[Federal Register: July 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 34606-34608]
[DOCID:fr16jy09-86]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60273; File No. SR-NYSE-2009-64]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by New York Stock Exchange LLC To
Extend Its Suspension of its Dollar Stock Price Continued Listing
Standard to July 31, 2009

July 9, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on July 2, 2009, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the ``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') 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 Exchange
has designated this proposal eligible for immediate effectiveness
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \3\ under the Exchange Act. 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend through July 31, 2009, the
suspension of the application of its price criteria for capital and
common stock set forth in Section 802.01C of the Exchange's Listed
Company Manual (the ``Manual'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission notes that the suspension period under this
filing commenced at the time that the proposed rule change was filed
on July 2, 2009 and will continue through July 31, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The NYSE 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
    From mid-2008 through the first quarter of 2009, the U.S. and
global equities markets experienced extreme volatility and a
precipitous decline in trading prices of many securities. As a
consequence of these market conditions, the Exchange experienced an
unusually high number (as compared to historical levels) of listed
companies having stock prices that either fell below the Exchange's
$1.00 price requirement for capital and common stock set forth in
Section 802.01C of the Manual (i.e., the average closing price of their
stock has fallen below $1.00 over a consecutive 30 trading day period)
(the NYSE's ``dollar price continued listing standard'').\5\ In
response, the Exchange suspended the application of the dollar price
continued listing standard until June 30, 2009.\6\ This suspension
provided temporary relief to companies in response to the extreme
volatility and a precipitous decline in trading prices of many
securities experienced in the U.S. and global equities markets, which
the Commission had acknowledged constituted a threat to the fair and
orderly functioning of the securities markets and could lead to a
crisis of confidence among investors regarding the viability of
companies whose stock prices have declined significantly.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 802.01C provides that a company will be considered
to be below compliance standards if the average closing price of a
security as reported on the consolidated tape is less than $1.00
over a consecutive 30 trading day period. Once notified, the company
must bring its share price and average share price back above $1.00
by six months following receipt of the notification. A company is
not eligible to follow the cure procedures outlined in Sections
802.02 and 802.03 with respect to this criteria. The company must,
however, notify the Exchange, within 10 business days of receipt of
the notification, of its intent to cure this deficiency or be
subject to suspension and delisting procedures. In the event that at
the expiration of the six-month cure period, both a $1.00 share
price and a $1.00 average share price over the preceding 30 trading
days are not attained, the Exchange will commence suspension and
delisting procedures. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a company
determines that, if necessary, it will cure the price condition by
taking an action that will require approval of its shareholders, it
must so inform the Exchange in the above referenced notification,
must obtain the shareholder approval by no later than its next
annual meeting, and must implement the action promptly thereafter.
The price condition will be deemed cured if the price promptly
exceeds $1.00 per share, and the price remains above the level for
at least the following 30 trading days.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59510 (March 4,
2009), 74 FR 10636 (March 11, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-21).
    \7\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58588
(September 18, 2008), 73 FR 55174 (September 24, 2008) (``The
Commission is aware of the continued potential of sudden and
excessive fluctuations of securities prices and disruption in the
functioning of the securities markets that could threaten fair and
orderly markets. Given the importance of confidence in our financial
markets as a whole, we have also become concerned about sudden and
unexplained declines in the prices of securities. Such price
declines can give rise to questions about the underlying financial
condition of an issuer, which in turn can create a crisis of
confidence without a fundamental underlying basis. This crisis of
confidence can impair the liquidity and ultimate viability of an
issuer, with potentially broad market consequences.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the initial suspension of the Exchange's dollar price
continued listing standard, market conditions have improved somewhat
and a significant number of companies have cured their noncompliance
with that standard. However, major market indices have recovered only a
fraction of their losses and are still significantly below the levels
of the first half of 2008.

Consequently, there are still a significantly larger number of listed
companies that are below compliance with the dollar price continued
listing standard than the historical norm. As such, the Exchange
proposes to extend the period of the suspension by an additional month,
through July 31, 2009. The Exchange believes that doing so will
potentially enable a number of companies that are currently below
compliance with the dollar price continued listing standard, but
otherwise suitable for auction market trading, to regain compliance, as
has been the case with a significant number of companies during the
initial period of the suspension.
    Under the proposed extended suspension of the Exchange's dollar
price continued listing standard, companies will not be notified of new
events of noncompliance with that standard during the suspension
period. Companies that were in a compliance period at the time of
commencement of the suspension \8\ will still be deemed to have
regained compliance during the rule suspension period if, at the
expiration of their respective six-month cure periods established prior
to the commencement of the rule suspension, they have a $1.00 closing
share price on the last trading day of the period and a $1.00 average
share price based on the preceding 30 trading days. In addition, any
company that was in a compliance period at the time of commencement of
the rule suspension can return to compliance if on July 31, 2009, such
company has a $1.00 closing share price and a $1.00 average share price
based on the 30 trading days preceding the end of such month.\9\ Any
company that was in a compliance period at the time of commencement of
the rule suspension that does not regain compliance during the
suspension period will recommence its compliance period upon
reinstitution of the dollar price continued listing standard and
receive the remaining balance of its compliance period.\10\ Following
the temporary rule suspension, any new events of noncompliance with the
Exchange's dollar price continued listing standard will be determined
based on a consecutive 30 trading-day period commencing on August 1,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that there are not currently any
companies in the Exchange's delisting appeal process whose stock is
continuing to trade on the Exchange that have been sent a delisting
notification for noncompliance with the dollar price continued
listing standard. The Exchange also notes that it is continuing to
identify companies in a compliance period as below compliance with
the dollar price continued listing standard, including by continuing
to append an indicator to the company's stock ticker to identify it
as being below compliance with that standard and including the
company on a list of companies that are below compliance with that
standard posted to the Exchange's Web site, unless the company
regains compliance during the suspension. A company will continue to
be subject to delisting for failure to comply with other listing
requirements.
    \9\ A company will continue to be subject to delisting for
failure to comply with other listing requirements.
    \10\ For example, if a company was four months into its
compliance period for noncompliance with the dollar price continued
listing standard when the suspension started and the company does
not regain compliance during the suspension, the company will have
an additional two months starting on August 1, 2009, to regain
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed extended suspension of the Exchange's dollar price
continued listing standard will enable companies to remain listed in
the current difficult market conditions with the prospect of a future
recovery in their stock prices enabling them to comply with the
applicable listing requirements upon the standard's reinstatement.
During the period between now and July 31, 2009, the Exchange will
consider whether it is appropriate to propose further revisions to
these requirements.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \11\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) \13\ of the Act in particular in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and 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. The proposed rule change is
designed to remove uncertainty regarding the ability of certain
companies to remain listed on the NYSE during the current highly
unusual market conditions, thereby protecting investors, facilitating
transactions in securities, and removing an impediment to a free and
open market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ See 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Exchange 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
    Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, 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 \14\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
under the Act, the Exchange is required to give the Commission
written notice of its 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 Commission has determined to waive this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \16\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow NYSE to extend, through July 31, 2009, the
temporary suspension of its $1.00 price continued listing requirement
for capital and common stock. The Commission notes that the extension
of the temporary suspension will continue to provide certain companies
with temporary relief from receiving a non-compliance or delisting
notification, or from being delisted, and will provide some additional
time to allow companies to regain compliance after the market
volatility and conditions experienced earlier this year and last fall.
The Commission notes that this action is temporary in nature, and that
following the suspension, companies currently in

the compliance period will resume at the same stage and receive the
remaining balance of its compliance period if they remain non-compliant
with these standards. For these reasons, the Commission designates that
the proposed rule change become operative immediately upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the 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.

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 Exchange 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-NYSE-2009-64 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 Number SR-NYSE-2009-64. 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 am and 3 pm. 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-
NYSE-2009-64 and should be submitted on or before August 6, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16859 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40227]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15938]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land Use Assurance
Colorado Springs Airport, Colorado Springs, Colorado

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a proposal
from the City of Colorado Springs Airport Director of Aviation to
change a portion of the airport from aeronautical use to non-
aeronautical use at Colorado Springs Airport, Colorado Springs,
Colorado. The proposal involves a parcel of airport property on the
Northeast side of the airfield.

DATES: Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication
of this notice in the Federal Register. Emailed comments can be
provided to Mr. Michael Matz, Project Manager/Compliance Specialist,
Denver Airports District Office<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory Phillips, Director of
Aviation, Colorado Springs Airport, 7770 Milton E. Proby Parkway, Suite
50, Colorado Springs, CO 80916,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Michael Matz, Project
Manager/Compliance Specialist, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E
68th Ave., Suite 224, Denver, CO 80249,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Documents reflecting this FAA action may be
reviewed at the above locations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C.
47153(c), and 47107(h)(2), the FAA is considering a proposal from the
Director of Aviation, Colorado Springs Airport, to change a portion of
the Colorado Springs Airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical
use. The proposal consists of 19.62 acres of vacant land located on the
Northeast side of the airport, shown as Parcel 635 on the Airport
Layout Plan.
    The parcel does not have airfield access and will be developed for
commercial use. The FAA concurs that the parcel is no longer needed for
aeronautical purposes. The proposed use of this property is compatible
with existing airport operations in accordance with FAA's Policy and
Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, as published in the
Federal Register on February 16, 1999.

    Issued in Denver, Colorado, on July 21, 2021.
John P. Bauer,
Manager, Denver Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2021-15938 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 64)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17906-17910]
[DOCID:fr02ap08-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0678; FRL-8356-6]

Acequinocyl; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues
of acequinocyl and its metabolite, 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1, 4-
naphthoquinone (acequinocyl-OH) expressed as acequinocyl equivalents in
or on nut, tree, group 14 and grape and removes the separate tolerances
established for almond. Arysta LifeScience North America Corporation
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 2, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 2, 2008, 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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0678. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Mautz, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
    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 Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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-2006-0678 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before June 2, 2008.
    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 that
is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked confidential pursuant
to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0678,
by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 11, 2006 (71 FR 46223) (FRL-8085-
8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6F7040) by Arysta LifeScience North America Corporation, 15401 Weston
Pkwy., Suite 150, Cary, NC 27513. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.599 be amended by establishing a tolerance for combined residues of
the insecticide acequinocyl and its metabolite 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-
naphthoquinone (acequinocyl-OH) expressed as acequinocyl equivalents in
or on tree nuts (crop group 14) at 0.02 parts per million (ppm). That
notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Arysta
LifeScience North America Corporation, the registrant, which is
available to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A
comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to the
comment is discussed in Unit IV.C. below. In the Federal Register of
January 23, 2008 (73 FR 3964) (FRL-8345-7), EPA issued a notice
pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3),
announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 7F7176) by Arysta
LifeScience North America Corporation. The petition requested that 40
CFR 180.599 be amended by establishing a tolerance for acequinocyl and
its metabolite acequinocyl-OH expressed as acequinocyl equivalents in
or on grapes at 7.0 parts per million (ppm), grape juice at 0.05 ppm
and raisins at 0.1 ppm. The proposed grape tolerance of 7.0 ppm was
subsequently amended by the petitioner to 1.0 ppm.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the tolerances proposed for grape, grape juice and raisin; and
changed the commodity definition for tree nuts (crop group 14). The
appropriate tolerance for grape was calculated to be 1.6 ppm. The grape
processing data provided for grape juice and raisins showed the
combined residues of acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH did not concentrate
in either of these commodities and, thus separate tolerances are not
required for grape juice or raisins. The recommended tolerance level
for grape was determined considering Agency guidance (Guidance for
Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data). The commodity
definition for tree nuts (crop group 14) has been changed to nut, tree,
group 14.

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. . .
.'' These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA) of 1996.
    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 the petitioned-for tolerance
for combined residues of acequinocyl and its metabolite acequinocyl-OH
expressed as aceqinocyl equivalents on nut, tree, group 14 and grape at
0.02 ppm and 1.6 ppm, respectively. EPA's assessment of exposures and
risks associated with establishing the tolerance 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. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by acequinocyl as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the
acequinocyl final rule published in the Federal Register of July 21,
2004 (69 FR 43525) (FRL-7364-1).

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from the highest dose at which the NOAEL are observed in the toxicology
study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if
a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which the LOAEL of
concern are identified is sometimes used for risk assessment.
Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs) are used in conjunction with the level
of concern (LOC) to take into account uncertainties inherent in the
extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the
variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well
as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by
comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute population
adjusted (aPAD) dose and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The
aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs.
Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risks are evaluated by
comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the margin of
exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not
exceeded.
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are

considered non-threshold. 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/fedrgstr/EPA-
PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for acequinocyl used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the
document ``Human Health Risk Assessment for Use of Acequinocyl on
Grapes, the Tree Nut Crop Group, and Residential Sites (Ornamentals)''
on pages 13 and 14 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0678-0006.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to acequinocyl, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing acequinocyl tolerances in 40 CFR
180.599. EPA assessed dietary exposures from acequinocyl 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.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
acequinocyl; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998; CSFII. As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed all foods for which there are
tolerances were treated and contain tolerance-level residues.
Anticipated residues were not used.
    iii. Cancer. The Agency classified acequinocyl as a ``not likely
carcinogen''. Therefore, an exposure assessment for the purpose of
estimating cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. The Agency did not use
anticipated residue estimates or PCT information in the acequinocyl
dietary exposure assessment.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for acequinocyl in drinking water. Because
the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water
concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling
taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of
acequinocyl. 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) with the index reservoir scenarios model, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of acequinocyl only and
of the combined residues of acequinocyl and its metabolite
(acequinocyl-OH) for chronic exposures are estimated to be 2.73 and
0.37 parts per billion (ppb), respectively for surface water. Based on
the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model, for
chronic ground water exposure, the EDWC value for the combined residues
of acequinocyl and its metabolite (acequinocyl-OH) is 0.0036 ppb.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. Acute dietary risk assessments
were not conducted because an end point of concern attributable to a
single dose was not identified. For chronic dietary risk assessment,
the water concentration value of 2.73 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).
     Acequinocyl is currently registered for the following residential
non-dietary sites: Ornamental plants. EPA assessed residential exposure
using the following assumptions: Exposure is considered to be short
term only, due to the infrequent use patterns associated with homeowner
products; and individuals are wearing shorts, short-sleeved shirts,
socks, and shoes. The estimates of exposure to residential handlers are
based on surrogate data available from the Outdoor Residential Exposure
Task Force (ORETF) and the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Data (PHED)
(August, 1998). The residential exposure assessed was exposure to
adults from residential application of acequinocyl. Short-term
inhalation and dermal exposure estimates were generated for residential
adult handlers during the mixing, loading and application of
acequinocyl in residential settings. Based on the use pattern, no
significant post application exposure in residential settings is
anticipated.
    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.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to acequinocyl and any other
substances and acequinocyl does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that acequinocyl has a
common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional (10X) tenfold 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 data base 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. In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when
reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if
reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA
safety factor value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or special
FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
increased quantitative susceptibility following in utero exposure to
acequinocyl in rat or rabbit developmental studies or following
prenatal and/or postnatal exposure to acequnocyl in a two-generation
reproduction study in rats. There is an apparent qualitative increase
in susceptibility in the rat and rabbit developmental studies as
indicated by increases in resorptions that occurred at the same or
higher dose that caused maternal toxicity, but the concern is low
since: (1) The fetal effects were noted in the presence of maternal
toxicity; and (2) the effects are well-characterized in

that a clear NOAEL was identified. An increase in mortality in the
offsprings of F1 and/or F2 generation was identified in the two-
generation reproduction study; however, EPA does not consider this as
evidence for increased susceptibility because the mortality occurred
after weaning (day 21) during days 22 to 55 when food intake by the
pups substantially increases, substantially increasing the administered
dose of pesticide. In any event these effects occurred in the presence
of maternal toxicity and a clear NOAEL was identified. There are no
residual uncertainties and low concern for prenatal and/or postnatal
toxicity following exposure to acequinocyl.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for acequinocyl is complete.
    ii. Though two studies showed effects that could be indicative of
neurotoxicity, EPA concluded that exposure to acequinocyl does not pose
a neurotoxicity concern and there is no need for a developmental
neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
First, acequinocyl is a known Vitamin K antagonist; neurotoxic
compounds of similar structure were not identified. Second, the study
effects are considered as secondary because they were observed at very
high doses (58.9/69.2 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) and 111.2/
133.5 mg/kg/day in the rat reproduction study and 252.7/286.0 mg/kg/day
in the rat subchronic study.) In the two-generation reproduction study,
significant reduction in startle response in F2 pups was observed in
the high dose groups. However, other functional development studies
(such as a papillary reflex test at 21 days post partum, an open field
exploration test at 35 to 48 days post partum) that were performed on
pups did not show significant differences as compared to control values
even at the highest dosage rate.
    iii. There is no evidence that acequinocyl results in increased
quantitative susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the two-generation
reproduction study. As discussed above, there is low concern for any
potential qualitative sensitivity observed in these studies.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% crop treated (CT) and tolerance-level residues. Conservative
ground water and surface water modeling estimates were used. No
significant post application exposure to children is anticipated from
the registered use of acequinocyl on ornamental plants. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
acequinocyl.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional
cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term,
and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to
the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all
applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. No acute risk is expected because an endpoint of
concern attributable to a single dose was not identified.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
acequinocyl from food and water will utilize 41% of the cPAD for the
population group children 1 to 2 years old, the most highly exposed
population subgroup. Based on the use pattern, chronic residential
exposure to residues of Acequinocyl is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level).
    Acequinocyl is currently registered for use that could result in
short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and short-term
exposures for acequinocyl.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded that food, water, and residential
exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 2,700 for adult
residential handlers 50+ years old mixing, loading and applying
acequinocyl in residential settings. The adult 50+ years old population
is the highest exposed population group and the MOE of 2,700 is
considered protective of the other adult population groups. Based on
the use pattern, no significant post application exposure is
anticipated, therefore, no residential post application assessment was
conducted.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Acequinocyl is not registered for use on any sites that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Therefore, the
aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which do not
exceed the Agency's level of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Acequinocyl is not
considered to be a carcinogen and thus is not expected to pose a 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 acequinocyl residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Analytical enforcement methods include liquid chromatography with
tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS). The limit of
quantitation (LOQ) is 0.01 ppm for each analyte in plant and livestock
commodities and the reported limit of detection (LOD) is 0.003 ppm for
each analyte in plant commodities.
    Adequate enforcement methodology (two liquid chromatography with
tandem mass spectrometric detection LC/MS/MS) methods (Morse Methods
Meth-133 revision 4 and Meth-135, revision 2 for
grape and tree nuts, respectively) are available to enforce the
tolerance expression. The methods may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

     There are no established or proposed CODEX, Canadian, or Mexican
maximum residue limits (MRLs) for acequinocyl.

C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received from a private citizen opposing the
``manufacturing, selling or use'' of acequinocyl. The commenter further
stated that it was their wish that no exemptions be issued and that no
tolerances should be approved. The Agency understands the commenter's
concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides

should be banned completely. However, under the existing framework
provided by section 408 of the FFDCA, EPA is required to establish
pesticide tolerances or exemptions where persons seeking such
tolerances have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety
standard imposed by that statue. The commenter has not provided the
Agency with specific rationale nor additional information pertaining to
the legal standards in FFDCA section 408 for opposing the establishment
of a tolerance for acequinocyl. In the absence of any additional
information of a factual nature, the Agency can not effectively respond
to the commenter's disagreement with the Agency's decision.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerances are established for combined residues of
acequinocyl and its metabolite, 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone
expressed as acequinocyl equivalents, in or on grape and nut, tree,
group 14 at 1.6 ppm and 0.02 ppm, respectively.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA 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 rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, 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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This
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) (Public Law 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: March 20, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
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. Section 180. 599 is amended by removing from the table in paragraph
(a) the entry for almond, and adding new commodities to the table to
read as follows:

Sec.  180.599  Acequinocyl; Tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Grape................................................                1.6
                                * * * * *
Nut, tree, group 14..................................               0.02
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-6699 Filed 4-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58338-58340]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23065]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1347]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before December 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1347, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Walker County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Carbon Hill....................  City Hall, 170 NW 2nd Avenue,
                                          Carbon Hill, AL 35549.
City of Cordova........................  City Hall, 74 Main Street,
                                          Cordova, AL 35550.
City of Dora...........................  City Hall, 1485 Sharon
                                          Boulevard, Dora, AL 35062.
City of Jasper.........................  City Hall, 400 West 19th
                                          Street, Jasper, AL 35501.
Town of Eldridge.......................  Town Hall, 208 Smothers Avenue,
                                          Eldridge, AL 35554.
Town of Kansas.........................  Town Hall, 497 Old Highway 78,
                                          Kansas, AL 35573.
Town of Nauvoo.........................  Town Hall, 176 McDaniel Avenue,
                                          Nauvoo, AL 35578.
Town of Oakman.........................  Town Hall, 8236 Market Street,
                                          Oakman, AL 35579.
Town of Parrish........................  Town Hall, 6484 Highway 269,
                                          Parrish, AL 35580.

Town of Sipsey.........................  Town Hall, 3635 Sipsey Road,
                                          Sipsey, AL 35584.
Town of Sumiton........................  Town Hall, 416 State Street,
                                          Sumiton, AL 35148.
Unincorporated Areas of Walker County..  Walker County Engineering
                                          Department, 1801 3rd Avenue
                                          South, Jasper, AL 35502.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Navajo County, Arizona, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Holbrook.......................  465 First Avenue, Holbrook, AZ
                                          86025.
City of Show Low.......................  200 West Cooley Street, Show
                                          Low, AZ 85901.
Town of Pinetop-Lakeside...............  1360 North Niels Hanson Lane,
                                          Pinetop-Lakeside, AZ 85929.
Unincorporated Areas of Navajo County..  Flood Control Division, 100
                                          East Carter Drive, Holbrook,
                                          AZ 86025.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Citrus County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Crystal River..................  City Hall, 123 NW U.S. Highway
                                          19, Crystal River, FL 34428.
City of Inverness......................  City Hall, 212 West Main
                                          Street, Inverness, FL 34450.
Unincorporated Areas of Citrus County..  Lecanto Government Complex,
                                          3600 West Sovereign Path,
                                          Lecanto, FL 34461.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Glades County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Moore Haven....................  299 Riverside Drive, Moore
                                          Haven, FL 33471.
Unincorporated Areas of Glades County..  500 Avenue J, Moore Haven, FL
                                          33471.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pasco County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Dade City......................  City Hall, 14206 U.S. Highway
                                          98 Bypass, Dade City, FL
                                          33523.
City of New Port Richey................  City Hall, 5919 Main Street,
                                          New Port Richey, FL 34652.
City of Port Richey....................  City Hall, 6333 Ridge Road,
                                          Port Richey, FL 34668.
City of San Antonio....................  City Hall, 32819 Pennsylvania
                                          Avenue, San Antonio, FL 33576.
City of Zephyrhills....................  City Hall, 5335 8th Street,
                                          Zephyrhills, FL 33542.
Town of St. Leo........................  Town Hall, 34544 State Road 52,
                                          Saint Leo, FL 33574.
Unincorporated Areas of Pasco County...  New Port Richey Government
                                          Center, 7530 Little Road, New
                                          Port Richey, FL 34654.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City and County of Honolulu............  Department of Planning and
                                          Permitting, 650 South King
                                          Street, Honolulu, HI 96813.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Greenup County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bellefonte.....................  Bellefonte City Hall, 705
                                          Bellefonte Princess Road,
                                          Ashland, KY 41101.
City of Greenup........................  City Hall, 1005 Walnut Street,
                                          Greenup, KY 41144.
City of Raceland.......................  City Hall, 711 Chinn Street,
                                          Raceland, KY 41169.
City of Russell........................  City Hall, 410 Ferry Street,
                                          Russell, KY 41169.
City of South Shore....................  City Hall, 69 Narco Drive,
                                          South Shore, KY 41175.
City of Worthington....................  City Hall, 512 Ferry Street,
                                          Worthington, KY 41183.
City of Wurtland.......................  City Hall, 500 Wurtland Avenue,
                                          Wurtland, KY 41144.
Unincorporated Areas of Greenup County.  Greenup County Courthouse, 301
                                          Main Street, Room 102,
                                          Greenup, KY 41144.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Missoula County, Montana, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Missoula.......................  435 Ryman Street, Missoula, MT
                                          59802.
Unincorporated Areas of Missoula County  317 Woody Street, Missoula, MT
                                          59802.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: August 30, 2013.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-23065 Filed 9-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 76 (Friday, April 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18758-18759]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08087]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-883-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report Mulberry Energy and
Orange Cogen to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170417-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1424-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Central Power Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. on behalf of Central Power
Electric Cooperative, Inc. submits Depreciation Study and Change in
Depreciation Rates.
    Filed Date: 4/14/17.
    Accession Number: 20170414-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1426-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Queue Position AA2-059,
Original Service Agreement No. 4670 to be effective 3/16/2017.
    Filed Date: 4/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170417-5195.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1427-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, Service
Agreement No. 4668, Queue No. AA1-038 to be effective 3/16/2017.
    Filed Date: 4/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170417-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1428-000.

    Applicants: Tilton Energy LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Report Pursuant to
MISO Tariff and E-Tariff Submission to be effective 6/17/2017.
    Filed Date: 4/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170417-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA07-19-013; OA07-43-014; ER07-1171-014.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits its annual
compliance report on penalty assessments and distributions.
    Filed Date: 4/14/17.
    Accession Number: 20170414-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 17, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08087 Filed 4-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73005-73006]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30562]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0143; Notice 2]

JCA Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Petition Grant.

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

SUMMARY: JCA Corporation (JCA)\1\, has determined that certain Trail
America brand Special Trailer ``ST'' tires that it imported failed to
meet the requirements of paragraph S6.5(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles
with a GVWR of more than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and
Motorcycles. JCA has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR
Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports (dated
October 19, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ JCA Corporation (JCA) is a State of Washington corporation
that imports replacement motor vehicle equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), JCA has petitioned for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    Notice of receipt of JCA's petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on November 9, 2010, in the Federal Register (75
FR 68854). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System Web
site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2010-0143.''
    For further information on this decision, contact Mr. George
Gillespie, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    JCA estimates that approximately 899,804 Trail America brand
Special Trailer ``ST'' tires that were

manufactured from January 1, 2008, through October 15, 2009, by Tianjin
Kings Glory Tire Company, LTD. of Qiaosandao, Yangliuqing, Xiqing
Tianjin, China 300380, and imported by JCA are affected.
    JCA states that the noncompliance is that the maximum single load
labeling and maximum inflation pressures on the sidewalls of the tires
are in English units of ``lb'' and ``psi'' only; no Metric units are
included as required by paragraph S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119.
    JCA explained that no property damage or accidents have been
reported to it or its customers as a result of the subject
noncompliance.
    JCA further explains that it has taken steps to correct the
noncompliance in future production.
    JCA also states that it believes the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the affected tires
fulfill all other relevant requirements of FMVSS No. 119.
    In summation, JCA believes that the described noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt it from providing recall notification of noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA Decision: The agency agrees with JCA that the noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The agency believes that
the true measure of inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety in this
case is that there is no effect on the operational safety of vehicles
on which these tires are mounted.
    While the correct tire inflation pressure is included on the
subject tire sidewalls, it is not marked in both English and Metric
unit systems on each sidewall as required by S6.5(d). However, because
the tire inflation pressure is available and stated correctly on each
tire in English units, it is unlikely that a consumer will not find or
will misread pressure units due to the noncompliance. Therefore, the
tires, as labeled, are likely to achieve the safety purpose of the
standard. In the agency's judgment, the subject incorrect labeling of
the tire inflation pressure information will have an inconsequential
effect on motor vehicle safety.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118 (d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the 899,804 \2\ tires that JCA no longer controlled at
the time that it determined that a noncompliance existed in the subject
tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ JCA's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part 556,
requests an agency decision to exempt JCA as a manufacturer from the
notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 for
899,804 of the affected tires. However, the decision on this
petition does not relieve distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or
delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the
noncompliant tires under their control after JCA notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that JCA has
met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 119 labeling
noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, JCA's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted
from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the
subject noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

    Authority:  (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

    Issued on: November 18, 2011.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2011-30562 Filed 11-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P