[Federal Register: October 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 63752-63754]
[DOCID:fr27oc08-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58818; File No. 4-569]

Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to
Rule 17d-2; Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for the
Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. and BATS Exchange, Inc.

October 20, 2008.
    On August 27, 2008, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') and the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') (together
with BATS, the ``Parties'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to section 17(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 17d-2
thereunder,\2\ a plan for the allocation of regulatory
responsibilities, dated August 25, 2008 (``17d-2 Plan'' or the
``Plan''). The Plan was published for comment on September 24, 2008.\3\
The Commission received no comments on the Plan. This order approves
and declares effective the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58563 (September 17,
2008), 73 FR 55180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Introduction

    Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,\4\ among other things, requires every
self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') registered as either a national
securities exchange or national securities association to examine for,
and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with its
members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility
pursuant to section 17(d) or section 19(g)(2) of the Act.\5\ Without
this relief, the statutory obligation of each individual SRO could
result in a pattern of multiple examinations of broker-dealers that
maintain memberships in more than one SRO (``common members''). Such
regulatory duplication would add unnecessary expenses for common
members and their SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d) and 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17(d)(1) of the Act \6\ was intended, in part, to eliminate
unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication.\7\ With
respect to a common member, section 17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission,
by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the responsibility to receive
regulatory reports, to examine for and enforce compliance with
applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, or to perform other
specified regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1).
    \7\ See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S.
249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules:
Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\8\ Rule 17d-1 authorizes the
Commission to name a single SRO as the designated examining authority
(``DEA'') to examine common members for compliance with the financial
responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or SRO
rules.\9\ When an SRO has been named as a common member's DEA, all
other SROs to which the common member belongs are relieved of the
responsibility to examine the firm for compliance with the applicable
financial responsibility rules. On its face, Rule 17d-1 deals only with
an SRO's obligations to enforce member compliance with financial
responsibility requirements. Rule 17d-1 does not relieve an SRO from
its obligation to examine a common member for compliance with its own
rules and provisions of the federal securities laws governing matters
other than financial responsibility, including sales practices and
trading activities and practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1 and 17 CFR 240.17d-2, respectively.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12352 (April 20,
1976), 41 FR 18808 (May 7, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the
Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\10\ Rule 17d-2 permits
SROs to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory
responsibilities with respect to their common members. Under paragraph
(c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may declare such a plan effective if,
after providing for appropriate notice and comment, it

determines that the plan is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and for the protection of investors; to foster cooperation and
coordination among the SROs; to remove impediments to, and foster the
development of, a national market system and a national clearance and
settlement system; and is in conformity with the factors set forth in
section 17(d) of the Act. Commission approval of a plan filed pursuant
to Rule 17d-2 relieves an SRO of those regulatory responsibilities
allocated by the plan to another SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12935 (October 28,
1976), 41 FR 49091 (November 8, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Plan

    The proposed 17d-2 Plan is intended to reduce regulatory
duplication for firms that are common members of both BATS and FINRA.
Pursuant to the proposed 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume certain
examination and enforcement responsibilities for those BATS members
that are also members of FINRA and the associated persons therewith
(``Dual Members'') with respect to certain applicable laws, rules, and
regulations.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Paragraph 1(c) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan (defining
``Dual Members'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the Plan delineates the proposed regulatory
responsibilities with respect to the Parties. Included in the proposed
Plan is an exhibit (the ``BATS Exchange Rules Certification for 17d-2
Agreement with FINFA,'' referred to herein as the ``Certification'')
that lists every BATS rule, and select federal securities laws, rules,
and regulations, for which FINRA would bear responsibility under the
Plan for overseeing and enforcing with respect to Dual Members.
    Specifically, under the 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume examination
and enforcement responsibility relating to compliance by Dual Members
with the rules of BATS that are substantially similar to the applicable
rules of FINRA, as well as any provisions of the federal securities
laws and the rules and regulations thereunder delineated in the
Certification (``Common Rules''). Common Rules would not include the
application of any BATS rule or FINRA rule, or any rule or regulation
under the Act, to the extent that it pertains to violations of insider
trading activities, because such matters are covered by a separate
multiparty agreement under Rule 17d-2.\12\ In the event that a Dual
Member is the subject of an investigation relating to a transaction on
BATS, the plan acknowledges that BATS may, in its discretion, exercise
concurrent jurisdiction and responsibility for such matter.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See paragraph 1(b) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58350 (August 13, 2008), 73 FR
48247 (August 18, 2008) (File No. 4-566) (notice of filing of
proposed plan); and 58536 (September 12, 2008) 73 FR 54646
(September 22, 2008) (File No. 4-566) (order approving and declaring
effective the plan). The Certification identifies several Common
Rules that may also be addressed in the context of regulating
insider trading activities pursuant to the proposed separate
multiparty agreement.
    \13\ See paragraph 6 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Plan, BATS would retain full responsibility for
surveillance and enforcement with respect to trading activities or
practices involving BATS' own marketplace, including, without
limitation, registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated
persons (i.e., registration rules that are not Common Rules); its
duties as a DEA pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the Act; and any BATS
rules that are not Common Rules, except for BATS rules for any broker-
dealer subsidiary of BATS Holding, Inc.\14\ Apparent violations of any
BATS rules by any broker-dealer subsidiary of BATS Holdings, Inc. will
be processed by, and enforcement proceedings in respect thereto will be
conducted by, FINRA.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See paragraph 2 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
    \15\ See paragraph 6 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the
factors set forth in section 17(d) of the Act \16\ and Rule 17d-2(c)
thereunder \17\ in that the proposed Plan is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters
cooperation and coordination among SROs, and removes impediments to and
fosters the development of the national market system. In particular,
the Commission believes that the proposed Plan should reduce
unnecessary regulatory duplication by allocating to FINRA certain
examination and enforcement responsibilities for Dual Members that
would otherwise be performed by both BATS and FINRA. Accordingly, the
proposed Plan promotes efficiency by reducing costs to Dual Members.
Furthermore, because BATS and FINRA will coordinate their regulatory
functions in accordance with the Plan, the Plan should promote investor
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that when it granted the application of BATS
for registration as a national securities exchange, the Commission
conditioned the operation of the BATS exchange on the satisfaction of
several requirements.\18\ One of those requirements was the
effectiveness of an agreement pursuant to Rule 17d-2 between FINRA and
BATS that allocates to FINRA regulatory responsibility for certain
specified matters, or, alternatively, the demonstration by BATS that it
independently has the ability to fulfill all of its regulatory
obligations.\19\ The proposed 17d-2 Plan represents BATS' effort to
satisfy that prerequisite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58375 (August 18,
2008), 73 FR 49498 (August 21, 2008) (File No. 10-182).
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58375 (August 18,
2008), 73 FR 49498, 49507 (August 21, 2008) (File No. 10-182).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, under the Plan, BATS and FINRA have
allocated regulatory responsibility for those BATS rules, set forth on
the Certification, that are substantially similar to the applicable
FINRA rules in that examination for compliance with such provisions and
rules would not require FINRA to develop one or more new examination
standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the
application of the rule, or a Dual Member's activity, conduct, or
output in relation to such rule. In addition, under the Plan, FINRA
would assume regulatory responsibility for certain provisions of the
federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are set forth in the Certification. The Common Rules covered by the
Plan are specifically listed in the Certification, as may be amended by
the Parties from time to time.
    Under the Plan, BATS would retain full responsibility for
surveillance and enforcement with respect to trading activities or
practices involving BATS' own marketplace, including, without
limitation, registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated
persons (i.e., registration rules that are not Common Rules); its
duties as a DEA pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the Act; and any BATS
rules that are not Common Rules, except for BATS rules for any broker-
dealer subsidiary of BATS Holding, Inc.\20\ Apparent violations of any
BATS rules by any broker-dealer subsidiary of BATS Holdings, Inc. will
be processed by, and enforcement proceedings in respect thereto will be
conducted by, FINRA.\21\ The effect of these provisions is that
regulatory oversight and enforcement responsibilities for any broker-
dealer subsidiary of BATS Holdings, Inc., which is the parent company
of BATS, will be vested with FINRA. These provisions should help avoid
any potential conflicts of interest that could arise if BATS was
primarily responsible

for regulating its affiliated broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See paragraph 2 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
    \21\ See paragraph 6 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Plan, BATS will review the Certification, at least
annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules
of BATS or FINRA, and, if necessary, submit to FINRA an updated list of
Common Rules to add BATS rules not included on the then-current list of
Common Rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules; delete BATS
rules included in the then-current list of Common Rules that are no
longer substantially similar to FINRA rules; and confirm that the
remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be BATS rules
that are substantially similar to FINRA rules.\22\ FINRA will then
confirm in writing whether the rules listed in any updated list are
Common Rules as defined in the Plan. Under the Plan, BATS will also
provide FINRA with a current list of Dual Members and shall update the
list no less frequently than once each quarter.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See paragraph 2 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
    \23\ See paragraph 3 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is hereby declaring effective a plan that, among
other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to FINRA for the
oversight and enforcement of all BATS rules that are substantially
similar to the rules of FINRA for Dual Members of BATS and FINRA.
Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with
the Commission as an amendment to the Plan, provided that the Parties
are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to BATS rules
in the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules
provided in the Plan. However, should the Parties decide to add a BATS
rule to the Certification that is not substantially similar to a FINRA
rule; delete a BATS rule from the Certification that is substantially
similar to a FINRA rule; or leave on the Certification a BATS rule that
is no longer substantially similar to a FINRA rule, then such a change
would constitute an amendment to the Plan, which must be filed with the
Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act and noticed for public
comment.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Commission also notes that the addition to or deletion
from the Certification of any federal securities laws, rules, and
regulations for which FINRA would bear responsibility under the Plan
for examining, and enforcing compliance by, Dual Members, also would
constitute an amendment to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan also permits BATS and FINRA to terminate the Plan, subject
to notice.\25\ The Commission notes, however, that while the Plan
permits the Parties to terminate the Plan, the Parties cannot by
themselves reallocate the regulatory responsibilities set forth in the
Plan, since Rule 17d-2 under the Act requires that any allocation or
re-allocation of regulatory responsibilities be filed with the
Commission.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See paragraph 12 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
    \26\ The Commission notes that paragraph 12 of the Plan reflects
the fact that FINRA's responsibilities under the Plan will continue
in effect until the Commission approves any termination of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in
File No. 4-569. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the
Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act, that
the Plan in File No. 4-569, between FINRA and BATS, filed pursuant to
Rule 17d-2 under the Act, is approved and declared effective.
    It is therefore ordered, that BATS is relieved of those
responsibilities allocated to FINRA under the Plan in File No. 4-569.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-25503 Filed 10-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73342-73347]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25638]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0679; FRL-9951-80]

Spirotetramat; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
spirotetramat in or on asparagus. Bayer CropScience LP requested this
tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective October 25, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 27, 2016,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0679, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0679 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
December 27, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0679, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online

instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31581) (FRL-9946-
02), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
5E8376) by Bayer CropScience LP, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr.,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.641 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
insecticide spirotetramat in or on asparagus at 0.10 parts per million
(ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. A comment was received on the notice of
filing. EPA's response to this comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The target organs of toxicity following subchronic and chronic oral
exposures to spirotetramat were different in rats and dogs. The thyroid
and thymus glands were the target organs identified in subchronic and
chronic toxicity studies in dogs while the testes were the target
organs identified in rats. The dog was the most sensitive species, and
in both rats and dogs, males were more sensitive than females. The
thyroid effects in the dog consisted of lower circulating levels of
thyroid hormones (T3 and/or T4) along with a reduction in follicle
size, a possible indication of reduced amount of colloid. The effects
in the dog thymus were described microscopically as involution, which
also resulted in decreased organ weight.
    In rats, reported testicular effects consisted of abnormal
spermatozoa and hypospermia in the epididymis, decreased testicular
weights, and testicular degenerative vacuolation. An investigative
subchronic study where rats were dosed with a primary enol metabolite
of spirotetramat reproduced the same testicular effects as the parent
chemical, suggesting that this metabolite is, at minimum, a primary
contributor to the observed male reproductive toxicity. Consistent with
this notion, orally administered spirotetramat was demonstrated in rats
to be extensively metabolized, and males were noted to achieve much
higher systemic exposures than their female counterparts, which helps
explain the higher sensitivity of males. Other effects reported in a
rat chronic toxicity study were associated with kidney effects
consisting of decreased organ weight and tubular dilatation.
    In one- and two-generation rat reproductive toxicity studies, male
reproductive toxicity (abnormal sperm cells and reproductive
performance) similar to that reported in subchronic toxicity studies
with adult rats was reported in the first generation (F1)
males at relatively high dose levels. In all cases, a well-defined no-
observed adverse-effect level (NOAEL) was established.
    There was evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility in the
rat developmental study with reduced fetal weight and increased
incidences of malformations and skeletal deviations observed at the
limit dose, while maternal effects at this dose consisted of only body
weight decrements. There was no evidence of increased quantitative or
qualitative susceptibility to offspring following pre- or postnatal
exposure to spirotetramat in the rabbit developmental or two-generation
reproduction studies.
    The only evidence of neurotoxicity in the rat acute neurotoxicity
study was based on decreased motor and locomotor activity, which
occurred only at relatively high dose levels. The rat subchronic
neurotoxicity (SCN) study does not indicate a concern for
neurotoxicity, even at relatively high dose levels.
    The results of an immunotoxicity study in rats do not indicate any
functional deficits in immune function. There is no evidence of
carcinogenicity in chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies performed
in rats and mice and spirotetramat was also negative for mutagenicity
and clastogenicity in guideline in vivo and in vitro assays.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by spirotetramat as well as the NOAEL and the
lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled
``Spirotetramat. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Petition for a
Tolerance for Residues in/on Asparagus Without a U.S. Registration'' at
page 19 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0679.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological

POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses
in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse
effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse
effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety
factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe
exposure level--generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose
(PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe margin of exposure (MOE).
For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure
will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in
terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles
EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the
risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for spirotetramat used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Spirotetramat for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population  NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/    Acute RfD = 1.0 mg/  Acute neurotoxicity (rat).
 including infants and children).   day.                  kg/day.             LOAEL = 200 mg/kg based on
                                   UFA = 10x...........  aPAD = 1.0 mg/kg/     clinical signs and decreased
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day..                motor activity in males.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day.  Chronic RfD = 0.05   Chronic toxicity (dog).
                                   UFA = 10x...........   mg/kg/day.          LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/    thymus involution in males.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day..
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)  Classification: ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans'' based on lack of
                                    evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to spirotetramat, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing spirotetramat
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.641. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
spirotetramat in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for spirotetramat. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) 2003-2008 National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/
WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level
residues for all foods, Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) 7.81
default processing factors where provided, and 100 percent crop treated
(PCT).
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/
WWEIA (2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed average
field trial residues for some commodities, tolerance-level residues for
the remaining commodities, and 100 PCT.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that spirotetramat does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for spirotetramat in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of spirotetramat. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground
Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
spirotetramat and its metabolites for acute exposures are estimated to
be 395 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 7.99 ppb for
ground water, and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 395 ppb for
surface water and 5.36 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For both the acute and chronic
dietary risk assessments, the water concentration

value of 395 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Spirotetramat is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: golf courses and residential
citrus trees. The golf course use could result in potential post-
application dermal exposure; however, there is no dermal hazard and
therefore, quantification of dermal risk is not necessary. For the
residential citrus tree use, because the product is sold in bulk
packaging for agricultural uses and the label requires that handlers
wear specific clothing (e.g., long-sleeve shirt/long pants) and the use
of personal-protective equipment (e.g., gloves), based on current
Agency policy, EPA has made the assumption that this product is not
meant for homeowner use, and therefore, there is no need to conduct a
quantitative residential handler assessment.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found spirotetramat to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and spirotetramat does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
spirotetramat does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10x) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10x, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of
quantitative susceptibility of offspring following pre- or postnatal
exposure. There is evidence of qualitative susceptibility in the rat
developmental study, such that reduced fetal weight and increased
incidences of malformations and skeletal deviations were observed at
the limit dose, while maternal effects at this dose consisted of only
body weight decrements. Concern is low since effects were only seen at
the limit dose, effects were seen in the presence of maternal toxicity,
and selected endpoints are protective of the observed effects.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for spirotetramat is complete.
    ii. Although there is evidence of neurotoxicity in the acute
neurotoxicity study, concern is low since the effects are well-
characterized with clearly established NOAEL/LOAEL values, the selected
endpoints are protective of the observed neurotoxic effect, there are
no neurotoxic effects seen in the subchronic neurotoxicity study, and
the existing toxicological database indicates that spirotetramat is not
a neurotoxic chemical.
    iii. There was no evidence of quantitative susceptibility of
offspring following pre- or postnatal exposure. There is evidence of
qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental study; however,
there is no residual uncertainty concerning these effects due to the
clear NOAEL/LOAELs in the study for these effects. Moreover, concern
for these effects is low since effects were only seen at the limit
dose, effects were seen in the presence of maternal toxicity, and
selected endpoints are protective of the observed effects.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute dietary food and drinking water exposure
assessment utilizes tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT information
for all commodities. The chronic dietary food and drinking water
exposure assessment utilizes average field trial residues for some
commodities, tolerance-level residues for the remaining commodities,
and 100 PCT. The chronic assessment is somewhat refined; however, since
it is based on reliable data, it will not underestimate exposure and
risk. The drinking water assessments provide conservative, health-
protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations that will not
likely be exceeded. These assessments of exposure are not likely to
underestimate the resulting estimates of risk from exposure to
spirotetramat.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to spirotetramat will occupy 16% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
spirotetramat from food and water will utilize 77% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for spirotetramat resulting in
long-term exposure that require a quantitative risk assessment.
    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). A short- and
intermediate-term inhalation adverse effect was identified; however,
spirotetramat is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in either short- or intermediate-term inhalation residential exposure.
In a dermal toxicity study, no evidence of dermal hazard was found;
therefore, dermal risk was not included in the aggregate assessment.
Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure.
Because

there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and
chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the
appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the
POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short- or
intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term
risk for spirotetramat.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, spirotetramat is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to spirotetramat residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

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

C. Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment to the Notice of Filing noting general
concerns about the potential effects on the cornea, thymus and thyroid,
and testicular histopathy and stating, in part, that EPA should deny
any approval of use of this chemical on any food products. The Agency
understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some
individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural
crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances
may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have
demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by
that statute. EPA has assessed the effects of this chemical on human
health and determined that aggregate exposure to it will be safe. This
citizen's comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and
not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that
EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
spirotetramat, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on
asparagus at 0.10 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: October 14, 2016.
Michael Goodis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.641:
0
a. Add alphabetically the commodity ``Asparagus'' to the table in
paragraph (a)(1); and
0
b. Revise the footnote at the end of the table in paragraph (a)(1).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  180.641  Spirotetramat; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Asparagus \1\..........................................            0.10

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations for these commodities.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-25638 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 48559-48562]
[DOCID:fr23se09-67]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0632; FRL-8434-6]

Registration Review; Pesticide Dockets Opened for Review and
Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has established registration review dockets for the
pesticides listed in the table in Unit III.A. With this document, EPA
is opening the public comment period for these registration review
cases. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. Registration review dockets contain
information that will assist the public in understanding the types of
information and issues that the Agency may consider during the course
of registration review. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or November 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by the docket identification
(ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the
table in Unit III.A., by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID numbers listed
in the table in Unit III.A., for the pesticides you are commenting on.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The
regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket and made available

on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
     Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 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>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information
contact: The Chemical Review Manager identified in the table in Unit
III.A., for the pesticide of interest.
    For general information contact: Kevin Costello, Pesticide Re-
evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: costello.kevin @epa.gov.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, 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 claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes 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.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Authority

    EPA is initiating its reviews of the pesticides identified in this
document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations
for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of
FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of
pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA section 3(a),
a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it
meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section
3(c)(5). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly
recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended
function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that
is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human
dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in
or on food.

III. Registration Reviews

 A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide
registrations identified in the table in this unit to assure that they
continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration--that is, they
can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. A pesticide's registration review begins when the
Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review
case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present,
EPA is opening registration review dockets for the cases identified in
the following table.

                Table--Registration Review Dockets Opening
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Chemical Review
  Registration Review Case Name                       Manager, Telephone
           and Number              Docket ID Number     Number, E-mail
                                                            Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluazinam (7013)                  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-00  Molly Clayton,
                                   39<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                                      clayton.molly@epa.
                                                       gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flumiclorac-pentyl (7232)         EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-00  Monica Wait,
                                   84<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                       v
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluridone (7200)                  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-01  Joy Schnackenbeck,
                                   60<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                                      schnackenbeck.joy@
                                                       epa.gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flurprimidol (7000)               EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-06  Kelly Ballard,
                                   30<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                                      ballard.kelly@epa.
                                                       gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hexaflumuron (7413)               EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-05  Rusty Wasem,
                                   68<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                                      wasem.russell@epa.
                                                       gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maleic Hydrazide (0381)           EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-03  James Parker,
                                   87<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                       ov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piperalin (3114)                  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-04  Jose Gayoso,
                                   83<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                       v
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pronamide (0082)                  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-03  Wilhelmena
                                   26                  Livingston,
<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                                      livingston.wilhelm
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfentrazone (7231)              EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-06  Jacqueline Guerry,
                                   24<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                                      guerry.jaqueline@e
                                                       pa.gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tebuthiuron (0054)                EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-03  Wilhelmena
                                   27                  Livingston,
<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                                      livingston.wilhelm
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Docket Content

    1. Review dockets. The registration review dockets contain
information that the Agency may consider in the course of the
registration review. The Agency may include information from its files
including, but not limited to, the following information:
     An overview of the registration review case status.
     A list of current product registrations and registrants.
     Federal Register notices regarding any pending
registration actions.
     Federal Register notices regarding current or pending
tolerances.
     Risk assessments.
     Bibliographies concerning current registrations.
     Summaries of incident data.
     Any other pertinent data or information.
     Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency
currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan
for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide
more detailed information. During this public comment period, the
Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional
information they believe the Agency should consider during the
registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each
docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though
comment in any area is welcome.
    2. Other related information. More information on these cases,
including the active ingredients for each case, may be located in the
registration review schedule on the Agency's website at http://
www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/schedule.htm. Information on
the Agency's registration review program and its implementing
regulation may be seen at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_
review.
    3. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters

must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or
information in the pesticide's registration review.
     As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review
docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through
the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all
actions required in the final decision on the registration review case
have been completed.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: September 14, 2009.
 Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-22622 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 a.m.]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8741-8742]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03224]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74251; File No. SR-FINRA-2015-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Tier Size Pilot of FINRA Rule 6433
(Minimum Quotation Size Requirements for OTC Equity Securities)

February 11, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 29, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 6433 (Minimum Quotation Size
Requirements for OTC Equity Securities) to extend the Tier Size Pilot,
which currently is scheduled to expire on February 13, 2015, for an
additional three months, until May 15, 2015.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    FINRA proposes to amend FINRA Rule 6433 (Minimum Quotation Size
Requirements for OTC Equity Securities) (the ``Rule'') to extend, until
May 15, 2015, the amendments set forth in File No. SR-FINRA-2011-058
(``Tier Size Pilot'' or ``Pilot''), which currently are scheduled to
expire on February 13, 2015.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73299 (October 3,
2014), 79 FR 61120 (October 9, 2014) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2014-041); see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 67208 (June 15, 2012), 77 FR 37458 (June
21, 2012) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2011-058, as amended).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Tier Size Pilot was filed with the SEC on October 6, 2011,\4\
to amend the minimum quotation sizes (or ``tier sizes'') for OTC Equity
Securities.\5\ The goals of the Pilot were to simplify the tier
structure, facilitate the display of customer limit orders, and expand
the scope of the Rule to apply to additional quoting participants.
During the course of the pilot, FINRA collected and provided to the SEC
specified data with which to assess the impact of the Pilot tiers on
market quality and limit order display.\6\ On September 13, 2013, FINRA
provided to the Commission an assessment on the operation of the Tier
Size Pilot utilizing data covering the period from November 12, 2012
through June 30, 2013.\7\ As noted in the 2013 Assessment, FINRA
believed that the analysis of the data generally showed that the Tier
Size Pilot had a neutral to positive impact on OTC market quality for
the majority of OTC Equity Securities and tiers; and that there was an
overall increase of 13% in the number of customer limit orders that met
the minimum quotation sizes to be eligible for display under the Pilot
tiers. In the 2013 Assessment, FINRA recommended adopting the tiers as
permanent, but extended the pilot period to allow more time to gather
and analyze data after the November 12, 2012 through June 30, 2013
assessment period.\8\ Most recently, on October 9, 2014, FINRA further
extended the Pilot period to permit FINRA and the Commission to
consider the implications of the data collected since June 30, 2013.
FINRA has reviewed this post-June 30, 2013 data, and believes that the
impact described in the 2013 Assessment has continued to hold (and has
improved in certain areas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65568 (October 14,
2011), 76 FR 65307 (October 20, 2011) (Notice of Filing of File No.
SR-FINRA-2011-058).
    \5\ ``OTC Equity Security'' means any equity security that is
not an ``NMS stock'' as that term is defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of
SEC Regulation NMS; provided, however, that the term OTC Equity
Security shall not include any Restricted Equity Security. See FINRA
Rule 6420.
    \6\ FINRA believes that adequate data with which to assess the
impact of the Pilot has been collection and analyzed, and,
therefore, will cease the collection of Pilot data for submission to
the Commission as of February 13, 2015.
    \7\ The assessment is part of the SEC's comment file for SR-
FINRA-2011-058 and also is available on FINRA's Web site at: http://www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2011/P124615 (``Pilot
Assessment'').
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70839 (November 8,
2013), 78 FR 68893 (November 15, 2013) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2013-049).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this filing is to extend the operation of the Tier
Size Pilot for an additional three month period, until May 15, 2015, to
provide FINRA with additional time to finalize its recommendation with
regard to the Tier Size Pilot.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The effective date of the proposed rule change will be
the date of filing.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to

prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. FINRA also believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section
15A(b)(11) of the Act.\10\ Section 15A(b)(11) requires that FINRA rules
include provisions governing the form and content of quotations
relating to securities sold otherwise than on a national securities
exchange which may be distributed or published by any member or person
associated with a member, and the persons to whom such quotations may
be supplied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that the extension of the Tier Size Pilot for an
additional three months is consistent with the Act in that it would
provide the Commission and FINRA with additional time to determine
whether the pilot tiers should be made permanent.

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    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 \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-
regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days
prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such
shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has
satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay
so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest because such
waiver will allow the pilot program to continue without interruption.
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2015-002 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2015-002. 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
St. NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2015-
002, and should be submitted on or before March 11, 2015.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03224 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77231-77233]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26485]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2069]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before March 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2069, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

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

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

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Jefferson County, Alabama and Incorporated Areas
 Project: 18-04-0027S Preliminary Date: May 8, 2019 and December 6, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bessemer.......................  City Hall, 1700 3rd Avenue
                                          North, Bessemer, AL 35020.
City of Birmingham.....................  Department of Planning,
                                          Engineering, and Permits, 710
                                          North 20th Street, 5th Floor,
                                          Birmingham, AL 35203.
City of Fairfield......................  City Hall, 4701 Gary Avenue,
                                          Fairfield, AL 35064.
City of Hueytown.......................  Building and Zoning Department,
                                          1318 Hueytown Road, Hueytown,
                                          AL 35023.
City of Lipscomb.......................  Lipscomb City Hall, 5512 Avenue
                                          H, Bessemer, AL 35020.

City of Pleasant Grove.................  City Hall, 501 Park Road,
                                          Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.
Town of North Johns....................  North Johns Town Hall, 4411
                                          Town Hall Drive, Adger, AL
                                          35006.
Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson        Jefferson County Land
 County.                                  Development Office, 716
                                          Richard Arrington Jr.
                                          Boulevard North, Room 260,
                                          Birmingham, AL 35203.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Tuscaloosa County, Alabama and Incorporated Areas
           Project: 18-04-0027S Preliminary Date: May 8, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Northport......................  City Hall, 3500 McFarland
                                          Boulevard, Northport, AL
                                          35476.
City of Tuscaloosa.....................  City Hall, 2201 University
                                          Boulevard, Tuscaloosa, AL
                                          35401.
Town of Brookwood......................  Town Hall, 15689 Alabama
                                          Highway 216, Brookwood, AL
                                          35444.
Town of Coaling........................  Town Hall, 11281 Stephens Loop
                                          Road, Coaling, AL 35453.
Town of Coker..........................  Town Hall, 11549 Eisenhower
                                          Drive, Coker, AL 35452.
Town of Lake View......................  Town Hall, 22757 Central Park
                                          Drive, Lake View, AL 35111.
Town of Vance..........................  Town Hall, 17710 Vance
                                          Municipal Drive, Vance, AL
                                          35490.
Town of Woodstock......................  Town Hall, 28513 Alabama
                                          Highway 5, Woodstock, AL
                                          35188.
Unincorporated Areas of Tuscaloosa       Tuscaloosa County Public Works
 County.                                  Department, 2810 35th Street,
                                          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Walker County, Alabama and Incorporated Areas
           Project: 18-04-0027S Preliminary Date: May 8, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Walker County..  Walker County Engineering
                                          Department, 6 Ellis Haynes
                                          Drive, Jasper, AL 35503.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Greene County, Arkansas and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 15-06-0133S Preliminary Date: June 30, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Greene County..  Greene County Office of
                                          Emergency Management, 320 West
                                          Court Street, Suite 107,
                                          Paragould, AR 72450.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Boulder County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 19-08-0003S Preliminary Date: September 30, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Boulder........................  Park Central, 1739 Broadway,
                                          Boulder, CO 80302.
City of Longmont.......................  Development Services Center,
                                          385 Kimbark Street, Longmont,
                                          CO 80501.
Town of Erie...........................  Town Hall, 645 Holbrook Street,
                                          Erie, CO 80516.
Town of Jamestown......................  Town Hall, 118 Main Street,
                                          Jamestown, CO 80455.
Town of Lyons..........................  Town Hall, 432 5th Avenue,
                                          Lyons, CO 80540.
Town of Nederland......................  Town Hall, 45 West 1st Street,
                                          Nederland, CO 80466.
Town of Superior.......................  Town Hall, 124 East Coal Creek
                                          Drive, Superior, CO 80027.
Town of Ward...........................  Town Hall, 1 Columbia Street,
                                          Ward, CO 80481.
Unincorporated Areas of Boulder County.  Boulder County Community
                                          Planning and Permitting
                                          Department, 2045 13th Street,
                                          Boulder, CO 80302.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Sumter County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas
         Project: 18-04-0010S Preliminary Date: January 17, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Sumter.........................  Magnolia Place, 20 North
                                          Magnolia Street, Sumter, SC
                                          29150.
Town of Mayesville.....................  Town Hall, 22 South Main
                                          Street, Mayesville, SC 29104.
Unincorporated Areas of Sumter County..  Magnolia Place, 20 North
                                          Magnolia Street, Sumter, SC
                                          29150.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Williamsburg County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas
         Project: 18-04-0010S Preliminary Date: January 17, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Kingstree......................  Town Hall, 401 North Longstreet
                                          Street, Kingstree, SC 29556.
Unincorporated Areas of Williamsburg     Williamsburg County Public
 County.                                  Service Administration
                                          Building, 201 West Main
                                          Street, Kingstree, SC 29556.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Davidson County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 18-04-0037S Preliminary Date: March 27, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Forest Hills...................  Forest Hills City Hall, 6300
                                          Hillsboro Pike, Nashville, TN
                                          37215.
City of Goodlettsville.................  Community Development Building,
                                          318 North Main Street,
                                          Goodlettsville, TN 37072.
Metropolitan Government of Nashville-    Metro Water and Sewage Service,
 Davidson County.                         1600 Second Avenue North,
                                          Nashville, TN 37208.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Nueces County, Texas and Incorporated Areas
 Project: 05-06-A088S Preliminary Date: May 30, 2018 and August 13, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bishop.........................  City Hall, 203 East Main
                                          Street, Bishop, TX 78343.
City of Corpus Christi.................  Development Services, 2406
                                          Leopard Street, Corpus
                                          Christi, TX 78408.

City of Robstown.......................  Code Enforcement Division, 101
                                          East Main Street, Robstown, TX
                                          78380.
Unincorporated Areas of Nueces County..  Nueces County Courthouse, 901
                                          Leopard Street, Corpus
                                          Christi, TX 78401.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Monroe County, West Virginia and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 19-03-0002S Preliminary Date: April 9, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Alderson.......................  Monroe County 911 Center, 39
                                          Nota Street, Union, WV 24983.
Unincorporated Areas of Monroe County..  Monroe County 911 Center, 39
                                          Nota Street, Union, WV 24983.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-26485 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P