cell hypertrophy at a dose of 800 ppm.    In the 3-month mouse feeding study a NOEL of 400 ppm (53.2 and 64.6 mg/kg/day respectively for male and female mice) was established based on increased liver/body weight ratio and decreased cholesterol in females at 800 ppm.     A 13 week dietary neurotoxicity study for acetamiprid established a NOEL of 200 ppm (14.8 and 16.3 mg/kg for male and female rats) based on reduced body weight and food consumption decreases at 800 ppm.  There was no evidence of neurotoxicity.      A 21 day dermal study in rabbits at dose levels up to 1000 mg/kg/day caused no systemic toxicity, dermal irritation or histomorphological lesions in either sex tested.]

   	5. Chronic toxicity. [In the 1-year dog study, the NOEL was established at 600 ppm (20 and 21 mg/kg/day for male and female dogs, respectively) based on growth retardation and decreased food consumption at a dose of 1500 ppm.     In the 18-month mouse study the NOEL was established at 130 ppm (20.3 and 25.2 mg/kg/day for male and female mice) based on growth retardation and hepatic toxicity at 400 ppm.    In the 2-year rat study the NOEL was 160 ppm (7.1 and 8.8 mg/kg/day for male and female rats) based on growth retardation and hepatic toxicity.  There were no indications of carcinogenicity in either the rat or mouse chronic studies.]

	6. Animal metabolism. [The metabolism of acetamiprid is well understood and the primary animal metabolite is IM-2-1.]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [Testing of IM-2-1 demonstrated that it is significantly less toxic than the parent acetamiprid and it is not being considered as part of the total toxic residue in plants, therefore no tolerance is being requested by the registrant.  The acute oral LD50 of IM-2-1 is 2543 mg/kg for male rats and 1762 mg/kg for female rats.]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [Acetamiprid does not belong to a class of chemicals known or suspected of having adverse effects on the endocrine system.  Developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and a reproductive study in rats gave no indication that acetamiprid has any effects on endocrine function.  The chronic feeding studies also did not show any long-term effects related to endocrine systems.]

	9. Immunotoxicity. [Dietary administration of acetamiprid to CD-1 mice at concentrations up to 900 ppm for four weeks caused a non-specific toxic response at 300 ppm in females and 900 ppm in both sexes but there was no effect on the immune function, as assessed by the measurement of antigen-specific, T-cell dependent antibody formation.  The no-observed-effect level in mice for immunotoxicity by acetamiprid was therefore greater than 900 ppm (i.e., >128 mg/kg/day in males and > 157 mg/kg/day in females).  Dietary administration of acetamiprid to Sprague Dawley rats at concentrations up to 900 ppm for four weeks caused a non-specific toxic response at 300 ppm in males and 900 ppm in both sexes but there was no effect on the immune function, as assessed by the measurement of antigen-specific, T-cell dependent antibody formation.  The no-observed-effect level in rats for immunotoxicity by acetamiprid was therefore greater than 900 ppm (i.e., >62.9 mg/kg/day in males and > 67.7 mg/kg/day in females).]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [Acute and chronic dietary analyses were previously conducted to estimate exposure to potential acetamiprid residues in/on the following crops:  cole crop group, citrus crop group, fruiting vegetable crop group, pome fruit crop group, grapes, leafy vegetables, canola oil, mustard seed, cotton, tuberous and corm vegetable crop group, cucurbit crop group, stone fruit crop group, tree nut crop group (including pistachio) berries, bulb vegetables, succulent legumes (excluding soybeans), clover, and tea.  The assessment also included anticipated residues in meat, milk, poultry, and eggs.  Exposure estimates to drinking water were made based on conservative FIRST and SCI-GROW modeling.  The additional dietary exposure from the use of proposed spot or crack & crevice treatments of acetamiprid in food/feed handling establishments is expected to be negligible and remain within acceptable levels.]

   	i. Food. [Based on the current labeled uses and using field trial data, percent crop-treated values, various empirical processing factors, and including estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC), both acute and chronic dietary risk estimates for all population subgroups do not indicate a risk of concern.  Children 1-2 years old are the highest exposed population subgroup for both acute and chronic exposure scenarios.  Acute exposure constituted 43% of the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic exposure constituted 15% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD was based on the NOEL of 10 mg/kg/day in the developmental neurotoxicity study in rats and an uncertainty factor of 100.  The cPAD was based on the NOEL of 7.1 mg/kg/day in the chronic rat study and an uncertainty factor of 100.  An uncertainty factor of 100 was used because in the Final Rule establishing tolerances for acetamiprid on clover, grapes, and tea (Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Page 67256), EPA concluded that reliable data show the safety of infants and children  would be adequately protected if the FQPA safety factor was reduced to 1X.      Any increase in acute and chronic dietary exposure from the use of spot or crack & crevice treatments of actetamiprid in food/feed handling establishments is expected to be negligible and therefore the aPAD and cPAD would remain within acceptable levels (e.g., <= 100%).]

   	ii. Drinking water. [Estimated drinking water residues were incorporated directly into the EPA's dietary assessment for the current labeled uses as mentioned in the most recent acetamprid pesticide tolerance Final Rule found in the Federal Register/ Vol.75, No. 27/ Wednesday, February 10, 2010.  Acute and chronic estimates of drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) in surface water were generated using the screening mechanistic model FIRST.  Ground water concentration estimates were generated using the screening regression model SCI-GROW.  The EDWC for surface water was 20.1 ppb for acute exposures and 4.9 ppb for chronic exposure while the ground water EDWC was 0.0016 ppb.       The proposed use of spot or crack & crevice applications of acetamiprid indoors in food/feed handling establishments is not expected to increase the EDWC values.]

   	2. Non-dietary exposure. [Acetamiprid is registered for the following residential non-dietary sites:  pre- and post-construction termiticide/insecticide in subterranean or hard-to-reach structure components and building perimeters, indoor and outdoor crack & crevice or spot treatments of gel baits, and a Ready to Use (RTU) and concentrate formulations for homeowner use outdoors on fruit, vegetables and ornamentals.  The residential exposure from the registered termiticide/insecticide use is considered negligible for handler and post-application exposure due to the label restriction limiting handlers to licensed individuals (e.g., Pest Control Operators) and to the application target site being typically inaccessible.  Post-application exposure to the gel bait formulation is considered negligible due to the crack & crevice or spot application method, the low vapor pressure of acetamiprid, and the use of a bittering agent in the formulation to reduce the potential for incidental ingestion.  Lastly, homeowner MOEs from potential handler and post-application exposure to the residential use products are well within the acceptable range (i.e., > 100).  Using EPA's HED SOP for Residential Exposure Assessments (5/5/00), an assessment of post-application dermal exposure and risk from the proposed use of crack & crevice treatments of acetamprid in indoor food/feed handling establishments resulted in MOEs >= 473 for children and MOEs >= 680 for adults.  Similarly, a risk assessment of incidental nondietary ingestion exposure to children from crack & crevice treatment of acetamiprid in indoor areas resulted in MOEs >= 1420.         With the existing uses acetamiprid, the acute aggregate risk is equal to the acute dietary exposure via food and drinking water and is estimated at 43% of the aPAD for the population group potentially receiving the greatest exposure, children 1 to 2 years old.  The incremental exposure from the proposed spot or crack & crevice applications of acetamiprid in food/feed handling establishments is expected to be negligible and therefore does not pose an acute aggregate risk concern.           In the Final Rule establishing new tolerances for acetamiprid published in the February 10, 2010 Federal Register, EPA concluded that the combined short-term and intermediate-term food, water, and residential aggregated exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 270 for toddlers, the population group receiving the greatest combined short-term and intermediate-term risk (from the combine dermal and incidental oral postapplication exposures following indoor crack and crevice treatments).  MOEs greater than 100 are considered acceptable. The incremental exposure from the proposed spot or crack & crevice applications of acetamiprid in food/feed handling establishments is expected to be negligible and therefore does not pose a short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk concern.          Chronic aggregate risk is estimated through the food and drinking water exposure pathways which are the only source of chronic exposure to acetamiprid (e.g., 180+ consecutive days).  Therefore the current chronic aggregate exposure and risk estimates are equivalent to the chronic dietary risk estimate which is 15% of the cPAD for the population group potentially receiving the greatest exposure, children 1 to 2 years old.  The incremental exposure associated with the proposed spot and crack & crevice treatment of acetamiprid in food/feed handling establishments is expected to be negligible and therefore does not pose a chronic risk concern.]

D. Cumulative Effects

	[A determination has not been made that acetamiprid has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.  Acetamiprid does not appear to produce a common toxic metabolite with other substances.  A cumulative risk assessment was therefore not performed for this analysis.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [Based on assessments estimating the aggregate risk from the current uses of acetamiprid and the negligible incremental exposure and risk from the proposed spot or crack & crevice use in food/feed handling establishments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. general population from aggregate exposure to acetamiprid residues.]

	2. Infants and children. [Based on assessments estimating the aggregate risk from the current uses of acetamiprid and the negligible incremental exposure and risk from the proposed spot or crack & crevice use in food/feed handling establishments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to acetamiprid residues.]

F. International Tolerances

	[Acetamiprid is registered for use on food crops in several countries outside the United States.  There are no Codex, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue levels (MRLs) establish on the commodity (i.e., food/feed handling establishments) associated with this petition.]


[Federal Register: October 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 61178-61180]
[DOCID:fr15oc08-149]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58754; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-049]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change Relating to UPC Advisory on Trading Halts in OTC
Equity Securities

October 8, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 7, 2008, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a stated policy,
practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule under Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ which
renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is filing a Uniform Practice Code (UPC) Advisory that
provides

notice that FINRA will halt trading in OTC Equity Securities under
FINRA Rule 6460(a)(3) (formerly NASD Rule 6660(a)(3)) if there is a
market-wide halt in trading in NMS stocks.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On September 25, 2008, the SEC approved proposed rule change
SR-FINRA-2008-021, in which FINRA proposed, among other things, to
adopt the NASD Marketplace Rules (the NASD Rule 4000 through 7000
Series) as the FINRA Rule 6000 through 7000 Series in the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
58643 (September 25, 2008), 73 FR 57174 (October 1, 2008) (Order
Approving SR-FINRA-2008-021; SR-FINRA-2008-022; SR-FINRA-2008-026;
SR-FINRA-2008-028 and SR-FINRA-2008-029). As part of that proposed
rule change, FINRA adopted the provisions of NASD Rule 6660 as new
FINRA Rule 6460 relating to trading and quotation halts in OTC
Equity Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed UPC Advisory is attached as Exhibit 1.
There are no changes to the text of FINRA rules.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    National securities exchanges generally have circuit breaker rules
whereby the trading in all exchange-listed securities is halted based
on a one-day decline of 10%, 20% and 30% of the Dow Jones Industrial
Average (``DJIA''), with the percentage value based on the average
closing value of the DJIA for the month prior to the beginning of the
quarter, or have other general authority to halt trading in response to
similar extraordinary market conditions.\6\ Unlike the exchanges, with
respect to OTC Equity Securities (as that term is defined in the FINRA
Rule 6400 Series (formerly NASD Rule 6600 Series)), FINRA does not have
an express circuit breaker rule but relies on its authority under FINRA
Rule 6460(a)(3) (formerly NASD Rule 6660(a)(3)), which provides that
FINRA may halt quoting and trading in OTC equity securities if FINRA
determines that an extraordinary event has occurred or is ongoing that
has had a material effect on the market for the OTC Equity Security or
has caused or has the potential to cause major disruption to the
marketplace and/or significant uncertainty in the settlement and
clearance process. FINRA considers a market-wide halt in the trading of
exchange-listed securities to be an extraordinary event under Rule
6460(a)(3) and has therefore published a UPC Advisory (attached as
Exhibit 1) to give notice to members and other interested parties that
FINRA will halt quoting and trading in OTC Equity Securities under
these circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., NYSE Rule 80B, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 and
NASDAQ Exchange Rule 4121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and it is operative on the date of filing.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\7\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the circuit breaker rules of other SROs and will
further the goal of investor protection by providing a coordinated
means to address potentially destabilizing market volatility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The proposed rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\9\ in that the proposed rule change is a stated policy,
practice or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration
or enforcement of an existing rule. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2008-049 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2008-049. 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, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-FINRA-

2008-049 and should be submitted on or before November 5, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.

Exhibit 1

Attn: Trading and Market Making/Legal and Compliance/Operations/Systems

Uniform Practice Advisory (UPC  XXX-2008) October 6, 2008
Exchange Circuit Breaker Declaration--FINRA OTC Equity Market Trigger
FINRA Rule 6460 (NASD Rule 6660)
    Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) members are
hereby provided notice that upon FINRA's receipt of actual notification
(via the NMS consolidated data plans or otherwise) that a market-wide
trading halt has been declared for NMS stocks, due to a percentage-
based circuit breaker having been triggered, FINRA will exercise its
authority under FINRA Rule 6460(a)(3) (NASD Rule 6660(a)(3)) to halt
quoting and trading activity in the market for OTC Equity securities
(as defined in the FINRA Rule 6400 Series (NASD Rule 6600 Series)).\11\
Questions regarding this notice should be directed to: FINRA
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ On September 25, 2008, the SEC approved proposed rule
change SR-FINRA-2008-021, in which FINRA proposed, among other
things, to adopt the NASD Marketplace Rules (the NASD Rule 4000
through 7000 Series) as the FINRA Rule 6000 through 7000 Series in
the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 58643 (September 25, 2008), 73 FR 57174 (October 1, 2008) (Order
Approving SR-FINRA-2008-021; SR-FINRA-2008-022; SR-FINRA-2008-026;
SR-FINRA-2008-028 and SR-FINRA-2008-029). As part of that proposed
rule change, FINRA adopted the provisions of NASD Rule 6660 as new
FINRA Rule 6460 relating to trading and quotation halts in OTC
Equity Securities.

[FR Doc. E8-24377 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


"richardastrust.com"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 07/04/2007 10:13 PMTo

Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject

white goods

 History:

This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Dear Margaret:

My intention for HCR188C is to be used in new refrigerators and new home air conditioners units.To retrofit a refrigerator or AC  home unit is not feasible because of cost.

The normal home window unit 12000 BTU is around $200.00 and the normal-sized refrigerator is  approx $500.00. Whenever one fails, it is cheaper to buy a new one and not fix it.

I guess I did not clarify this.

Most of the exposure of HCR188c would be at a factory when they charge the new system.

If there is a failure or warranty, they would just discard it and the store would replace it with a new one. The old one is scrapped. Scrap yards just recycle the unit by removing the refrigerant and sell it as propane for the barbecue grill. It would be easier to blend the refrigerant from new hydrocarbons.

I have used a Robin air EPA-approved reclaimer for HCR188c which has an oil-separator

which separates the compressor oil from HCR188C and recycles HCR188C back into a canister. I found it much more effective using the recycled refrigerant in a BBQ charcoal burner. It can be reused as a refrigerant but my own personal feeling is that it is such a small amount and that part of the blend might get lost in the process so I would rather have a brand new blend in an air conditioner. Although I've used it over and over many times, the barbecue grill was the best.

At Cortland, New York while testing my refrigerant at Intertek in February of this year, I did ask Rob Hill about a reclaimer for Hydrocarbon Refrigerant, All he told me was that there was no company that he knows is doing it since the EPA has not approved it as an Alternative Refrigerant.

I will ask him again in writing and get his response.

If this is part of a satisfactory explanation then I will get the rest of the clarification to you

in a formal letter.

Thank you

Richard


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10943-10945]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04506]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77236; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 7.44P
Retail Liquidity Program

February 25, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 11, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.44P (Retail Liquidity
Program). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.44P, which governs the
Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program (``Program''), to update the
expiration date of the pilot period for the Program and to clarify that
Retail Orders may not be designated with a minimum trade size
(``MTS'').
    The pilot period for the Program, which is currently governed by
Rule 7.44, is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2016.\3\ When the
Exchange filed for the extension of the Program in September 2015, Rule
7.44P, which will govern the Program when the Exchange implements its
Pillar trading platform, was not yet approved.\4\ The Exchange proposes
a non-substantive, technical amendment to Rule 7.44P(m) to update the
date when the pilot period for the Program expires from September 30,
2015, which was the prior pilot expiration date, to March 31, 2016,
which is the current pilot expiration date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.44(m); see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 75994 (Sept. 28, 2015), 80 FR 59834 (Oct.
2, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-84) (Notice of Filing).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76267 (Oct. 26,
2015), 80 FR 66951 (Oct. 30, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-56) (``Pillar
Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7.44P(k) to clarify that
Retail Orders may not be designated with an MTS. Both current Rule
7.44(k) and Rule 7.44P(k), which will be operative once symbols begin
migrating to the Pillar trading platform, provide for Retail Orders
that may be designated with a time-in-force condition of immediate or
cancel (``IOC'').\5\ The Exchange does not currently provide for an
optional MTS for Limit Orders designated IOC. Accordingly, currently,
under Rule 7.44, Retail Orders designated IOC are also not eligible for
an MTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7.44(k)(1), 7.44(k)(2)(A),
7.44P(k)(1) and 7.44P(k)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Pillar, the Exchange will be implementing a substantive
difference under Rule 7.31P (Orders and Modifiers) to allow for an
optional MTS for Limit Orders designated IOC.\6\ However, the Exchange
does not propose a substantive difference to the Program in Pillar to
allow Retail Orders that are designated IOC to be designated with an
MTS. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to clarify Rule 7.44P(k) to
specify that Retail Orders may not be designated with an MTS. This
proposed clarification does not represent a substantive change to the
Program because Retail Orders are not currently permitted to be
designated with an MTS. The Exchange proposes this rule change to
provide greater specificity that the new MTS functionality available
for Limit IOC Orders as described in Rule 7.31P(b)(2)(A) would not be
available for Retail Orders in the Program, which is current
functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Pillar Approval Order, supra note 4 at 66952. See also
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31P(b)(2)(A) (defining ``Limit IOC Order''
as being eligible for an optional MTS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\ in particular, because
it is designed to

prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to
Rule 7.44P(m) to update the expiration date of the pilot period of the
Program would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and national market system by ensuring that Rule
7.44P(m) reflects the current expiration date of the pilot period of
the Program, thus reducing potential investor confusion regarding the
actual expiration date for the Program. In addition, the Exchange
believes that the proposed amendment to Rule 7.44P(k) to specify that
Retail Orders may not be designated with an MTS would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
national market system by providing clarification in Exchange rules
that one of the new functionalities available for Limit IOC Orders in
Pillar would not be available for Retail Orders that are designated
IOC. The Exchange believes that the proposed clarification would
promote transparency in Exchange rules that current functionality of
the Program is not changing and that the new MTS designation that will
be available for Limit IOC Orders in Pillar will not be available for
Retail Orders.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather to make non-
substantive amendments to Rule 7.44P to update the expiration date of
the pilot period for the Program and to clarify that Retail Orders are
not eligible to be designated with an MTS, which is current
functionality.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative immediately on filing. In the filing,
the Exchange states that it anticipated beginning the migration of
symbols to Pillar on February 22, 2016 and, therefore, the Exchange
points out that there would be symbols trading on the Exchange that
will no longer governed by Rule 7.44 in less than 30 days from the date
of filing of this proposed rule change. The Exchange argues that
waiving the operative delay would allow these proposed clarifications
to Rule 7.44P to have been operative before February 22, 2016, which
the Exchange therefore asserts would reduce the potential for any
confusion that may result from having an incorrect expiration date for
the pilot period in the rule text or potential uncertainty of whether
the new MTS functionality would be available for Retail Orders in the
Program. The Commission believes that waiving the operative delay so
that the proposed rule change would be operative as of the date of
filing--February 11, 2016--would help mitigate any confusion as to
which rule text for Rule 7.44P applied at the beginning of the
migration of symbols to Pillar and throughout the migration.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest and hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates
the proposal operative upon filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-30 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-30. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office 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
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-30, and should be submitted on or before
March 23, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04506 Filed 3-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 32040]
[DOCID:fr05jn08-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1762-DR]

Colorado; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Colorado (FEMA-1762-DR), dated May 26, 2008,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 26, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 26, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under the
authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Colorado resulting from severe storms and tornadoes on May 22,
2008, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford
Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the
State of Colorado.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to
75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Public Assistance is
later requested and warranted, Federal funds provided under that
program also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible
costs, except for any particular projects that are eligible for a
higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public
Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kenneth R. Tingman of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Colorado have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

    Larimer and Weld Counties for Individual Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Colorado are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-12526 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P