24458 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0161. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0161. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0161. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0161. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the registration activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. Registration Applications EPA received an application as follows to register a pesticide product containing an active ingredient not included in any previously registered product pursuant to the provision of section 3( c)( 4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of this application does not imply a decision by the Agency on the application.

Product Containing an Active Ingredient Not Included in Any Previously Registered Product File Symbol: 72431   R. Applicant: Jeneil Biosurfactant Company, 400 N. Dekora Woods Boulevard, Saukville, WI 53080. Product name: Zonix Biofungicide. Type of product: Biochemical fungicide. Active ingredient: Rhamnolipid biosurfactant ( decanoic acid, 3[[ 6 deoxy 2 O( 6 deoxy alpha L mannopyranosyl) alpha L mannopyranosyl] oxy], 1 ( carboxymethyl) octyl ester, mixture with 1( carboxymethyl) octyl 3[( 6 deoxy alpha Lmannopyranosyl oxy] decanoate). Proposed classification/ Use: None. For horticultural and agricultural use to control zoosporic plant pathogenic fungi.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

Dated: April 24, 2003. Sheryl K. Reilly, Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 03   11003 Filed 5   6   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0139; FRL   7303   7]

Thiacloprid; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0139, must be received on or before June 6, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Mautz, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1 24459 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   6785; e mail address: mautz. marilyn@ epa. gov.

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:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 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 Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0139. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0139. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1 24460 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0139. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0139. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0139. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA has received a pesticide petition ( PP) as follows proposing the establishment and/ or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408( d)( 2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 22, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Summary of Petition The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408( d)( 3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

Bayer CropScience and IR 4 PP# 9F6060 and PP# 3E6546 EPA has received PP# 9F6060 from Bayer CropScience ( formerly, Bayer Corporation, 8400 Hawthorn Rd., P. O. Box 4913, Kansas City, MO 64120), P. O. Box 12014, 2 T. W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, and PP# 3E6546 from Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR 4), 681 U. S. Highway # 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902 proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of FFDCA, 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide thiacloprid ([ 3[( 6 chloro 3 pyridinyl) methyl] 2 thiazolidinylidene] cyanamide ( CAS No. 111988   49   9)) in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Bayer Petition ( PP# 9F6060) proposes to establish tolerances for: Apple, wet pomace at 0.6 parts per million ( ppm). Cattle, meat at 0.2 ppm. Cattle, meat byproducts at 0.2 ppm. Cotton, gin byproducts at 11.0 ppm. Cotton, undelinted seed at 1.0 ppm. Fruit, pomace, group 11 at 0.3 ppm. Milk at 0.1 ppm. IR 4 Petition ( PP# 3E6546) proposes to establish tolerances for: Fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.5 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. In plants, the metabolism of thiacloprid is adequately understood for the purposes of VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1 24461 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices establishing these proposed tolerances. Unchanged parent thiacloprid accounted for 70% or greater of the residues in all plant metabolism studies ( cotton, tomato, and apple), with the exception of the material identified in cotton seed. In cotton seed, the main component was the 6 chloronicotinic acid metabolite, accounting for 45.8%. All residues contained the 6 chloropyridinyl moiety. In animals, parent thiacloprid was the major component in all edible tissues, milk, and eggs. All residues and metabolites in the animal tissues contained the 6 chloro pyridinyl moiety, same as in the plant tissues. Therefore, the residues of concern are the combined residues of thiacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6 chloro pyridinyl moiety, all calculated as thiacloprid. 2. Analytical method. The analytical method for determining residues in pome fruit and cotton samples is a common moiety method for thiacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6 chloro pyridinyl moiety. This method utilizes oxidation, derivatization, and analysis by capillary gas chromatography with a mass selective ( MS) detector. There is a confirmatory method specific for thiacloprid and several metabolites utilizing high performance liquid chromatography ( HPLC) with Electrospray MS/ MSdetection This HPLC/ MS MS method was used for analysis of the stone fruit samples. Thiacloprid and its metabolites are stable in cotton and pome fruit commodities for at least 24 months and in stone fruit commodities for at least 10 months when the commodities are frozen. 3. Magnitude of residues   Cotton   Field trials were conducted with cotton in 12 different locations, representing 6 different EPA regions. Three foliar applications were made to mature cotton plants at a rate of 0.1 lb active ingredient/ acre ( a. i./ A) with 3 to 11 days between applications. The pre harvest interval ( PHI) ranged from 12 to 20 days. The highest average field trial was 0.73 ppm in undelinted cotton seed. For gin trash, the HAFT residue was 10.10 ppm. The processing study, conducted with cottonseed, indicated no concentration in any cottonseed processed commodities. Pome fruit ( apple/ pear)   A total of 18 field trials ( 12 apple and 6 pear) were conducted in 6 different EPA regions. Applications were made as groundbased foliar sprays at 0.25 lb ai/ A with 6 to 8 day intervals. The highest residue at 30 day PHI was 0.277 ppm, in apples. The highest residue at a 45 day PHI was 0.258 ppm, occurring in pears. Although residues in pome fruit did not consistently decline in relation to sampling intervals, residues were generally lower at the longer PHI ( 45 days) in harvest experiments. In the apple processing study, residues concentrated in the wet pomace ( 1.8X) but did not concentrate in the apple juice. A home processing study indicated significant reduction in residues. Stone fruits ( sweet cherry/ peach/ plum)   A total of 24 field trials ( 7 sweet cherry, 11 peach, and 6 plum) were conducted in different EPA regions ( 3 for sweet cherry, 7 for peach, and 3 for plum). Applications were made as ground based foliar sprays at 0.25 lb ai/ A with 6 to 8 day intervals. The highest residue at the 14 day PHI was 0.423 ppm, in peaches. The highest residue at a 28 day PHI was 0.359 ppm, occurring in peaches. Residues in stone fruit raw agricultural commodities ( RACs) consistently declined in relation to sampling intervals, with lower residues at the longer PHI ( 28 days).

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. The acute oral LD50 values for thiacloprid technical ranged from 444 ( female) to 836 ( male) milligram/ kilogram ( mg/ kg) in the rat. The acute dermal LD50 was greater than 2,000 mg/ kg in rats. The 4 hour rat inhalation LD50 ranged from 1,223 ( female) to > 2,535 ( male) mg/ meter cubed ( m3) air ( aerosol). Thiacloprid was not irritating to rabbit skin or eyes. Thiacloprid did not cause skin sensitization in guinea pigs. 2. Genotoxicty. Extensive mutagenicity studies conducted to investigate point and gene mutations, DNA damage and chromosomal aberration show thiacloprid to be nongenotoxic 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a 2 generation reproduction study, Sprague Dawley rats were administered dietary levels of thiacloprid at levels of 0, 50, 300, and 600 ppm. The no observed adverseeffect levels ( NOAELs) for reproductive parameters was established at 50 ppm, based on increased liver and thyroid weight gains in the parental and F1 generations. A developmental toxicity study was conducted with Wistar rats gavaged at 0, 2, 10, and 50 mg/ kg. The following NOAELs were determined: Maternal toxicity, 10 mg/ kg/ day and developmental toxicity, 10 mg/ kg/ day. A developmental toxicity study was conducted with rabbits treated orally by gavage at 0, 2, 10, and 45 mg/ kg. The following NOAELs were determined: Maternal toxicity, 2 mg/ kg/ body weight ( bwt)/ day and developmental toxicity, 2 mg/ kg/ day. From the developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, no primary developmental toxic potential could be derived. Additionally, a developmental neurotoxicity study was conducted at dietary doses of 0, 50, 300, or 500 ppm in the female Sprague Dawley rat. The targeted concentration of 50 ppm was considered a NOAEL for maternal toxicity and the F1 offspring. No specific neurobehavioral effects in the offspring were identified up to and including the highest dose tested of 500 ppm. 4. Subchronic toxicity. 90 day feeding studies were conducted in rats, mice, and dogs. In the subchronic rat and dog studies, the demonstrated NOAELs were 25 ppm and 1,000 ppm, respectively. The subchronic mouse study did not demonstrate a NOAEL at the lowest level ( 50 ppm) tested. 5. Chronic toxicity. A 2 year rat chronic toxicity/ oncogenicity study demonstrated a NOAEL of 25 ppm. Liver enzyme induction occurred at doses of > 50 ppm. A 2 year mice oncogenicity demonstrated a NOAEL at the lowest dose of 30 ppm. A 1 year chronic toxicity study in dogs demonstrated a NOAEL of 250 ppm, with slight prostatic weight increases in some of the 1,000 ppm animals ( possibly due to different maturation in the animals) being the only treatmentrelated findings. There is significant evidence that thiacloprid is not acting through a genetic mechanism ( all genotoxicity studies are negative). Thiacloprid should be managed using a margin of exposure extrapolation. The dose response to thiacloprid shows the following pattern: First, at lower dose levels, thiacloprid induces liver enzymes. At moderate dose levels in animals, it increases liver enzymes and aromatase is induced. At the highest dose levels, repeated administration of thiacloprid induces liver enzymes, including aromatase, which leads to hormonal effects such as elevated estrogen levels, which indirectly cause uterine tumors in rats and ovarian luteomas in mice. High dose thyroid tumors seen in the chronic rat study were determined to be related to thyroid hormone imbalance and not a direct effect of thiacloprid. 6. Animal metabolism. In animals, parent thiacloprid was the major component in all edible tissues, milk, and eggs. All residues and metabolites in the animal tissues contained the 6 chloro pyridinyl moiety, same as in the plant tissues. Therefore, the residues of concern are the combined residues of thiacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6 chloro pyridinyl moiety, all calculated as thiacloprid.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1 24462 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices 7. Metabolite toxicology. Two specific metabolites, KKO 2254 and WAK 6999, were examined toxicologically. In addition to negative Ames tests, the acute toxicological potential for both sexes, as measured by LD50, was determined to be > 2,000 mg/ kg for both metabolites. In light of these findings no special toxicological concerns, exceeding that of thiacloprid, would be expected from the metabolites of the parent compound 8. Endocrine disruption. The toxicology database for thiacloprid is current and complete. Studies in this database include evaluation of the potential effects on reproduction and development and an evaluation of the pathology of the endocrine organs following short or long term exposure.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. Acute and chronic dietary analyses were conducted to estimate exposure to potential thiacloprid residues in/ on the following crops: Fruit, pome, group; fruit, stone, group; and cotton using the DEEMT software ( Version 7.76) from Exponent, Inc. The 94   94,98 CSFII consumption database was used along with anticipated residues and processing factors where available. Projected percent crop treated values were incorporated into both the acute and chronic dietary exposure analyses at 20%, 10%, and 5% for pome fruit, stone fruit, and cotton, respectively. Exposure estimates to water were made based upon modeling. The acute reference dose ( aRfD) ( aRfD = 0.031 mg/ kg/ bwt/ day) was based upon an acute NOEL of 3.1 mg/ kg/ bwt/ day from the acute oral neurotoxicity study in rats and an uncertainty factor of 100. The chronic reference dose ( cRfd) ( cRfD = 0.012 mg/ kg/ bwt/ day) was based upon a chronic NOEL of 1.2 mg/ kg/ bwt/ day and an uncertainty factor of 100. i. Food. The acute dietary exposure estimates at the 99.9th percentile for the U. S. population was calculated to be approximately 7% of the aRfD. The population subgroup with the highest exposure was non nursing infants (< 1year old) at approximately 15% of the aRfD. Chronic dietary exposure estimates from residues of thiacloprid for the U. S. population was 0.2% of the cRfD. The population subgroup with the highest exposure was non nursing infants with 1% of the cRfD utilized. ii. Drinking water. EPA's Standard Operating Procedure ( SOP) for Drinking Water Exposure and Risk Assessments was used to perform the drinking water analysis for thiacloprid. This SOP utilizes a variety of tools to conduct drinking water assessment. These tools include water models such as SCIGROW FIRST, GENEEC, PRZM/ EXAMS, and monitoring data. If monitoring data are not available then the models are used to predict potential residues in surface water and ground water. In the case of thiacloprid, monitoring data do not exist, therefore, FIRST and SCIGROW models were used to estimate a water residue. The calculated drinking water levels of comparison ( DWLOC) for acute and chronic exposures for all adults and children greatly exceed the modeled thiacloprid drinking water estimated concentrations ( DWEC). The acute DWLOC values are 1013 parts per billion ( ppb) for adults ( U. S. population) and 267 ppb for children. The worst case DWEC for acute scenarios is calculated to be 10.95 ppb using the FIRST surface water model. The chronic DWLOC values are 430 ppb for adults and 122 ppb for children. The DWEC for the worst case chronic scenario is 0.62 ppb ( FIRST). 2. Non dietary exposure. There are no current plans to support thiacloprid uses on turf or ornamental plants, including homeowner uses.

D. Cumulative Effects Thiacloprid is thought to be part of a class of chemistry called the chloronicotinyls For this class of chemistry and it's registered compounds EPA has not yet conducted a detailed review of common mechanisms to determine whether it is appropriate, or how to include these chemicals in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, thiacloprid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of these tolerance actions; therefore, EPA has not assumed that thiacloprid has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. Using the conservative exposure assumptions described in Unit C. of this petition and based on the completeness of the toxicity data, it can be concluded that acute dietary exposure to residues of thiacloprid from all proposed uses will utilize less than 7% of the aRfD for the U. S. population and 15% of the aRfD for the most highly exposed subpopulation ( non nursing infants). EPA generally has no concerns for exposures below 100% of the reference dose ( RfD), because the RfD represents the level at or below which exposure will not pose any appreciable risk to human health. Additionally, the acute DWLOC was calculated to be nearly 100 time greater than thiacloprid residues in water predicted by conservative models. The chronic dietary exposure occupies 0.2% of the cRfD for the U. S. population and 1% of the cRfD for the most highly exposed subpopulation ( non nursing infants). EPA generally has no concerns for exposures below 100% of the RfD, because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health. The chronic DWLOC was calculated to be nearly 700 and 200 times greater than the thiacloprid residues in water predicted by conservative models. Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general U. S. population from aggregate acute or chronic exposure to thiacloprid residues from proposed uses. 2. Infants and children. In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of thiacloprid, the data from developmental studies in both rat and rabbit and a 2 generation reproduction study in rats have been considered. The developmental toxicity studies evaluate potential adverse effects on the developing animal resulting from pesticide exposure of the mother during prenatal development. The reproduction study evaluates effects from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating animals through 2 generations, as well as any observed systemic toxicity. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA may apply an additional safety factor for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for pre and post natal effects and the completeness of the toxicity database. Based on current toxicological data requirements, the toxicology database for thiacloprid relative to pre and post natal effects is complete. Further for thiacloprid, the NOEL of 1.2 mg/ kg/ bwt/ day from the 2 year chronic toxicity/ carcinogenicity study, which was used to calculate the cRfD ( discussed in Unit C. 1. of this petition), is already lower than the NOELs from the developmental studies in rats ( 10 mg/ kg/ bwt/ day) and rabbits ( 2 mg/ kg/ bwt/ day) and lower than the NOEL from the 2 year reproductive toxicity study in rats ( 50 mg/ kg/ bwt/ day). Since a 100 fold uncertainty factor is already used to calculate the RfD, an additional safety factor for infants and children is not warranted. Using the conservative exposure assumptions described in Unit C. of this petition, Bayer CropScience has concluded that the total aggregate exposure to thiacloprid from all VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1 24463 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices proposed uses will utilize at most 15% of the aRfD and 1% of the cRfD even for the most highly exposed population subgroups ( non nursing infants). Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from the currently proposed uses of thiacloprid.

F. International Tolerances No CODEX Maximum Residue Levels ( MRL's) have been established for residues of thiacloprid on any crops at this time.

[ FR Doc. 03   11200 Filed 5   6   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0156; FRL   7305   7]

Cyazofamid; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0156, must be received on or before June 6, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McNeilly, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   6742]; e mail address: mcneilly. dennis@ epa. gov.

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:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 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 Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. EPA Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP   2003   0156. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although, a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in EPA dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27108-27110]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11362]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64405; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-042]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Retroactive Waiver of PAR Official Fees

May 4, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on April 25, 2011, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' 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 CBOE. 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

    Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or
``Exchange'') proposes to retroactively waive PAR Official Fees for the
month of February 2011. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at
the Exchange's Office of the Secretary 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, CBOE 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. CBOE 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
    The Exchange proposes to retroactively waive PAR Official Fees for
the month of February 2011.

Background

    The Exchange established PAR Official \3\ Fees in January 2011.\4\
These fees apply to all orders executed by a PAR Official, except for
customer orders (``C'' origin code) that are not directly routed to the
trading floor (an order that is directly routed to the trading floor is
directed to a PAR Official for manual handling by use of a field on the
order ticket). The PAR Official Fees established in January 2011 were
$.02 per contract and a discounted rate of $.01 per contract for
crossed orders.\5\ PAR Official Fees help to offset the Exchange's
costs of providing PAR Official services (e.g., salaries, etc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A PAR Official is an Exchange employee or independent
contractor whom the Exchange may designate as being responsible for
(i) operating the PAR workstation in a Designated Primary Market-
Maker trading crowd with respect to the classes of options assigned
to him/her; (ii) when applicable, maintaining the book with respect
to the classes of options assigned to him/her; and (iii) effecting
proper executions of orders placed with him/her. The PAR Official
may not be affiliated with any Trading Permit Holder that is
approved to act as a Market-Maker. See CBOE Rule 7.12.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67301 (January 11,
2011), 76 FR 2934 (January 18, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2010-116).
    \5\ PAR Official Fees for crossed orders, like Floor Brokerage
Fees, are assessed at a discounted rate because these fees are
assessed ``per side'' and thus, these fees are equal to the amount
assessed for one standard (non-crossed) order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After establishing PAR Official Fees, the Exchange became concerned
that the PAR Official Fee structure did not allocate these fees to take
into consideration the amount that Trading Permit Holders rely on PAR
Officials such that those Trading Permit Holders that incidentally use
PAR Officials were assessed the same fee as Trading Permit Holders that
routinely conduct their business through PAR Officials and rely heavily
on PAR Officials for the execution of orders. Reliance on PAR Officials
as the primary means of execution is inconsistent with the Exchange's
intent to provide PAR Official services as a supplementary means of
execution for incidental orders. Heavy reliance on PAR Officials
subjects the Exchange to the additional expense and undue strain of
providing the additional staffing of PAR Officials.
    PAR Official Fees compensate the Exchange for providing overflow
services to order originating firms or, as applicable, executing firms,
particularly Floor Brokers,\6\ when they do not have personnel
available to act as agent. Some Trading Permit Holders or TPH
organizations obtain only one or two Floor Broker Trading Permits,
making it unlikely that, regardless of business level, they could cover
all locations on the Exchange and thus rely on CBOE personnel as part
of the Floor Broker's daily, ongoing business operations. The Exchange
believes that those firms that rely heavily on PAR Officials to conduct
their floor brokerage business, such that PAR Officials execute more
than an incidental number of orders on their behalf, may obtain a
minimum number of Trading Permits to access the floor. Thus, these
firms subsidize their floor brokerage operations at CBOE's expense in
that PAR Officials are either contractors paid by CBOE or CBOE
employees. Trading Permit Holders that adequately staff their business
operations and rely incidentally on PAR Officials incur higher costs to
retain a sufficient number of Trading Permits.\7\ The Exchange
determined such Trading Permit Holders should not be subject to the
same amount for PAR Official Fees incurred by a Trading Permit Holder
that relies disproportionately on PAR Officials to conduct its floor
brokerage business because it does not maintain

an adequate number of Trading Permits to conduct its floor brokerage
business and further, is not subject to the cost of the additional
Trading Permits required to adequately staff its business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CBOE Rule 6.70 provides: ``A Floor Broker is an individual
(either a Trading Permit Holder or a nominee of a TPH organization)
who is registered with the Exchange for the purpose, while on the
Exchange floor, of accepting and executing orders received from
Trading Permit Holders or from registered broker-dealers. A Floor
Broker shall not accept an order from any other source unless he is
the nominee of a TPH organization approved to transact business with
the public in accordance with Rule 9.1. In the event the
organization is approved pursuant to Rule 9.1, a Floor Broker who is
the nominee of such organization may then accept orders directly
from public customers where (i) the organization clears and carries
the customer account or (ii) the organization has entered into an
agreement with the public customer to execute orders on its behalf.
Among the requirements a Floor Broker must meet in order to register
pursuant to Rule 9.1 is the successful completion of an examination
for the purpose of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of the
securities business.''
    \7\ For example, pursuant to Section 10 of CBOE's Fees Schedule,
Floor Broker Trading Permit Holders are subject to a $6,000 per
month Trading Permit Fee. A Floor Broker Trading Permit Holder that
requires ten Floor Broker Trading Permits to adequately staff its
business is subject to a cost of $60,000 per month for Trading
Permit Fees (totaling $720,000 per year). By comparison, a Trading
Permit Holder that routes the majority of its orders to PAR
Officials for execution and maintains one Trading Permit is subject
to a $6,000 per month Trading Permit Fee ($72,000 annually).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons above, the Exchange determined to change the manner
in which it assessed PAR Official Fees such that PAR Official Fees
would be reduced or eliminated for those Trading Permit Holders that
maintain sufficient staff to manage their floor brokerage operations
and thus, do not rely heavily on PAR Officials to execute their orders.
On February 1, 2011, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to waive
PAR Official Fees for any affiliated Trading Permit Holders that have
ten or more Floor Broker Trading Permits throughout the calendar
month.\8\ The change did not become effective. To minimize disruption
while the Exchange continued to consider changes to the PAR Official
Fees, the Exchange announced that it would not collect any PAR Official
Fees for the month of February 2011.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See CBOE Regulatory Circular RG11-021.
    \9\ See CBOE Regulatory Circular RG11-026 dated February 9,
2011. The Exchange collects PAR Official Fees in arrears at the end
of each month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE subsequently amended its Fees Schedule effective March 1,
2011, to assess PAR Official Fees in Volatility Index Options in the
amount of $.03 per contract for standard (non-crossed) orders and $.015
per contract for all crossed orders (per side) and to waive PAR
Official Fees for all classes except Volatility Index Options for March
2011.\10\ The Exchange amended its Fees Schedule effective April 1,
2011 to establish volume threshold tiers for the assessment of PAR
Official Fees based on the percentage of volume that is effected by a
PAR Official on behalf of an order originating firm or, as applicable,
an executing firm.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64070 (March 11,
2011), 76 FR 15025 (March 18, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-022).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64217 (April 6,
2011), 76 FR 20793 (April 13, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-030).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Waiver

    As described above, the Exchange did not collect any PAR Official
Fees for February 2011 as it was considering changes in the manner in
which it would assess the fees. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
waive PAR Official Fees in all options classes for all firms for the
month of February 2011. Since the Exchange did not collect any PAR
Official Fees for February 2011, the Exchange is not proposing to
rebate any fees.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \12\, in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \13\ of the Act
in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE
Trading Permit Holders. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is equitable, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory in
that, in general, the Exchange decided to waive PAR Official Fees for
the month of February 2011 while it considered a way to more equitably
and reasonably assess the PAR Official Fees to those Trading Permit
Holders that rely more heavily on PAR Officials to conduct their floor
brokerage business. After establishing flat per contract PAR Official
Fees, the Exchange became concerned that the flat per contract fees did
not provide an incentive for firms to adequately staff their business
as each Trading Permit Holder was currently assessed the same PAR
Official Fees. To minimize disruption while the Exchange continued to
consider changes to the PAR Official Fees, and to avoid assessing fees
that the Exchange believed could be more equitably and reasonably
assessed, the Exchange announced that it would not collect any PAR
Official Fees for the month of February 2011.\14\ The Exchange
ultimately amended its Fees Schedule effective April 1, 2011 to
establish volume threshold tiers for the assessment of PAR Official
Fees based on the percentage of volume that is effected by a PAR
Official on behalf of an order originating firm or, as applicable, an
executing firm.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \14\ Supra Footnote 9.
    \15\ Supra Footnote 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposal to
retroactively waive PAR Official Fees for the month of February 2011 is
equitable and reasonable in that the waiver will apply in all options
classes and to all firms. No PAR Official Fees will be collected for
the month of February 2011 from any firm. The Exchange notes that CBOE
Trading Permit Holders were provided with notice of the fee waiver on
February 9, 2011, and were thus aware for most of the month of February
that PAR Official Fees would not be assessed for that month.\16\ The
Exchange believes that during the time period from February 1 to
February 9, 2011, it is unlikely that any Trading Permit Holder made a
trading decision based on a belief that the PAR Official Fees would be
assessed during that time period. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that retroactive waiver of the fee will not result in any
unfair discrimination with respect to any firm or group of firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Supra Footnote 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. CBOE has provided
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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2011-042 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-CBOE-2011-042. 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2011-042 and should be
submitted on or before May 31, 2011.

    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. 2011-11362 Filed 5-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38886-38887]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16110]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9913-52-OECA]

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification of
Public Teleconference Meeting and Public Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notification of Public Teleconference Meeting and Public
Comment.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public
Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby
provides notice that the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC) will host a public teleconference meeting on Thursday,
July 17, 2014, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The primary
topics of discussion will be (1) recommendations for EPA's
environmental justice policy on Tribes and Indigenous peoples, (2) a
follow-up discussion about additional recommendations about ensuring
environmental justice in goods movement, and (3) updates from NEJAC
workgroups.
    There will be a public comment period from 3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments
relevant to the topics of the meeting.
    For additional information about registering to attend the meeting
or to provide public comment, please see the ``Registration'' and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections below. Due to a limited number of
telephone lines, attendance will be on a first-come, first served
basis. Pre-registration is required. Registration for the
teleconference meeting closes at Noon Eastern Time on Monday, July 14,
2014. The deadline to sign up to speak during the public comment
period, or to submit written public comments, is also Noon, Monday,
July 14, 2014.

DATES: The NEJAC teleconference meeting on Thursday, July 17, 2014,
will begin promptly at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
    Registration: Registrations will be processed at <http://nejac-july2014.eventbrite.com.> When registering, please provide your name,
organization, city and state, email address, and telephone number for
follow up. Please also state whether you would like to be put on the
list to provide public comment, and whether you are submitting written
comments before the Monday, July 14, 2014, noon deadline. Non-English
speaking attendees wishing to arrange for a foreign language
interpreter may also make appropriate arrangements using the email
address or telephone/fax number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions or correspondence concerning
the teleconference meeting should be directed to Jasmin Muriel, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, by mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW. (MC2201A), Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>; via
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Additional
information about the NEJAC is available at: www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/nejac.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Charter of the NEJAC states that the
advisory committee shall provide independent advice to the
Administrator on areas that may include, among other things, ``advice
about broad, cross-cutting issues related to environmental justice,
including environment-related strategic, scientific, technological,
regulatory, and economic issues related to environmental justice.''
    A. Public Comment: Members of the public who wish to provide public
comment during the Thursday, July 17, 2014, public teleconference
meeting must pre-register by Noon Eastern Time on Friday July 11, 2014.
Individuals or groups making remarks during the public comment period
will be limited to seven (7) minutes. To accommodate the number of
people who want to address the NEJAC, only one representative of a
particular community, organization, or group will be allowed to speak.
Written comments can also be submitted for the record. The suggested
format for individuals providing public comments is as follows: name of
speaker; name of organization/community; city and state; and email
address; brief description of the concern, and what you want the NEJAC
to advise EPA to do. Written comments received by Noon Eastern Time on
Monday, July 14, 2014, will be included in the materials distributed to
the NEJAC prior to the teleconference. Written comments received after
that time will be provided to the NEJAC as time allows. All written
comments should be sent to Jasmin Muriel, EPA, via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    B. Information about Services for Individuals with Disabilities:
For information about access or services for individuals with
disabilities, please contact Jasmin Muriel, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request special accommodations for a
disability, please contact Ms. Muriel at least four working days prior
to the meeting, to give EPA sufficient time to process your request.
All requests should be sent to the address, email, or phone/fax number
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Dated: June 30, 2014.
Jasmin Muriel,
Designated Federal Officer, Office of Environmental Justice, U.S. EPA.
[FR Doc. 2014-16110 Filed 7-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Letter and supporting documents concern refractories operations for Zircoa with Material Data Safety Sheets for raw materials Ohio USEPA permits.