[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 95 (Friday, May 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28581-28583]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11291]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72147; File No. SR-NYSE-2014-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Section 902.02 of the Listed Company Manual To Modify How It
Calculates Annual Fees for Certain Issuers in Their First Year of
Listing on the Exchange Which Will Result in Large Issuers Receiving a
Reduction in Their First Year's Annual Fee That Is Proportional to
Their Reduced Time Listed on the Exchange

May 12, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on May 6, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 902.02 of the Listed Company
Manual (the ``Manual'') to modify how it calculates annual fees for
certain issuers in their first year of listing on the Exchange. Such
modification will result in large issuers receiving a reduction in
their first year's annual fee that is proportional to their reduced
time listed on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 902.02 of the Manual to
modify how it calculates annual fees for certain issuers in their first
year of listing on the Exchange. Such modification will result in large
issuers receiving a reduction in their first year's annual fee that is
proportional to their reduced time listed on the Exchange.
    Pursuant to Section 902.02 of the Manual, listed companies are
charged an annual fee for each class or series of security listed on
the Exchange. The annual fee is calculated based on the number of
shares issued and outstanding, including treasury stock and restricted
stock.\4\ In its first year of listing, a company's annual fee is
prorated from the date of initial listing through the year end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Currently, the annual fee for a listed company's primary
class of common shares is $0.00093 per share, subject to a minimum
total annual fee of $42,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Listed companies also pay other fees to the Exchange, including
fees associated with initial and supplemental listing applications. In
any given calendar year, however, Section 902.02 of the Manual
specifies that the total fees that the Exchange may bill a listed
company are capped at $500,000 (the ``Total Maximum Fee''). Therefore,
a large company with a significant number of shares outstanding whose
annual fee would otherwise exceed $500,000 will only be billed the
Total Maximum Fee for that year. Similarly, a company whose annual fee
is below $500,000 will only incur additional fees (with respect to
supplemental listing applications, for example) up to the Total Maximum
Fee.
    As noted above, the Exchange prorates an [sic] company's annual fee
in its first year of listing. Currently, the Exchange determines a
newly listed company's prorated annual fee by calculating what the
company's annual fee would be if it were listed for the entire calendar
year and then charging only that percentage that corresponds to the
period from the date of initial listing through the year end. If a
listed company's prorated annual fee exceeds $500,000 it is only
charged that portion of the annual fee that, when aggregated with any
other fees it has already been billed by the Exchange, brings it to the
Total Maximum Fee, and it will not incur any additional fees during the
calendar year. If a company's prorated annual fee is below $500,000 it
would pay the full amount of such prorated annual fee and continue to
incur additional fees until it hits the Total Maximum Fee.
    By way of example, assume Company A lists on the Exchange on July
1. If Company A had been listed on the Exchange for the entire calendar
year, its annual fee would be $2,000,000. Because it will be listed for
only six months, however, Company A's annual fee is prorated to
$1,000,000. Under its current policy, the Exchange then applies the
Total Maximum Fee and bills Company A only $500,000 of its prorated
annual fee. Because Company A has hit the Total Maximum Fee, it will
not incur any additional fees (with respect to supplemental listing
applications, for example) during that calendar year.
    Assume Company B also lists on the Exchange on July 1. If Company B
had been listed on the Exchange for the entire calendar year, its
annual fee would be $800,000. Because it will be listed for only six
months, however, Company B's annual fee is prorated to $400,000. Under
the Exchange's current policy, Company B will be billed the $400,000
prorated annual fee and will continue to incur additional fees (with
respect to supplemental listing

applications, for example) until it hits the Total Maximum Fee.
    Assume Company C also lists on the Exchange on July 1. If Company C
had been listed on the Exchange for the entire calendar year, its
annual fee would be $400,000. Because it will be listed for only six
months, however, Company C's annual fee is prorated to $200,000.
Company C will be billed the $200,000 prorated annual fee and will
continue to incur additional fees (with respect to supplemental listing
applications, for example) until it hits the Total Maximum Fee.
    Because the Exchange has the Total Maximum Fee that it may charge
listed companies in any given calendar year, the Exchange proposes to
amend the manner in which it calculates a prorated annual fee during a
company's first year of listing. Instead of using a company's actual
annual fee (calculated on a per share basis) for purposes of
calculating a company's prorated annual fee and then reducing it to the
Total Maximum Fee as applicable, the Exchange proposes to use the
lesser of an issuer's annual fee and the Total Maximum Fee as the
starting point and prorate that figure for the period of time a company
is listed on the Exchange during its first year.
    Returning to the examples above and giving effect to the Exchange's
proposed policy, assume Company A lists on the Exchange on July 1. If
Company A had been listed on the Exchange for the entire calendar year,
its annual fee would be $2,000,000. Because of the Total Maximum Fee,
however, the most Company A can be billed in any calendar year is
$500,000. The Exchange therefore will prorate the Total Maximum Fee and
bill Company A an annual fee of $250,000 for the six months it is
listed on the Exchange in that first year. Company A will continue to
incur additional fees (with respect to supplemental listing
applications, for example) until it hits the Total Maximum Fee.
    Assume Company B also lists on the Exchange on July 1. If Company B
had been listed on the Exchange for the entire calendar year, its
annual fee would be $800,000. Because of the Total Maximum Fee,
however, the most Company B can be billed in any calendar year is
$500,000. Under its proposed new policy, therefore, the Exchange will
prorate the Total Maximum Fee and bill Company B an annual fee of
$250,000 for the six months it is listed on the Exchange in that first
year. Company B will continue to incur additional fees (with respect to
supplemental listing applications, for example) until it hits the Total
Maximum Fee.
    Assume Company C also lists on the Exchange on July 1. If Company C
had been listed on the Exchange for the entire calendar year, its
annual fee would be $400,000. Because Company C's annual fee is less
than the Total Maximum Fee, its prorated annual fee will be calculated
based on the entire $400,000. Accordingly, Company C's annual fee will
be prorated to $200,000 for the six months it is listed on the
Exchange. Company C will continue to incur additional fees (with
respect to supplemental listing applications, for example) until it
hits the Total Maximum Fee.
    The Exchange believes this proposed rule change more fairly and
equitably allocates listing fees because it would provide a pro rata
annual fee to all listed companies. Under the Exchange's current rules,
a large company whose prorated annual fee exceeds the Total Maximum Fee
still pays the Total Maximum Fee even though it is only listed for a
portion of a calendar year. That same large company will pay the exact
same annual fee during its second year of listing when it is listed for
a full twelve months. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change appropriately recognizes that a company should pay a reduced
annual fee in its first year of listing when it is only listed for a
portion of such year. Accordingly, the proposed rule change further
[sic] the Exchange's goal of proportionately allocating fees among
listed companies.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) \6\ of the Act, in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other
persons using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \7\ of the Act
in that it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to modify the way in
which it calculates a listed company's prorated annual fee in its first
year of listing. The Exchange's current practice results in certain
large issuers paying the same annual fee during their first year of
listing (when they may only be listed for a portion of the year) and
their second year of listing (when they are listed for the entire
twelve months). The Exchange's proposed rule change will result in
large issuers receiving a reduction in their first year's annual fee
that is proportional to their reduced time listed on the Exchange. The
Exchange believes such reduction results in a more equitable allocation
of fees. The proposed rule change is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination because all issuers listed on the exchange will now be
entitled to pay a pro rata annual fee in their first year of listing.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change simply
modifies the way in which the Exchange calculates prorated annual fees
for certain large issuers that are listed for less than an entire year.
Such modification will result in large issuers receiving a reduction in
their first year's annual fee that is proportional to their reduced
time listed on the Exchange. The proposed rule change ensures that the
Exchange has fair billing practices and can effectively compete for
listings. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
change will impose any burden on competition.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \9\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of

the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) \10\
of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2014-24 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2014-24. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE. 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-2014-24, and should be
submitted on or before June 6, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-11291 Filed 5-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 37039]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15019]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9690-6]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Delaware

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of
Delaware's request to revise its EPA-authorized program under the
``Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans''
requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations to allow electronic
reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective June 20, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evi Huffer, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1697<EMAIL_ADDRESS>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements. Once an authorized
program has EPA's approval to accept electronic documents under certain
programs, CROMERR Sec.  3.1000(a)(4) requires that the program keep EPA
apprised of any changes to laws, policies, or the electronic document
receiving systems that have the potential to affect the program's
compliance with CROMERR Sec.  3.2000.
    On August 19, 2011, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control (DE DNREC) submitted an amended application
titled ``Online Reporting System Electronic Document Receiving System''
for revision of its EPA-approved electronic reporting program under its
title 40 CFR part 52 authorized program to allow new electronic
reporting. EPA reviewed DE DNREC's request to revise its EPA-authorized
program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application
met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions set out
in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this
notice of EPA's decision to approve Delaware's request to revise its
Part 52--Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans authorized
program to allow electronic reporting of permits for minor sources
under 40 CFR parts 51, is being published in the Federal Register. DE
DNREC was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application
with respect to this authorized program.

    Dated: June 13, 2012.
Andrew Battin,
Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2012-15019 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 38237-38238]
[DOCID:fr03jy08-82]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1772-DR]

Minnesota; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-1772-DR), dated June 25,
2008, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 25, 2008.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated June 25, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under the
authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Minnesota resulting from severe storms and flooding beginning on
June 7, 2008, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Minnesota.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to
75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under
the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs, except for any particular
projects that are eligible for a higher Federal cost-sharing
percentage under the FEMA Public Assistance Pilot Program instituted
pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. If Other Needs Assistance under Section
408 of the Stafford Act is later requested and warranted, Federal
funding under that program also will be limited to 75 percent of the
total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Donald L. Keldsen, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Minnesota have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

    Fillmore, Freeborn, Houston, and Mower Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Minnesota are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-15123 Filed 7-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30084-30086]
[FR Doc No: E9-14854]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0390; FRL-8422-1]

Notice of Suspension of Certain Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice, pursuant to section 6(f)(2) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA), announces that certain Notices of Intent to Suspend issued by
EPA pursuant to section 3(c)(2)(B) of FIFRA have become final and
effective suspension orders. The Notices of Intent to Suspend were
issued following the Agency's issuance of a Data Call-In notice (DCI),
which required the registrant, Bonide Products Inc., of the affected
pesticide products containing the pesticide active ingredients carbaryl
and sodium acifluorfen to take appropriate steps to secure certain
data, and following the registrant's failure to submit these data or to
take other appropriate steps to secure the required data. The subject
data were determined to be required to maintain in effect the existing
registrations of the affected products. Failure to comply with the data
requirements of a DCI is a basis for suspension of the affected
registrations under section 3(c)(2)(B) of FIFRA.

DATES: Each Notice of Intent to Suspend included in this Federal
Register notice became a final and effective suspension order
automatically by operation of law 30 days after the date of the
registrant's receipt of the mailed Notice of Intent to Suspend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terria Northern, 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?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. 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 a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0390. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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.

II. Registrant Issued Notices of Intent to Suspend, Active Ingredients,
Products Affected, and Date Issued

    Each Notice of Intent to Suspend was sent via the U.S. Postal
Service (USPS) return receipt requested to the registrant for the
products listed in Table 1 of this unit.

                                                               Table 1. --List of Products
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Date EPA Issued        Date Registrant
        Registrant Affected             Active Ingredient       EPA Registration          Product Name       Notice of Intent to     Received Notice of
                                                                     Number                                        Suspend           Intent to Suspend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonide Products, Inc.                Carbaryl                4-142                   Grubtox Lawn and       February 5, 2009       February 9, 2009
                                                                                Insect Control
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonide Products, Inc.                Carbaryl                4-143                   Bonide Sevin 5% Dust   February 5, 2009       February 9, 2009
                                                                                Insecticide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonide Products, Inc.                Carbaryl                4-333                   Bonide Slug, Snail     February 5, 2009       February 9, 2009
                                                                                and Sowbug Bait
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonide Products, Inc.                Carbaryl                4-413                   Bonide Sevin Garden    February 5, 2009       February 9, 2009
                                                                                Dust
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonide Products, Inc.                Sodium acifluorfen      4-433                   KleenUp Grass & Weed   April 7, 2009          April 13, 2009
                                                                                Killer Ready to Use
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Basis for Issuance of Notice of Intent to Suspend; Requirement
List

    Bonide Products, Inc. received the carbaryl Notice of Intent to
Suspend on February 9, 2009, and the sodium acrifluorfen Notice of
Intent to Suspend on April 13, 2009, as evidenced by the USPS return
receipt cards. No requests for hearings were received concerning either
Notice of Intent to Suspend within the time frame specified by FIFRA
and in each of the issued Notice of Intent to Suspend. Bonide Products,
Inc. failed to submit the required data or information or to take other
appropriate steps to secure the required data for their pesticide
product as listed in Table 2 of this unit.

                                                             Table 2.--List of Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   OPPTS Harmonized
                                   Guideline  as Listed in    Requirement Name     Date EPA Issued     Date Registrant     Final Data Due       of Intent to
                                    Applicable DCI                                DCI            Received DCI            Date               Suspend

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-142                             830.6317            Storage Stability   March 10, 2005      April 1, 2005       April 16, 2008      No data received
                                  830.6320..........  Corrosion
                                                       Characteristics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-143                             830.6317            Storage Stability   March 10, 2005      April 1, 2005       April 16, 2008      No data received
                                  830.6320..........  Corrosion
                                                       Characteristics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-333                             830.6317            Storage Stability   March 10, 2005      April 1, 2005       April 16, 2008      No data received
                                  830.6320..........  Corrosion
                                                       Characteristics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-413                             830.6317            Storage Stability   March 10, 2005      April 1, 2005       April 16, 2008      No data received
                                  830.6320..........  Corrosion
                                                       Characteristics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-433                             830.1800            Enforcement         January 25, 2005    January 30, 2005    September 25, 2005  No data received
                                  830.6317..........   Analytical Method
                                  830.6320..........  Storage Stability.
                                                      Corrosion
                                                       Characteristics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Status of Products

    Effective March 7, 2009 (for EPA registration numbers 4-142, 4-143,
4-333, and 4-413), and May 7, 2009 (for EPA registration number 4-433),
the registrant subject to this notice, including all supplemental
registrants of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., may not legally
distribute, sell, use, offer for sale, hold for sale, ship, deliver for
shipment, or receive and (having so received) deliver or offer to
deliver, to any person, the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II.
Persons other than the registrant subject to this notice, as defined in
the preceding sentence, may continue to distribute, sell, use, offer
for sale, hold for sale, ship, deliver for shipment, or receive and
(having so received) deliver or offer to deliver, to any person, the
products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. Nothing in this notice
authorizes any person to distribute, sell, use, offer for sale, hold
for sale, ship, deliver for shipment, or receive and (having so
received) deliver or offer to deliver, to any person, the products
listed in Table 1 of Unit II. in any manner which would have been
unlawful prior to the suspension.
    If the registrations for the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II.
are currently suspended as a result of failure to comply with another
FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) Data Call-In notice or section 4 Data
Requirements notice, this notice will be in addition to any existing
suspension, i.e., all requirements which are the bases of the
suspension must be satisfied before the registration will be
reinstated.
    It is the responsibility of the basic registrant to notify all
supplementary registered distributors of a basic registered product
that this suspension action also applies to their supplementary
registered products. The basic registrant may be held liable for
violations committed by their distributors.
    Any questions about the requirements and procedures set forth in
this notice or in the subject FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) Data Call-In
notice, should be addressed to the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

VI. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    The Agency's authority for taking this action is contained in
sections 3(c)(2)(B) and 6(f)(2) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: June 17, 2009.
Richard P. Keigwin,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-14854 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

LEAD; MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE

RENOVATION, REPAIR, AND PAINTING PROGRAM

RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT

June 11, 2009

	The commenter expressed support for the RRP rule in general.  According
to the commenter:

“The RRP rule, by establishing the Renovator and Dust Sampling
Technician as two new training disciplines in the field of lead-based
paint and developing an in depth accreditation and certification program
for those who perform these tasks, has improved the level of protection
from environmental lead exposure for families with children across the
United States. It created necessary work practice standards that are to
be employed during renovation, repair, and painting activities. Such a
rule is a sure sign of progress as lead abatement regulations alone left
much of the issue unresolved. Through this effort, the Environmental
Protection Agency has developed an approach that not only minimizes the
costs and burdens associated with regulation, but also provides adequate
protection against lead-based paint hazards created by renovation
activities, of which the EPA itself estimates to regularly exceed 8
million projects annually.”

	“By requiring that all renovations subject to this rule only be
performed by certified firms, EPA has put in place a system of high
standards that will promote safer and more effective work practices.
Such a system also allows for EPA to establish a more progressive way to
classify a firm or individual renovator as being properly certified and
to ensure that these standards are upheld. The requirement that the RRP
puts forth for the completion of accredited training and certification
process for both renovators and dust sampling technicians is further
facilitated by the fact that they must possess a copy of the course
completion certificate at the job site.”

	EPA agrees, and thanks the commenter for his support.

	The commenter also expressed support for this amendment, by agreeing
that a renovator’s possession of a training certificate alone would
not be sufficient for EPA’s compliance monitoring efforts.  The
commenter also noted that that EPA inadvertently omitted the requirement
for post-course notifications from the final RRP rule.

	EPA agrees, and thanks the commenter for his support.

	The commenter also agreed that the requirement for accredited
lead-based paint activity training providers to submit a digital
photograph of each successful trainee to the EPA along with their
post-course notification was unnecessary and should be removed.

	EPA agrees, and thanks the commenter for his support.

	The commenter suggested that renovators be issued photo identification
cards (using the photo provided to EPA in the post-course notifications)
as a way for renovators to demonstrate their certification both on and
off the worksite. According to the commenter, this could increase the
initial cost of training courses, but the practicality of this approach
would provide opportunities to cut costs in the long term because a
photo identification card is easier to carry and is more likely to last
for the 5-year certification period than a paper certificate.

	EPA agrees that there must be a way to determine if a renovator has
completed a formal training course and is current with training
requirements.  EPA will include renovator and dust sampling technician
identifying and training information in the Agency’s Federal Lead
Paint Program (FLPP) database.  In addition, the final RRP rule requires
training programs to include a photograph of the individual who
completed training on their training certificate and to submit that
photo to the Agency to be included in the database record.  This will
enable compliance inspectors to determine whether a particular
individual has completed an accredited training course and is current
with training requirements.

 	With regard to the durability of the certificate, the final RRP rule
requires renovators and dust sampling technicians to have copies of
their initial and most recent refresher course completion certificates
with them at the work site.  They do not have to have the originals.  If
they are issued paper certificates, EPA recommends that certified
renovators and dust sampling technicians keep the originals in a safe
place and make copies of the certificates to carry with them to the work
site.

	The commenter notes that renovation firms must document that a
certified renovator was assigned to every renovation project, that the
certified renovator provided on-the-job training for other workers, and
that the certified renovator performed the cleaning verification and
performed or directed all other required tasks.  The commenter suggests
that, in the future, the photo identification cards could be “used in
conjunction with innovative on-the-job technology that could save time,
money and resources by enabling such reports to be submitted from the
worksite, directly into the database (as seen today with such
professions as package delivery companies).”

	EPA encourages renovation firms to use technology that facilitates
compliance with the RRP rule’s recordkeeping requirements.  EPA does
wish to clarify that, unlike lead-based paint abatement firms,
renovation firms are not required to submit project notifications to
EPA.  Renovation firms must maintain the records required by 40 CFR
745.86 and make them available to EPA’s compliance inspectors as
requested in connection with an inspection.

	The commenter states that there are no documents that can be used to
verify on-the-job worker training by a previous employer.  The commenter
suggests that EPA develop a “system wherein workers can be identified
based on their level of on-the-job training and years of experience.
Such a system would allow for more practiced individuals to earn a
higher grade as they continue to improve their skills.  With a uniform
system in place, not only would firms not have to waste man-hours
training a new individual who already has on-the-job experience due to a
lack of documentation, but also the workers themselves will be able to
have increased mobility within their respective professions, on both the
federal and state level.”

	As EPA noted in response to similar comments on the RRP rule, because
each worker may not receive training in all aspects of the work
practices, a certificate or other form of training completion that would
indicate an employee’s on-the-job training (OJT) is complete would not
necessarily be transferable between jobs and therefore is not
appropriate for this program.  EPA did not intend OJT to be as portable
as certified renovator training.  Certified renovators will generally
have to provide OJT each time a new worker is used, or whenever the
nature of the work to be performed varies.  EPA believes that this will
serve as an incentive for firms to have their permanent employees
trained as certified renovators.  As the RRP program begins to be
implemented, many renovation workers may be trained on the job, but
eventually the majority of workers are likely to receive formal
renovator training.  This will provide the greatest degree of
flexibility for firms, and ensure high levels of compliance with the
final RRP rule work practice requirements and increased oversight for
remaining employees trained on the job.

	The commenter asked whether renovators are required to formally report
homes where children and/or pregnant women reside that have not been
through the lead-based paint abatement process.

	None of EPA’s regulations require the abatement of lead-based paint
or lead-based paint hazards.  Once a decision has been made to perform
an abatement, EPA’s Lead-Based Paint Activities Regulations (40 CFR
part 745, subpart L) prescribe who may perform the abatement and
establish basic parameters for performance.  Because there is no EPA
requirement to perform abatements, there is no EPA requirement to report
houses that have not been abated.

	The commenter also expressed interest in learning what steps are being
taken to ensure that renovators are being protected from the increased
risk of lead exposure.

	The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) has
regulations that address lead exposure on the job.  Information on the
OSHA regulations can be found at:
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/lead/index.html

	Finally, the commenter stated that “the withdrawal of a renovator or
firm’s certification is the most significant penalty mentioned in this
rule if the regulatory standards are not upheld,” and expressed a wish
that the penalties be more strict.

In addition to the withdrawal or suspension of certification, EPA would
like to direct the commenter’s attention to Section 409 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA).  This section states that it is unlawful
for any person to fail or refuse to comply with a provision of
subchapter IV of TSCA or with any rule or order issued under subchapter
IV of TSCA.  The final RRP rule was promulgated under Section 402(c)(3)
of TSCA, so failure to comply with the RRP rule is an unlawful act.
Under Section 16 of TSCA, persons who commit unlawful acts under Section
409 of TSCA may be subject to civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day
per violation and/or criminal fines of up to $25,000 per day per
violation and/or imprisonment.