[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38199-38204]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15539]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0397; FRL-9350-9]

Propiconazole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
propiconazole in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. This regulation additionally removes
an established tolerance on stone fruit crop group 12, as it will be
superseded by the new tolerance for stone fruit crop group 12, except
plum. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective June 27, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 27, 2012,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0397, is available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the OPP Docket in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), located in EPA West, Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Ertman, Registration Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 308-9367; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0397 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
August 27, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0397, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket,

along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

 II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerances

    In the Federal Register of July 20, 2011 (76 FR 43231) (FRL-8880-
1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1E7855)
by IR-4,500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.434 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the fungicide 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 (DCBA) and
expressed as parent compound, in or on bean, snap at 0.8 ppm; bean,
succulent shelled at 0.15 ppm; bean, dry seed at 0.3 ppm; legume,
foliage at 25 ppm; tomato at 2.5 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 8.0
ppm; fruit, stone, group 12, except plum at 7.0 ppm; and plum at 1.0
ppm. The petition also requested that the existing tolerance for stone
fruit group 12 at 1.0 ppm be removed upon establishment of the
requested tolerances. That notice referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Syngenta, the registrant, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the levels at which tolerances are being set for various
commodities as well as some commodity definitions. The reason for these
changes is explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Propiconazole has low to moderate toxicity in experimental animals
by the oral, dermal and inhalation routes. It is moderately irritating
to the eyes, and minimally irritating to the skin. It is a dermal
sensitizer. Propiconazole is readily absorbed by the rat skin with 40%
absorption within 10 hours of dermal application.
    The primary target organ for propiconazole toxicity in animals is
the liver. Increased liver weights were seen in mice after subchronic
or chronic oral exposures to propiconazole at doses greater than 50
milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day). Liver lesions such as vacuolation
of hepatocytes, ballooned liver cells, foci of enlarged hepatocytes,
hypertrophy and necrosis are characteristic of propiconazole toxicity
in rats and mice. Mice appear to be more susceptible to its toxicity
than rats. Decreased body weight gain in experimental animals was seen
in subchronic, chronic, developmental and reproductive studies. Dogs
appeared to be more sensitive to the localized toxicity of
propiconazole as manifested by stomach irritation at 6 mg/kg/day and
above.
    In rabbits, developmental toxicity occurred at a higher dose than
the maternally toxic dose, while in rats, developmental toxicity
occurred at lower doses than the maternally toxic doses. Increased
incidences of rudimentary ribs occurred in rat and rabbit fetuses.
Increased cleft palate malformations were noted in two studies in rats.
In one published study in rats, developmental effects (incomplete
ossification of the skull, caudal vertebrae and digits, extra 14th rib
and missing sternebrae, malformations of the lung and kidneys) were
reported at doses that were not maternally toxic.
    In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, offspring toxicity
occurred at a higher dose than the parentally toxic dose, suggesting
lower susceptibility of the offspring to the toxic doses of
propiconazole in this study.
    Propiconazole was negative for mutagenicity in the in vitro BALB/C
3T3 cell transformation assay, bacterial reverse mutation assay,
Chinese hamster bone marrow chromosomal aberration assay, unscheduled
DNA synthesis studies in human fibroblasts and primary rat hepatocytes,
mitotic gene conversion assay and the dominant lethal assay in mice.
Hepatocellular proliferation studies in mice suggest that propiconazole
induces cell proliferation followed by treatment-related hypertrophy in
a manner similar to the known hypertrophic agent phenobarbital.
    Propiconazole was carcinogenic to male mice. Propiconazole was not
carcinogenic to rats or to female mice. The Agency classified
propiconazole as a possible human carcinogen and recommended that, for
the purpose of risk characterization, the reference dose (RfD) approach
be used for quantification of human risk. Propiconazole is not
genotoxic and this fact, together with special mechanistic studies,
indicates that propiconazole is a threshold carcinogen. Propiconazole
produced liver tumors in male mice only at a high dose that was toxic
to the liver. At doses below the RfD, liver toxicity is not expected;
therefore, tumors are also not expected.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by propiconazole as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0397 on pages
43-49 of the document titled ``Propiconazole Human Health Risk
Assessment for a Section 3 Registration on Snap beans, Succulent
shelled beans, Dry Beans, and Post-harvest use on Tomato, Citrus Fruit,
and Stone fruit.''

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies

toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in
evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For
hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk,
the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference
values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful
analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose
at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL).
Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to
calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a population-
adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe margin of
exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the
adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for propiconazole used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit B of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of Wednesday, May 11, 2011 (76 FR
27261) (FRL-8873-2).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to propiconazole, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing propiconazole
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.434. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
propiconazole in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for propiconazole. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue
levels in food, EPA used tolerance levels and 100 percent crop treated
(PCT) for all existing and proposed uses.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance levels
and 100 PCT for all existing and proposed uses.
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
Cancer risk is quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If
sufficient information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available,
a threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer RfD is
calculated based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic
mode of action data are not available, or if the mode of action data
determines a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope
factor approach is utilized. Based on the data summarized in Unit
III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate
for assessing cancer risk to propiconazole. Cancer risk was assessed
using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.,
chronic exposure.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for propiconazole. Tolerance level residues and/or
100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for propiconazole in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of propiconazole. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
propiconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 55.78 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.64 ppb for ground water, for
chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 21.61
ppb for surface water and 0.64 ppb for ground water and for chronic
exposures for cancer assessments are estimated to be 13.24 ppb for
surface water and 0.64 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 55.8 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 21.6 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Propiconazole is
currently registered for the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: turf, ornamentals, and in paint. EPA assessed
residential exposure using the following assumptions: Short-term risk
to toddlers was assessed for incidental oral and dermal exposure. The
highest incidental oral and dermal exposure scenarios are expected from
residential use on turf. Short-term risk to adults was assessed for
dermal and inhalation residential handler exposure as well as from
post-application dermal exposure. Adult handlers have some inhalation
exposure; however, based on the low vapor pressure of propiconazole,
negligible post application inhalation exposure is anticipated to
occur. The highest post application exposure from residential use on
turf was used to assess risk to short-term aggregate exposures.
    The only residential use scenario that will result in potential
intermediate-term exposure to propiconazole is dermal and incidental
oral post application exposure to children from wood treatment
(antimicrobial use).
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Propiconazole is a member of the conazole class of pesticides.
Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by inhibiting
ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a relationship
between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of toxicity in
mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common mechanism
of

toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the chemicals operate by
the same, or essentially the same, sequence of major biochemical events
(EPA, 2002). In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of toxicological
responses is found. Some are hepatotoxic and hepatocarcinogenic in
mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some induce developmental,
reproductive, and neurological effects in rodents. Furthermore, the
conazoles produce a diverse range of biochemical events including
altered cholesterol levels, stress responses, and altered DNA
methylation. It is not clearly understood whether these biochemical
events are directly connected to their toxicological outcomes. Thus,
there is currently no evidence to indicate that conazoles share common
mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is not following a cumulative risk
approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for the conazoles. For
information regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating effects from
substances found to have a common mechanism of toxicity, see EPA's Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
    Propiconazole is a triazole-derived pesticide. This class of
compounds can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two
triazole conjugates (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid). To
support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for
triazole-derivative pesticides, including propiconazole, EPA conducted
a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole,
triazolylalanine, and triazolylacetic acid resulting from the use of
all current and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide. The
risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in
terms of hazards associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a
maximum combination of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and
non-dietary exposures (i.e., high end estimates of both dietary and
non-dietary exposures). In addition, the Agency retained the additional
10X Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor (SF) for the
protection of infants and children. The assessment includes evaluations
of risks for various subgroups, including those comprised of infants
and children. The Agency's complete risk assessment is found in the
propiconazole reregistration docket at http://www.regulations.gov,
Docket Identification (ID) Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497, and an update
to assess the addition of the commodities included in this action may
be found in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0397, in the document
titled ``Common Triazole Metabolites: Updated Dietary (Food + Water)
Exposure and Risk Assessment to Address The Amended Propiconazole
Section 3 Registration to Add Uses on Snap beans, succulent shelled
beans, dry beans, tomato (post-harvest, citrus (post-harvest), and
stone fruit (post-harvest), Difenoconazole, and Flutriafol.''

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In the developmental
toxicity study in rats, fetal effects observed in this study at a dose
lower than that evoking maternal toxicity are considered to be
quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility of fetuses to in
utero exposure to propiconazole. In the developmental toxicity study in
rabbits, neither quantitative nor qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility of fetuses to in utero exposure to propiconazole was
observed in this study. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats,
neither quantitative nor qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility of neonates (as compared to adults) to prenatal and/or
postnatal exposure to propiconazole was observed. There is no evidence
of neuropathology or abnormalities in the development of the fetal
nervous system from the available toxicity studies conducted with
propiconazole. In the rat acute neurotoxicity study, there was evidence
of mild neurobehavioral effects at 300 mg/kg/day, but no evidence of
neuropathology from propiconazole administration. Although there was
quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility of the young
following exposure to propiconazole in the developmental rat study, the
Agency determined there is a low degree of concern for this finding and
no residual uncertainties because the increased susceptibility was
based on minimal toxicity at high doses of administration, clear NOAELs
and LOAELs have been identified for all effects of concern, and a clear
dose-response has been well defined.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for propiconazole is complete except for
the lack of immunotoxicity and subchronic neutotoxicity studies. In the
absence of specific immunotoxicity studies, EPA has evaluated the
available propiconazole toxicity data to determine whether an
additional database uncertainty factor is needed to account for
potential immunotoxicity. There was no evidence of adverse effects on
the organs of the immune system in any propiconazole study. In
addition, propiconazole does not belong to a class of chemicals (e.g.,
the organotins, heavy metals, or halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons)
that would be expected to be immunotoxic. Based on the considerations
in this Unit, EPA does not believe that conducting a special Harmonized
Guideline 870.7800 immunotoxicity study will result in a POD less than
the NOAEL of 10.0 mg/kg/day used in calculating the cPAD for
propiconazole, and therefore, an additional database uncertainty factor
is not needed to account for potential immunotoxicity.
    In the absence of the subchronic neurotoxicity study, EPA has
evaluated the available propiconazole toxicity data to determine
whether an additional database uncertainty factor is needed to account
for potential neurotoxicity after repeated exposures. With the
exception of the developmental studies in the rat, there were no
indications in any of the repeated dose studies that propiconazole is
neurotoxic. In the developmental studies in the rat, there were some
clinical signs of neurotoxicity at 300 mg/kg/day but not at lower
doses. Further, there is no evidence of neuropathology or abnormalities
in the development of the fetal nervous system from the available
toxicity studies conducted with propiconazole. In the rat acute
neurotoxicity study, there was evidence of mild neurobehavioral effects
at 300 mg/kg, but no evidence of neuropathology from propiconazole
administration. Based on the considerations in this Unit, EPA does not
believe that conducting a Harmonized Guideline 870.6200b subchronic
neurotoxicity study will result in a POD less than the NOAEL of 10 mg/
kg/day used in calculating the

cPAD for propiconazole, and therefore, an additional database
uncertainty factor is not needed to account for potential neurotoxicity
from repeated exposures.
    iii. Although an apparent increased quantitative susceptibility was
observed in fetuses and offspring, for the reasons noted in this Unit
residual uncertainties or concerns for prenatal and/or postnatal
toxicity are minimal.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to propiconazole in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure
of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
propiconazole.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to propiconazole will occupy 77% of the aPAD for children 1 to 2 years
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
propiconazole from food and water will utilize 63% of the cPAD for
children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
propiconazole is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Propiconazole is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to propiconazole.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 130 for toddlers
(children 1 to 2 years old), between 110 and 1700 for adults from
handler activities and 290 for adults from post-application activities.
Because EPA's level of concern for propiconazole is a MOE of 100 or
below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Propiconazole is currently registered for uses that could result in
intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and
water with intermediate-term residential exposures to propiconazole.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an
aggregate MOE of 74 for toddlers (children 1 to 2 years old). The
aggregate MOE is 74, which is less than the target MOE of 100. However,
this aggregate MOE is based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues
concerning food exposure, conservative (protective) assumptions in the
ground and surface water modeling, and similarly conservative
assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as
incidental oral exposure of toddlers. Additional refinements
incorporating average field trial and/or percent crop treated
information would result in MOEs well above the target MOE of 100.
Therefore, this scenario is not of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency considers
the chronic aggregate risk assessment, making use of the cPAD, to be
protective of any aggregate cancer risk.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to propiconazole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, a high performance liquid
chromatography with ultraviolet detection method (HPLC/UV Method AG-
671A) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may
be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established an MRL for propiconazole for any of
the subject commodities in this document.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on the Agency's evaluation of the residue data submitted with
the petition, for all proposed commodities, with the exception of the
level for the citrus fruit group 10-10 (8.0 ppm), the Agency has
modified the levels for which tolerances are being established. The
proposed tolerances for snap bean, succulent shelled beans, stone fruit
group 12 except plum, and plum are being reduced to 0.70 ppm, 0.10 ppm,
4.0 ppm, and 0.60 ppm, respectively. The proposed tolerances for
foliage of legume foliage, dry bean seed, and tomato are being
increased to 30 ppm, 0.40 ppm, and 3.0 ppm, respectively, and the
commodity definition for legume foliage is being changed to
``vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7.'' Lastly, a tolerance for
citrus oil is being established at 1000 ppm. The Agency revised these
tolerance levels based on analysis of the residue field trial data

using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet in accordance with the
Agency's Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial
Data.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues 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 bean,
snap at 0.70 ppm; bean, succulent shelled at 0.10 ppm; vegetable,
foliage of legume, group 7 at 30 ppm; bean, dry seed at 0.40 ppm;
tomato at 3.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 8.0 ppm; fruit, stone,
group 12, except plum at 4.0 ppm; plum at 0.60 ppm; and citrus, oil at
1000 ppm. Additionally, the established tolerance is removed for fruit,
stone, group 12 at 1.0 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 8, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.434, the table in paragraph (a) is amended as follows:
0
i. Remove the entry ``fruit, stone, group 12'' and
0
ii. Add, alphabetically, the following commodities to read as follows:

Sec.  180.434  Propiconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Bean, dry seed..............................................        0.40
Bean, snap..................................................        0.70
Bean, succulent shelled.....................................        0.10

                                * * * * *
Citrus, oil.................................................        1000

                                * * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10..................................         8.0
Fruit, stone, group 12, except plum.........................         4.0

                                * * * * *
Plum........................................................        0.60

                                * * * * *
Tomato......................................................         3.0

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7.......................          30

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

[FR Doc. 2012-15539 Filed 6-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11445-11446]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03956]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice Rescinding Two Notices of Intent To Prepare Environmental
Impact Statements

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that FRA is
rescinding the Notice of Intent (NOI) for each Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS): the Dallas to Fort Worth Core Express Passenger
Service between Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas and the New Orleans Rail
Gateway in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes, Louisiana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Johnsen, Supervisory
Environmental Protection Specialist, at the Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    FRA is rescinding the NOIs for two EISs due to project scope
changes proposed by the State sponsor. First, FRA is rescinding the NOI
for the EIS evaluating the Dallas to Fort Worth Core Express Passenger
Service between Dallas and Fort Worth. FRA issued the NOI on September
5, 2014.
    Second, FRA is rescinding the NOI for the EIS evaluating the
proposed New Orleans Rail Gateway Program. FRA issued the NOI on
January 13, 2012.
    FRA is recinding these NOIs following coordination with the State
sponsors.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Paul Nissenbaum,
Associate Administrator, Office of Railroad Policy and Development.
[FR Doc. 2020-03956 Filed 2-26-20; 8:45 a.m.]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: March 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 9329]
[DOCID:fr03mr09-138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26367]

Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory
Committee (MCSAC) will hold a committee meeting. The meeting is open to
the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on March 18,
2009. Written comments must be received by noon on March 18, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Media Center, West Building, Ground Floor, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeffrey K. Miller, Chief,
Strategic Planning and Program Evaluation Division, Office of Policy
Plans and Regulation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 4144 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-
59) required the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation to
establish in FMCSA, a Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee. The
advisory committee provides advice and recommendations to the FMCSA
Administrator on motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier safety
regulations. The advisory committee operates in accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App 2). The Committee is
comprised of 15 members appointed by the Administrator. Two new
members, Scott G. Hernandez, Lieutenant Colonel with the Colorado State
Patrol, and Robert Powell, State Trooper with the Virginia State
Police, were appointed by the Administrator on January 19, 2009.

II. Meeting Participation

    The meeting is open to the public and FMCSA invites participation
by all interested parties, including motor carriers, drivers, and
representatives of motor carrier associations. Please note that
attendees will need to be pre-cleared in advance of the meeting in
order to expedite entry into the building. By March 16, 2009, please e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>if you plan to attend the meeting, to facilitate the
pre-clearance security process. For information on facilities or
services for individuals with disabilities or to request special
assistance at the meeting, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by March 16,
2009.
    As a general matter, the Committee will allocate one hour for
public comments on March 18, 2009, from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. Individuals
wishing to address the committee should send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by March 16, 2009. The time available will be divided among those who
have signed up to address the committee, but no one will be allotted
more than 15 minutes. For a copy of the agenda, please send an e-mail
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Individuals with a desire to present written materials to the
committee should submit written comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMC) Docket Number FMCSA-2006-26367 using any of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: February 25, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-4456 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8603-8604]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03061]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2014 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0757; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASO-19]

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Christiansted, St.
Croix, VI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class D and Class E airspace at
Christiansted, St. Croix, VI, by adjusting the geographic coordinates
of Henry E. Rohlsen Airport. The airport name also is changed from
Alexander Hamilton Airport. This action brings current the effected
charting and enhances airspace management within the National Airspace
System.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 3, 2014. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On December 2, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class D airspace and
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface by
changing the airport name and amending the geographic coordinates of
Henry E. Rohlsen Airport, Christiansted, St. Croix, VI, to bring it in
concert with the FAAs aeronautical database (78 FR 72056). Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs
5000, and 6005, respectively of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013,
and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class D airspace and Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface airspace by amending the geographic
coordinates of Henry E. Rohlsen Airport, Christiansted, St. Croix, VI,
to bring it in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database. The
coordinates are changed from (lat. 17[deg]42'07'' N., long.
64[deg]47'55'' W.) to (lat. 17[deg]42'06'' N., long. 64[deg]48'06''
W.). Also, the airport formerly called Alexander Hamilton Airport is
changed to Henry E. Rohlsen Airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Henry E. Rohlsen Airport,
Christiansted, St. Croix, VI.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71:

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 7, 2013, effective September 15, 2013, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace

* * * * *

ASO VI D Christiansted St. Croix, VI [Amended]

Henry E. Rohlsen Airport, VI

    (Lat. 17[deg]42'06'' N., long. 64[deg]48'06'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 5.7-mile radius of Henry E. Rohlsen Airport.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth

* * * * *

ASO VI E5 Christiansted St. Croix, VI [Amended]

Henry E. Rohlsen Airport, VI
    (Lat. 17[deg]42'06'' N., long. 64[deg]48'06'' W.)
St Croix VOR/DME
    (Lat. 17[deg]44'04'' N., long. 64[deg]42'03'' W.)
PESTE NDB
    (Lat. 17[deg]41'31'' N., long. 64[deg]53''05'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.4-mile radius of Henry E. Rohlsen Airport, and within 3
miles each side of St. Croix VOR/DME 069[deg] radial, extending from
the 7.4-mile radius to 7 miles east of the VOR/DME; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
13-mile radius of Henry E. Rohlsen Airport, and within 8 miles north
and 4 miles south of the St. Croix VOR/DME 069[deg] radial,
extending from the 13-mile radius to 16 miles east of the VOR/DME,
and within 8 miles south and 4 miles north of the ILS localizer west
course, extending from the 13-mile radius to 16 miles west of the
PESTE NDB.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 4, 2014.
Eric Fox,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2014-03061 Filed 2-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26588-26590]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10752]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66881; File No. SR-BX-2012-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Pricing for BX Members Using the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities System

April 30, 2012.
    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 April 26, 2012, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by BX. 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

    BX proposes to modify pricing for BX members using the NASDAQ OMX
BX Equities System. BX will implement the proposed change on May 1,
2012. The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at BX's principal office, 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, BX 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. BX 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 Changes

1. Purpose
    BX is proposing to modify its rebate schedule with respect to
orders that

access liquidity at BX.\3\ Currently, BX pays a rebate of $0.0014 per
share executed with respect to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The change applies to securities priced at $1 or more per
share. Fees and rebates for lower-priced securities are unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An order entered by a member through a BX Equities System
Market Participant Identifier (``MPID'') through which the member (i)
accesses an average daily volume of 3.5 million or more shares of
liquidity, or (ii) provides an average daily volume of 25,000 or more
shares of liquidity during the month; or
     A BSTG, BSCN, BMOP, BTFY or BCRT order that accesses
liquidity in the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities System.

BX pays a rebate of $0.0005 with respect to all other liquidity-
accessing orders. BX is proposing to eliminate the rebate with respect
to all orders that access liquidity provided by a midpoint pegged
order.\4\ Because such orders access liquidity at the midpoint between
the best bid and offer, they receive price improvement of at least
$0.005 per share. Accordingly, BX does not believe that it is necessary
also to pay a rebate to encourage the submission of such orders.
Rather, the execution of such orders will be free of charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Pegged Orders'' are orders that, after entry, have their
price automatically adjusted by the System in response to changes in
either the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market inside bid or offer or bids
or offers in the national market system, as appropriate. A Pegged
Order can specify that its price will equal the inside quote on the
same side of the market (``Primary Peg''), the opposite side of the
market (``Market Peg''), or the midpoint of the national best bid
and offer (``Midpoint Peg''). A Midpoint Peg Order is priced based
upon the national best bid and offer, excluding the effect that the
Midpoint Peg Order itself has on the inside bid or inside offer.
Midpoint Pegged Orders will never be displayed. A Midpoint Pegged
Order may be executed in sub-pennies if necessary to obtain a
midpoint price. A new timestamp is created for the order each time
it is automatically adjusted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with Sections
6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which BX operates or controls, and is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
All similarly situated members are subject to the same fee structure,
and access to BX is offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The elimination of the rebate for orders that access liquidity
provided by midpoint pegged orders is reasonable because the execution
of such orders is free of charge. Moreover, the change is consistent
with an equitable allocation of fees because such orders invariably
receive price improvement of at least $0.005 per share, and therefore
do not need an additional rebate of $0.0005 to $0.0014 to encourage
their submission to BX. Finally, BX believes that the change is not
unfairly discriminatory because the price improvement provided to these
orders provides a rational basis for treating them differently from
other orders that access liquidity at BX.
    Finally, BX notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, BX must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have
been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable
to exchanges. Because numerous alternatives exist to the execution and
routing services offered by BX, if BX increases its fees to an
excessive extent, it will lose customers to its competitors.
Accordingly, BX believes that competitive market forces help to ensure
that the fees it charges for execution and routing are reasonable,
equitably allocated, and non-discriminatory.

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

    BX 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, as amended. Because the market
for order execution and routing is extremely competitive, members may
readily opt to disfavor BX's execution and routing services if they
believe that alternatives offer them better value. For these reasons
and the reasons discussed in connection with the statutory basis for
the proposed rule change, BX does not believe that the proposed changes
will unfairly affect the ability of members or competitors to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\7\ 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 should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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-BX-2012-028 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BX-2012-028. 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 on official business
days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-BX-2012-028 and should be submitted on or before May 25,
2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10752 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 68610]
[DOCID:fr27no06-101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER06-56-000]

Midwest Electric Transmission Company, Midwest Independent
Transmission, System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Informal Settlement
Conference

November 15, 2006.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened
in this proceeding commencing at 11 a.m. on November 20, 2006, at the
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426, for the purpose of exploring the possible
settlement of the above-referenced docket.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as
defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER>,
with the required accommodations.
    For additional information, please contact Renee Terry,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-6057.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-19916 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 39104-39105]
[DOCID:fr11jy06-86]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0162, FRL-8195-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Information Collection Request
for Proposed Regional Haze Regulations (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1813.06,
OMB Control No. 2060-0421

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 10,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0162, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:

EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, OAR Docket, Mail
Code B102, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Kaufman, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code
C539-02, Research Triangle Park, NC; telephone number: (919) 541-541-
0102; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On March 13, 2006 (71 FR 12696), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0162, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the OAR Docket in

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
 to submit or view public comments, access the index

listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in
the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified
above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public
viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without

change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential
business information (CBI), or other information whose public
disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: Information Collection Request for Proposed Regional Haze
Regulations (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No.1813.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0421.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2006. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR parts 9.
    Abstract: This ICR is for activities related to the implementation
of EPA's 1999 regional haze rule, for the time period between August 1,
2006 and July 31, 2009. This ICR renews the previous ICR, which
addressed the second three year time period after the rule was
promulgated. The regional haze rule, as authorized by sections 169A and
169B

of the Clean Air Act, requires States to develop implementation plans
to protect visibility in 156 federally-protected Class I areas. Tribes
may choose to develop implementation plans. For this time period,
States will be conducting technical analyses in support of development
of reasonable progress goals and strategies for regional haze, as
required by the rule. EPA has encouraged States to work together in
regional planning organizations to develop and implement multi-state
strategies.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 38
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: The major categories of respondents
directly affected include the States, Tribes, and Federal land managers
(FLMs). The States and, if they so choose, the Tribes will develop an
implementation plan under 40 CFR 51.308. In addition Western States
have the option of developing Regional Haze strategies for
SO2 emissions under 40 CFR 51.309.
    In addition, during this ICR renewal period, other entities, at the
discretion of the States and Tribes, may respond to a request of the
States or Tribes to fulfill obligations of the 1999 Regional Haze Rule.
For example, there may be private sector respondents in particular
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) Codes and production process categories
that are asked to assess and determine if they are BART eligible
sources and make a preliminary BART determination.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sources that are part of categories listed in the Clean Air
Act (section 169A) and emitting more than 250 tons per year and
constructed during the August 1962 to August 1977 time period are
BART eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FLMs will work as partners with the RPOs from the perspective
of Class I area land managers. Their policy focus will be on prescribed
fire policy, and quantification of reasonable progress goals. On the
technical side, they will assess air quality monitoring data and work
with the RPOs and EPA to determine impacts on visibility in their Class
I areas and natural background conditions.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 860.
    Frequency of Response: Annual.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 32,551.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,856.000, which includes $0
annualized capital startup costs, $0 annual O&M Costs, and $1,856,000
annual labor costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 24,054 hours in
the total estimated hourly burden and in the cost burden of $657,383
currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This
decrease in burden is a program adjustment, reflecting changes in labor
rates, changes in the activities conducted due to the normal
progression of the program, and better information regarding the
numbers of respondents and the fact that the role of industrial
respondents is increasing as the program moves from the planning stages
to the implementation stages.

    Dated: June 23, 2006.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E6-10843 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P