[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 243 (Thursday, December 17, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81799-81805]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27906]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0053; FRL-10016-42]

Broflanilide; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
broflanilide in or on multiple commodities that are identified and
discussed later in this document. BASF Corporation requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 17, 2020. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 16, 2021,
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-2018-0053, 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>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, 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
Publishing 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-2018-0053 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
February 16, 2021. 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-2018-0053, 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 July 24, 2018 (83 FR 34968) (FRL-9980-
31), 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
7F8646) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Dr., P.O. Box 13528, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested to establish tolerances
in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the insecticide, broflanilide,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on grain, cereal,
except rice, group 15; amaranth grain; quinoa, grain; spelt, grain;
canihua, grain; chia, grain; cram-cram, grain; huauzontle, grain; teff,
grain; and corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.01
parts per million (ppm); and vegetables, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C
at 0.04 ppm. Tolerances were also requested for cattle, meat; goat,
meat; horse, meat; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; milk, fat and poultry, fat
at 0.02 ppm; and cattle, fat; sheep, fat; and goat, fat at 0.05 ppm.
Additionally, tolerances were requested for grain, cereal, forage,
fodder and straw, group 16, except rice; quinoa, hay; teff, hay; and
corn, sweet, stover; corn, sweet, forage at 0.01 ppm; corn, field,
milled products at 0.015 ppm; and potato, wet peel at 0.1 ppm. In
addition, BASF proposed to establish a tolerance of 0.01 ppm for
residues of broflanilide in or on all food items in food handling
establishments where food and food products are held, processed,
prepared and/or served. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by BASF, 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.
    In the Federal Register of June 24, 2020 (85 FR 37806) (FRL-10010-
82), EPA issued a second notice amending the previous NOF published in
the Federal Register on July 24, 2018, by announcing additional
commodities for which the petitioner was seeking tolerances. BASF
requested to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of
the insecticide, broflanilide, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on amaranth, stover; quinoa, forage; quinoa, straw;
teff, forage; and teff, straw at 0.01 ppm. (EPA's notice inadvertently
listed amaranth, grain, which had already been identified in the July
2018 notice, instead of amaranth, stover, but BASF's petition included
a request for amaranth, stover.) BASF also requested tolerances for
food items (animal origin) for hog, meat; poultry, meat; eggs; cattle,
meat byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat byproducts; horse,
meat byproducts; poultry, meat byproducts; sheep, meat byproducts; hog,
fat; and horse, fat at 0.02 ppm. No comments were received in response
to this notice.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
establishing some tolerances at different levels than were petitioned
for. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.D.

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 broflanilide including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with broflanilide 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 broflanilide toxicity are the adrenal glands
(rats, mice, and dogs) and ovaries (rats and mice). Adrenal effects
include increased adrenal weights, increased incidence of adrenal
cortex vacuolation, and adrenal cortex hypertrophy in both sexes.
Ovarian effects include increased incidence of ovarian interstitial
gland vacuolation.
    There were no parental or developmental effects reported up to the
limit dose tested (1000 mg/kg/day) in the developmental studies in rats
and rabbits. In the reproduction study in rats, increased adrenal
weights with corroborative histopathological findings (increased
vacuolation and diffuse hypertrophy in the adrenal gland cortex) were
observed in parental rats of both sexes and generations. Offspring
showed decreased pup weights in F1 and F2 pups, which occurred at a
higher dose level than the observed adverse effects in parental rats.
Reproductive parameters showed increased ovarian weights and increased
incidence of vacuolation of interstitial gland in the ovary at a higher
dose level than the adverse effects in parental rats. There were no
effects on fertility or other measured reproductive parameters.
    There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in acute or subchronic
neurotoxicity studies and broflanilide is not an immunotoxic chemical.
In the subchronic inhalation study, there was an increase in absolute
and relative adrenal weight and increased incidence of adrenal
vacuolation in both sexes and increased incidence of ovarian
vacuolation.
    In the chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats, there were
treatment-related increases in Leydig cell adenomas in male rats, and
in luteomas and granulosa cell tumors in the ovaries, as well as in
uterine adenocarcinomas, and adrenal cortex carcinomas in female rats.
No treatment-related increase in tumor incidences was observed in mice.
All mutagenicity studies were negative for both the parent and major
metabolites (DM-8007, S(PFP-OH)-8007, DC-8007, DC-DM-8007, MFBA, AB-
oxa, S9Br-OH)-8007).
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by broflanilide as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Broflanilide: New Active
Ingredient Human Health Risk Assessment'' (hereinafter ``Broflanilide
Human Health Risk Assessment'') on pages 42-58 in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2018-0053.

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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticide.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for broflanilide used for
human risk assessment can be found in the Broflanilide Human Health
Risk Assessment.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to broflanilide, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from broflanilide in
food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
broflanilide; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in
food, for all commodities in the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID), EPA used
tolerance-level residues, highest average field trials (HAFT) residue
values, anticipated residues, 100 percent crop treated (PCT), and
default processing factors resulting from agricultural uses, and the
food handling establishment (FHE) values (\1/2\ FHE LOQ tolerance and
4.65% FHE treatment).
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that broflanilide should be classified as ``Likely to be
Carcinogenic to Humans'' and a linear approach has been used to
quantify cancer risk. The cancer risk assessment used the same
assumptions as the chronic assessment.
    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.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area and the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The chronic and cancer assessments assumed 100 PCT for agricultural
uses and the treatment value of 4.65% for FHE uses.
    EPA estimates the percent of commodities treated in Food Handling
Establishments (FHE) for new uses of active ingredients based on the
best available information. This includes survey information on
pesticide usage related to the number of facilities being treated,
product forms used (e.g., liquids and aerosols), and treatment schedule
by FHE segments (e.g., warehouse, food processor, distributor, and
restaurant). EPA also incorporated the best available information
related to the transfer of commodities between various segments of food
handling establishments and the percent of food consumed by location,
either in the home or outside the home.
    All information currently available has been considered and EPA has
concluded that for any active ingredient, including broflanilide, there
is at most a 4.65% likelihood that a food commodity could contain
potential residues resulting from one or more treatments while in the
food handling establishment channel of trade. Similar to estimates of
agricultural use, this estimate should be reconsidered in 5 years.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which broflanilide may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for broflanilide alone as well as for the combined residues
of concern (ROC), broflanilide and DC-8007 in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and
fate/transport characteristics of broflanilide and the ROC,
broflanilide and DC-8007. Further information regarding EPA drinking
water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at
http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC) model and using
the Total Residue (TR) method for the ROCs, the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of broflanilide and DC-8007 for chronic
exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.9 ppb for
surface water and for chronic exposures for cancer assessments are
estimated to be 0.7 ppb for surface water. Since breakthrough of
broflanilide into groundwater is incomplete after 100 years of
simulation, post-breakthrough EDWCs are negligible. Due to the high
Freundlich adsorption coefficient (KF) of broflanilide, peak
EDWCs in groundwater were negligible as well.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 0.9 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For the cancer dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 0.7 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).
    There are several proposed residential uses for broflanilide. These
uses include, but are not limited to, insecticide treatments in and
around homes, apartments, schools, picnic areas, hospitals, and nursing
homes. In addition, there are several proposed termiticide products
that may be used around the exterior of homes, apartments, schools, and
other residential use sites. EPA assessed residential exposure using
the following assumptions:
     Residential handler: Although there is one proposed
broflanilide product label with residential use sites (e.g., homes,
apartments, mobile homes), this product is formulated as a ready-to-use
pressurized can, which, once dispensed, rapidly expands to generate a
dry foam. One ounce (weight) of the product is being dispensed in
approximately 5 seconds, and the ready-to-use pressurized can produces
about 1 quart of foam. Based on the areas to which it is applied (i.e.,
with actuators in voids, cracks, and other places where insects
harbor), dermal exposure is expected to be negligible. In addition,
considering the low vapor pressure of broflanilide
(6.7x10-11 mmHg) and formulation into foam, inhalation
exposure is also expected to be negligible. Therefore, neither a
quantitative non-cancer nor cancer residential handler exposure and
risk assessment was conducted.
     Post-application exposure: There is the potential for
short-term post-application exposure for individuals exposed as a
result of being in an environment that has been previously treated with
broflanilide. Due to a lack of dermal hazard for broflanilide, a dermal
non-cancer assessment was not conducted. The quantitative non-cancer
exposure and risk assessment for residential short-term post-
application exposures is based on the following maximum application
rate scenarios: Inhalation and incidental oral exposure from indoor
crack and crevice, banded, and spot applications.
    The PODs for the oral and inhalation routes are based on the same
effects: Therefore, oral and inhalation routes can be combined. Since
the LOCs for both incidental oral and inhalation are different (100 and
30), the aggregate risk index (ARI) approach was used:

Aggregate Risk Index (ARI) = 1 / [(Incidental Oral LOC / Incidental
Oral MOE) + (Inhalation LOC / Inhalation MOE)].

    Although a non-cancer dermal risk assessment was not performed due
to the lack of an adverse effect in the non-cancer dermal study, a
dermal cancer exposure and risk assessment was performed because dermal
exposure does contribute to the overall cancer risk for broflanilide.
    Post-application cancer risk estimates for adults were calculated
using a linear low-dose extrapolation approach in which a Lifetime
Average Daily Dose (LADD) is first calculated and then compared with a
Q1 * that has been calculated for broflanilide based on dose
response data in the appropriate toxicology study (Q1* =
2.48 x 10-3 (mg/kg/day)-1).
    The residential exposure scenario used in the adult non-cancer
aggregate assessment is short-term post-application inhalation exposure
following an indoor surface directed spot application. The residential
exposure scenario used in the non-cancer aggregate assessment of
children 1 to less than 2 years old is the combined inhalation and
hand-to-mouth exposures from short-term post-application exposure to
indoor perimeter/spot coarse and pin stream surface spray applications
on carpet.
    The residential exposure scenario used in the adult cancer
aggregate assessment is post-application dermal and inhalation exposure
following an indoor surface directed perimeter/spot application.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    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 broflanilide to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and broflanilide does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
broflanilide 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 website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

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. Broflanilide did not
demonstrate any evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative
susceptibility in the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies or
the 2-generation rat reproduction study. In the rabbit and rat
developmental toxicity studies, there were no developmental effects up
to the limit dose tested (1000 mg/kg/day). In the reproduction study in
rats, decreased pup weights in F1 and F2 pups occurred at a higher dose
levels than the dose with adverse parental findings.
    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 broflanilide is complete.
    ii. Acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies showed no evidence
of neurotoxicity in male or female rats. There was no other evidence in
any species tested to indicate neurotoxicity potential. Therefore,
there is no concern for acute or subchronic neurotoxicity resulting
from exposure to broflanilide.
    iii. There is no evidence that broflanilide results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments

were performed based on 100 PCT for agricultural uses, a treatment
value of 4.65% for FHE uses, and some anticipated residue data. EPA
made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface
water modeling used to assess exposure to broflanilide in drinking
water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-
application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of
toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by broflanilide.

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. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
broflanilide is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
broflanilide from food and water will utilize less than 1% of the cPAD
for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
broflanilide is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Broflanilide is proposed for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to broflanilide.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate ARIs of 320 for adults
and 4.4 for children 1 to <2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern
for broflanilide is an ARI of 1 or below, these ARIs are not of
concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
broflanilide is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no 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 intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
broflanilide.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. A cancer aggregate
risk assessment was completed for the proposed residential and dietary
uses of broflanilide using the linear slope factor (Q1 *) of 2.48 x
10-3. The assessment incorporates the adult post-application
dermal and inhalation exposure following an indoor surface directed
perimeter/spot application. The residential assessment is a
conservative calculation which assumes 12 retreatments a year as
allowed by the label at the maximum rate proposed, 365 days of exposure
in the residential setting, and 10% dissipation of residues per day.
The cancer dietary exposure estimate for adults 20-49 years old, the
most highly-exposed adult population subgroup, assumed 100% crop
treated for agricultural uses and the FHE treatment value of 4.65% for
FHE uses. The resulting aggregate cancer risk estimate is 1 x
10-6.
    EPA generally considers cancer risks (expressed as the probability
of an increased cancer case) in the range of 1 in 1 million (or 1 x
10-6) or less to be negligible. Accordingly, EPA has
concluded the aggregate cancer risk for all broflanilide uses fall
within the range of 1 x 10-6 and are thus negligible.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to broflanilide residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    The petitioner proposed a multi-residue method, BASF method D1417/
01, based on QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, safe) for
the determination of broflanilide residues in plant matrices. This
method has been proven to be suitable for the determination of residues
of broflanilide in plant matrices.
    BASF method D1604/01 is proposed as the enforcement method for the
determination of residues of broflanilide and DM-8007 in livestock
commodities by LC-MS/MS. This method has been proven to be suitable for
the determination of residues of broflanilide and DM-8007 in livestock
matrices.
    The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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.
    Broflanilide is a new active ingredient and no MRLs have yet been
established by Codex.

C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received in response to the Notice of Filing. The
comment stated in part that ``the notice of the application for these
uses does not contain any information about human toxicity, water
solubility, granular transmissibility, or other information which could
help evaluate the risk of higher levels of use of

broflanilide'' and that ``perhaps EPA should reissue the notice with
attached information on toxicity and transmission levels.'' A
supporting document summarizing the information on the residue
chemistry, toxicological profile, as well as an estimate of the
aggregate exposure expected was available in the docket at the time the
notice was published. The NOF published on July 24, 2018, referred to
the docket and noted that the summary was available. That document
provided information to help evaluate the risks of broflanilide.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA is establishing the tolerance in/on potato, wet peel at 0.08
ppm rather than the petitioned-for tolerance of 0.1 ppm. The Agency's
practice is to use the HAFT value from the field trials and the median
processing factor. Based on these data, the appropriate tolerance for
potato, wet peel is 0.08 ppm.
    EPA is not establishing a separate tolerance for corn, sweet,
kernel plus cob with husks removed because it is covered under grain,
cereal, group 15, except rice. Similarly, separate tolerances for corn,
sweet, stover; and corn, sweet forage are not being established because
they are covered under grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group
16, except rice.
    EPA is including the livestock metabolite DM-8007 as a residue of
concern for tolerance enforcement and risk assessment. Therefore, the
tolerance expression for livestock commodities is being revised to
include the metabolite DM-8007.
    EPA is establishing a tolerance for residues in milk at 0.02 ppm to
harmonize with Canadian livestock LOQ MRLs. The tolerance of 0.02 ppm
for residues in milk is higher than the anticipated residues in milk
fat; therefore, although the available data support a tolerance for
residues in milk fat at 0.01 ppm, a separate milk fat tolerance is not
necessary at this time.
    Lastly, the commodity definitions for the FHE use, egg and crop
group 16 are being modified to be consistent with Agency nomenclature.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of broflanilide,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the following plant
commodities: Amaranth, grain, grain at 0.01 ppm; Amaranth, grain,
stover at 0.01 ppm; Ca[ntilde]ihua, grain at 0.01 ppm; Chia, grain at
0.01 ppm; Corn, field, milled byproducts at 0.015 ppm; Cram-cram, grain
at 0.01 ppm; Grain, cereal, group 15, except rice at 0.01 ppm; Food and
feed commodities (other than those covered by a higher tolerance) at
0.01 ppm; Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, except
rice at 0.01 ppm; Huauzontle, grain at 0.01 ppm; Potato, wet peel at
0.08 ppm; Quinoa, forage at 0.01 ppm; Quinoa, grain at 0.01 ppm;
Quinoa, hay at 0.01 ppm; Quinoa, straw at 0.01 ppm; Spelt, grain at
0.01 ppm; Teff, forage at 0.01 ppm; Teff, grain at 0.01 ppm; Teff, hay
at 0.01 ppm; Teff, straw at 0.01 ppm; and Vegetable, tuberous and corm,
subgroup 1C at 0.04 ppm.
    Tolerances are also established for residues of broflanilide,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the following
livestock commodities: Cattle, fat at 0.02 ppm; Cattle, meat at 0.02
ppm; Cattle, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm; Egg at 0.02 ppm; Goat, fat at
0.02 ppm; Goat, meat at 0.02 ppm; Goat, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm;
Hog, fat at 0.02 ppm; Hog, meat at 0.02 ppm; Hog, meat byproducts at
0.02 ppm; Horse, fat at 0.02 ppm; Horse, meat at 0.02 ppm; Horse, meat
byproducts at 0.02 ppm; Milk at 0.02 ppm; Poultry, fat at 0.02 ppm;
Poultry, meat at 0.02 ppm; Poultry, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm; Sheep,
fat at 0.02 ppm; Sheep, meat at 0.02 ppm; and Sheep, meat byproducts at
0.02 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this 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), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). 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 tolerances 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: November 30, 2020.
Edward Messina,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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. Add Sec.  180.714 to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec.  180.714  Broflanilide; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of
broflanilide, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities to Table 1 of this section. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in Table 1 is to be determined by measuring only
broflanilide, 3-(benzoylmethylamino)-N-[2-bromo-4-[1,2,2,2-tetrafluoro-
1-(trifluoromethyl)ethyl]-6-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-2-fluorobenzamide,
in or on the commodity.

                       Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amaranth, grain, grain......................................        0.01
Amaranth, grain, stover.....................................        0.01
Ca[ntilde]ihua, grain.......................................        0.01
Chia, grain.................................................        0.01
Corn, field, milled byproducts..............................       0.015
Cram-cram, grain............................................        0.01
Grain, cereal, group 15, except rice........................        0.01
Food and feed commodities (other than those covered by a            0.01
 higher tolerance)..........................................
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, except          0.01
 rice.......................................................
Huauzontle, grain...........................................        0.01
Potato, wet peel............................................        0.08
Quinoa, forage..............................................        0.01
Quinoa, grain...............................................        0.01
Quinoa, hay.................................................        0.01
Quinoa, straw...............................................        0.01
Spelt, grain................................................        0.01
Teff, forage................................................        0.01
Teff, grain.................................................        0.01
Teff, hay...................................................        0.01
Teff, straw.................................................        0.01
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C...................        0.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Tolerances are established for residues of broflanilide,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities to
Table 2 of this section. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified
in Table 2 is to be determined by measuring the sum of broflanilide, 3-
(benzoylmethylamino)-N-[2-bromo-4-[1,2,2,2-tetrafluoro-1-
(trifluoromethyl)ethyl]-6-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-2-fluorobenzamide,
and its metabolite 3-benzamido-N-[2-bromo-4-(perfluoropropan-2-yl)-6-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-2-fluorobenzamide, calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of broflanilide, in or on the commodity.

                       Table 2 to Paragraph (a)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat.................................................        0.02
Cattle, meat................................................        0.02
Cattle, meat byproducts.....................................        0.02
Egg.........................................................        0.02
Goat, fat...................................................        0.02
Goat, meat..................................................        0.02
Goat, meat byproducts.......................................        0.02
Hog, fat....................................................        0.02
Hog, meat...................................................        0.02
Hog, meat byproducts........................................        0.02
Horse, fat..................................................        0.02
Horse, meat.................................................        0.02
Horse, meat byproducts......................................        0.02
Milk........................................................        0.02
Poultry, fat................................................        0.02
Poultry, meat...............................................        0.02
Poultry, meat byproducts....................................        0.02
Sheep, fat..................................................        0.02
Sheep, meat.................................................        0.02
Sheep, meat byproducts......................................        0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b)-(d) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2020-27906 Filed 12-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 166)]
[Notices]
[Page 44410-44412]
[DOCID:fr28au09-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60534; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-036]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Adopt FINRA Rules 2124 (Net Transactions With
Customers), 2220 (Options Communications), 4370 (Business Continuity
Plans and Emergency Contact Information) and 5250 (Payment for Market
Making) in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

August 19, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On May 21, 2009, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt NASD Rules 2220 (Options Communications),
2441 (Net Transactions with Customers), 2460 (Payment for Market
Making), 3510 (Business Continuity Plans) and 3520 (Emergency Contact
Information) as FINRA Rules in the consolidated FINRA rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''). The proposed rule change would
renumber NASD Rule 2220 as FINRA Rule 2220, NASD Rule 2441 as FINRA
Rule 2124, and NASD Rule 2460 as FINRA Rule 5250 and would combine NASD
Rules 3510 and 3520 as FINRA Rule 4370 in the consolidated FINRA
Rulebook. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on June 15, 2009.\3\ The Commission received one
comment letter on the proposed rule change.\4\ FINRA submitted a letter
responding to the commenter \5\ and on July 24, 2009, filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60066 (June 8,
2009), 74 FR 28308 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter from Pamela Ziermann, Dougherty and Company LLC
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated June 30, 2009
(``Dougherty Letter'').
    \5\ See letter from Patricia Albrecht, Assistant General
Counsel, FINRA, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dates
July 24, 2009.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 1, FINRA would revise proposed FINRA Rule
4370 to require that only one of a member's two designated emergency
contact persons must be a member of senior management and a
registered principal of the firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the comment
letter, and FINRA's response, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\7\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).

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

A. Proposed FINRA Rule 2220

    FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 2220 (Options Communications)
without substantive change into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as
FINRA Rule 2220. NASD Rule 2220 sets forth a member's obligations with
respect to its options communications with the public. In 2008, the
Commission approved FINRA's proposed revisions to NASD Rule 2220 to
make it more consistent with FINRA's general rules on communications
with the public and the options communications rules of other self-
regulatory organizations (``SROs'').\9\ The amended rule became
effective on March 4, 2009.\10\ As amended, NASD Rule 2220, among other
things: (1) Uses, to the extent appropriate, the same terminology and
definitions as in FINRA's general rules on communications with the
public; (2) makes the requirements for principal review of
correspondence concerning options the same as for correspondence
generally; and (3) updates the standards on the content of
communications that precede the delivery of the options disclosure
document (ODD). The Commission believes that it is appropriate to
transfer NASD Rule 2220 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA
Rule 2220 with the non-substantive changes proposed by FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58738 (October 6,
2008), 73 FR 60371 (October 10, 2008) (order approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2008-013).
    \10\ See Regulatory Notice 08-73 (December 2008) (SEC Approves
Amendments to NASD Rule 2220 to Update the Standards for Options
Communications). There is no longer a comparable Incorporated NYSE
Rule. FINRA previously deleted substantially similar Incorporated
NYSE Rule 791 (Communications to Customers) as part of a rule change
that, among other things, reduced regulatory duplication for Dual
Members during the interim period before the completion of the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
58533 (September 12, 2008), 73 FR 54652 (September 22, 2008) (order
approving File No. SR-FINRA-2008-036).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed FINRA Rule 2124

    FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 2441 (Net Transactions with
Customers) without substantive change into the Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook as FINRA Rule 2124. NASD Rule 2441 requires members to provide
disclosure and obtain consent when trading on a ``net'' basis with
customers.\11\ The Commission approved NASD Rule 2441 in 2006.\12\ With
respect to non-institutional customers, the member must obtain the
customer's written consent on an order-by-order basis prior to
executing the transaction and such consent must evidence the customer's
understanding of the terms and conditions of the order. With respect to
institutional customers, a member must obtain the customer's consent
prior to executing the transaction and such consent may be obtained by
either: (1) Use of a negative consent letter; (2) oral disclosure and
consent on an order-by-order basis; or (3) written consent on an order-
by-order basis. The Commission believes that it is appropriate to
transfer NASD Rule 2441 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA
Rule 2124 with the non-substantive changes proposed by FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A ``net'' transaction is a principal transaction in which a
market maker, after having received an order to buy (sell) an equity
security, purchases (sells) the equity security at one price (from
(to) another broker-dealer or another customer) and then sells to
(buys from) the customer at a different price.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54088 (June 30,
2006), 71 FR 38950 (July 10, 2006) (order approving File No. SR-
NASD-2004-135).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed FINRA Rule 5250

    FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 2460 (Payment for Market
Making) without substantive change into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook
as FINRA Rule 5250. The Commission approved NASD Rule 2460 in 1997.\13\
NASD Rule 2460 prohibits any payments by an issuer or an issuer's
affiliates and promoters, directly or indirectly, to a member or person
associated with a member for publishing a quotation, acting as a market
maker, or submitting an application in connection therewith. The rule
contains two exceptions that permit a member to accept: (1) Payment for
bona fide services, including, but not limited to, investment banking
services; and (2) reimbursement for registration or listing fees. The
Commission believes that it is appropriate to transfer NASD Rule 2460
into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 5250 with the non-
substantive changes proposed by FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 38812 (July 3,
1997), 62 FR 37105 (July 10, 1997) (order approving File No. SR-
NASD-97-29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Proposed FINRA Rule 4370

    FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 3510 (Business Continuity
Plans) and NASD Rule 3520 (Emergency Contact Information) into the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook and combine the rules as FINRA Rule 4370
(Business Continuity Plans and Emergency Contact Information). NASD
Rule 3510 requires members to create and maintain a written business
continuity plan identifying procedures relating to an emergency or
significant business disruption and enumerates the minimum elements
that a member's business continuity plan must address, to the extent
those elements are applicable and necessary to the member's business.
NASD Rule 3510 further requires members to update their business
continuity plans upon any material change and, at a minimum, conduct an
annual review of their plans. Each member also must disclose to its
customers how its business continuity plan addresses the possibility of
a future significant business disruption and how the member plans to
respond to events of varying scope. Each member must make this
disclosure, at a minimum, in writing to customers at account opening,
by posting it on the member's Web site (if the member maintains a Web
site), and by mailing it to customers upon request.
    NASD Rule 3510 is one part of the NASD Rule 3500 Series (Emergency
Preparedness), which requires members to establish emergency
preparedness plans and procedures. NASD Rule 3520, which comprises the
remainder of the NASD Rule 3500 Series, requires members to designate
two emergency contact persons and provide this information to FINRA via
electronic process.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ There is no longer a comparable Incorporated NYSE Rule to
NASD Rules 3510 and 3520. FINRA previously deleted from the
Transitional Rulebook NYSE Rule 446 (Business Continuity and
Contingency Plans), which contained substantially similar
requirements as the two NASD rules, as part of the rule change to
reduce regulatory duplication for Dual Members during the period
before completion of the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58533 (September 12, 2008), 73 FR 54652
(September 22, 2008) (order approving File No. SR-FINRA-2008-036).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Dougherty Letter generally supported the proposal, but
recommended one change in the area of emergency contact information.
The proposed rule, as is the case today in NASD Rule 3510, originally
required that each member report to FINRA two emergency contact persons
and that each person be a member of senior management and a registered
principal of the firm.\15\ The Dougherty Letter stated that ``[t]here
may be situations where perhaps the best contact person may not be a
registered principal but rather a Financial and Operations Principal or
a technology manager.'' \16\ The Dougherty Letter emphasized that the
``purpose of this rule is for FINRA to be able to contact individuals
for business continuity purposes.'' \17\ The commenter pointed out that
``the person most knowledgeable on computer

systems and business continuity issues may be someone other than a
registered principal.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed FINRA Rule 4370.
    \16\ See Dougherty Letter, supra note 4.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA proposes to revise FINRA Rule 4370 to require
that only one of a member's two designated emergency contact persons
must be a member of senior management and a registered principal of the
firm.\19\ The proposed rule change, however, would require that someone
designated as a second emergency contact person who is not a registered
principal must be a member of senior management who has knowledge of
the member's business operations.\20\ The proposed rule change also
would clarify that each emergency contact person must be an associated
person of the member.\21\ In addition, FINRA proposes to amend FINRA
Rule 4370 to codify existing guidance that in the case of a member with
only one associated person (e.g., a sole proprietorship without any
other associated persons), the second emergency contact person may be
an individual, either registered with another firm or nonregistered,
who has knowledge of the member's business operations, such as the
member's attorney, accountant, or clearing firm contact.\22\ The
Commission believes that transferring and combining NASD Rules 3510 and
3520 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook will help ensure that members
are prepared in the event of a significant business disruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\23\ for approving the proposed rule change, as modified, prior
to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice in the
Federal Register. FINRA's proposed changes, with the exception of the
proposed revisions contained in Amendment No. 1, were published for
comment by the Commission.\24\ The Commission believes that Amendment
No. 1 provides greater clarity regarding the designation of emergency
contact persons and is consistent with a purpose of this rule, which is
to provide FINRA with a means to contact a member in the event of a
significant business disruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \24\ FINRA noted that it proposes to announce the implementation
date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be
published no later than 90 days following Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds that there is good cause,
consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\25\ to approve the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-036 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2009-036. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of 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-2009-036 and should be
submitted on or before September 18, 2009.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\26\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2009-036), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20704 Filed 8-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 162 (Thursday, August 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51422-51423]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18267]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-481-000]

Rio Bravo Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review of the Rio Bravo Pipeline Project Amendment

    On June 16, 2020, Rio Bravo Pipeline Company, LLC (RB Pipeline)
filed an application in Docket No. CP20-481-000 requesting to amend the
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) for the Rio Bravo Pipeline Project in
Docket No. CP16-455-000. The proposed project is known as the Rio Bravo
Pipeline Project Amendment (Project Amendment), and RB Pipeline
proposes to modify the pipeline facilities that will transport natural
gas to Rio Grande LNG, LLC's previously approved (but not yet
constructed) liquefied natural gas (LNG) Terminal in Cameron County,
Texas.
    On June 25, 2020, the Commission issued its Notice of Application
for the Project Amendment. Among other things, that notice alerted
agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete
all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a
federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the
Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project
Amendment. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned
schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project Amendment.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--November 16, 2020
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--February 15, 2021

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project
Amendment's progress.

Project Description

    RB Pipeline proposes to modify the pipeline system facilities
approved in the Commission's Order Granting Authorizations under
Sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act (Order) issued on November 22,
2019. The Rio Bravo Pipeline Project, as authorized, consists of a 2.4-
mile-long, 42-inch-diameter pipeline, including 0.8 mile of dual
pipeline (referred to as the Header System) in Kleber and Jim Wells
Counties, Texas; 135.5 miles of parallel 42-inch-diameter mainline
pipelines originating in Kleberg County and terminating at Rio Grande
LNG, LLC's Rio Grande LNG Terminal in Cameron County (referred to as
Pipelines 1 and 2); four metering sites along the Header System; two
interconnect booster compressor stations, each with a metering site;
three compressor stations (one at the Rio Grande LNG Terminal); and
other associated utilities, systems, and facilities, all in Texas. As
part of the Project Amendment, RB Pipeline proposes various facility
modifications to the authorized pipeline system:
     Decrease the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP)
of the 2.4-mile-long Header System pipeline from 1,480 pounds per
square inch gauge (psig) to 1,200 psig;
     construct an extension of 0.2 mile of mainline pipeline
for each of Pipelines 1 and 2 for a total of 135.7 miles each;
     increase the diameter of Pipeline 1 from 42 inches to 48
inches and increase the MAOP of both pipelines from 1,480 psig to 1,825
psig (Pipeline 2 will remain a 42-inch-diameter pipeline); and
     increase the transportation capacity of Pipeline 1 from
2.25 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) to 2.6 Bcf/d, and decrease the
transportation capacity of Pipeline 2 from 2.25 Bcf/d to 1.9 Bcf/d,
resulting in the total authorized capacity of 4.5 Bcf/d remaining
unchanged from the authorized pipeline system.
    The Project Amendment also includes modifications to the following
aboveground facilities that are authorized (but unbuilt) along the Rio
Bravo Pipeline Project right-of-way:
     Eliminate Compressor Station 2 in Kenedy County;
     eliminate Compressor Station 3 within the Rio Grande LNG
Terminal in Cameron County, except for a meter and other ancillary
facilities within the LNG Terminal;
     eliminate all facilities associated with Booster Stations
1 and 2, including related meter stations, in Kenedy County; and
     increase the horsepower (hp) at Compressor Station 1 from
180,000 hp to 282,000 hp by switching from six 30,000-hp natural gas
compressor units to four 43,000-hp natural gas compressor units and two
55,000-hp compressor units.

Background

    On July 28, 2020, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Rio Bravo Pipeline
Project Amendment and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues
(NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and
local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and
local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission
received seven comments from the public. The primary issues raised to
date, including responses to the Commission's June 25, 2020 Notice of
Application for the Project Amendment, are public benefit of the
project, wetland impacts, impacts on fishing and birding, systems
alternatives, pipeline safety, air quality and noise impacts, tribal
consultation, cumulative impacts, and climate change. All substantive
comments will be addressed in the EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.
    Additional information about the Project Amendment is available
from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or
on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and ``Docket Number'' excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP20-481), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to
eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY (202) 502-
8659, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC
website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by
the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: August 14, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18267 Filed 8-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 120 (Friday, June 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33588-33590]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13492]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0171; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Tuscaloosa, AL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface for Tuscaloosa National Airport,
Tuscaloosa, AL. The FAA is proposing this action as a result of an
airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the CRIMSON Very High
Frequency Omnidirectional Range collocated with Tactical Air Navigation
(VORTAC). This action would also update name of Tuscaloosa National
Airport, (formerly Tuscaloosa Municipal Airport) AL. Controlled
airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: The U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket No. FAA-2021-0171; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-4 at the beginning
of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11E Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed

online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC,
20591; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it would amend Class E airspace for Tuscaloosa National Airport,
Tuscaloosa, AL, to support IFR operations in the area.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2021-0171 and Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-4) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2021-0171; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-4.'' The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Tuscaloosa
National Airport, Tuscaloosa, AL, as the CRIMSON VORTAC is being
decommissioned. The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface would be amended by increasing the radius from 7.0
miles to 9.4 miles, adding an extension 4.0 miles each side of the
117[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 9.4-mile radius to
11.8 miles southeast of the airport and within 2.0 miles each side of
the of the 041[deg] bearing extending from the 9.4-mile radius to 11.5
miles northeast of the airport and within 4.0 miles each side of the
296[deg] bearing extending from the 9.4-mile radius to 10.8 miles
northwest of the airport and within 2.0 miles each side of the 221[deg]
bearing extending from the 9.4-mile radius to 11.8 miles southwest of
the airport. This action would also update name of Tuscaloosa National
Airport, (formerly Tuscaloosa Municipal Airport) AL.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and

Procedures'', prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, is
amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ASO AL E5 Tuscaloosa, AL [Amend]

Tuscaloosa National Airport, AL
    (Lat. 33[deg]13'14'' N, long. 87[deg]36'41'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9.4-mile radius of Tuscaloosa National Airport and within
4.0 miles each side of the 117[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 9.4-mile radius to 11.8 miles southeast of the
airport and within 2.0 miles each side of the of the 041[deg]
bearing extending from the 9.4-mile radius to 11.5 miles northeast
of the airport and within 4.0 miles each side of the 296[deg]
bearing extending from the 9.4-mile radius to 10.8 miles northwest
of the airport and within 2.0 miles each side of the 221[deg]
bearing extending from the 9.4-mile radius to 11.8 miles southwest
of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 21, 2021.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2021-13492 Filed 6-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 233)]
[Notices]
[Page 73652-73653]
[DOCID:fr03de08-29]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0743; FRL-8385-9]

Pesticide Products; Registration Applications

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of applications to register
pesticide products containing new active ingredients not included in
any currently registered products pursuant to the provisions of section
3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), as amended.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0743, 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 docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2008-0743. 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: Melody Banks, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

B. 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.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA received applications as follows to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any previously registered
products pursuant to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice
of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the
Agency on the applications.
     File Symbol: 71711-GN. Applicant: Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New
Linden Hill Rd., Linden Park, Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808. Product
Name: Tolfenpyrad Technical 15EC. Active Ingredient: Tolfenpyrad PC
Code: 090111. Tolfenpyrad is a METl site 1 (iRAC Class 21) insecticide.
Use: Tolfenpyrad PC will be used to control thrips (including Western
Flower), aphids, and scales in the greenhouse on non-food ornamentals.
The product will be applied as a direct spray, with a backpack sprayer
or similar low-volume equipment in the greenhouse. The end-use product,
71711-GR, is a 15% emulsifiable concentrate (EC). (M. Banks).

List of Subjects

     Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: November 18, 2008.
 Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-28595 Filed 12-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


North Umpqua River Umpqua River Smith River Elk Creek South Umpqua River Little River Cow Creek Jackson Creek Calapooya Creek Olalla Creek Lake Creek Fish Creek Days Creek Pass Creek Steamboat Creek Canton Creek South Myrtle Creek Camp Creek Middle Creek Rock Creek Clearwater River Cavitt Creek Sutherlin Creek Br ush Creek Louis Creek Bear Creek Calf Creek Cabin Creek Yellow Creek West Fork Cow Creek Windy Creek Hubbard Creek Coffee Creek Oak Creek Thielsen Creek Drew Creek Fall Creek City Creek Rice Creek Scholfield Creek Tenmile Creek Pollock Creek Dumont Creek Beaver Creek Berry Creek Deer Creek Squaw Creek Boulder Creek Roberts Creek Yoncalla Creek Quartz Creek Canyon Creek Bachelor Creek Stouts Creek Sand Creek Vincent Creek Lost Creek Thirsty Creek Buckeye Creek Rough Creek Oldham Creek Kent Creek Big Bend Creek Castle Rock Fork Billy Creek OShea Creek Slick Creek Clear Creek Mill Creek Cougar Creek Coon Creek Big Creek Quines Creek Theft Creek Ash Creek Clark Branch Doe Creek Weaver Creek Lee Creek Snow Creek Slide Creek Starvout Creek Black Creek Wolf Creek Callahan Creek South Sister Creek Flat Creek Jim Creek Huntley Creek Shively Creek Emile Creek Williams Creek Loafer Creek Negro Creek Susan Cr eek Gold Creek Little Rock Creek White Creek Halfway Creek Riser Creek Cooper Creek Panther Creek Miner Creek Union Creek Riffle Creek Kelly Creek Prong Creek Gassy Creek Wood Creek Corn Creek Muns Creek Spencer Creek Table Creek Thompson Creek Silent Creek Oar Creek Dry Creek Whitehorse Creek Pheasant Creek Slipper Creek Fortune Branch Franklin Creek Fish Lake Creek South Fork Smith River East Fork Rock Creek Frozen Creek Steelhead Creek Walker Creek Diamond Lake French Creek Council Creek Russell Creek Homestead Creek Shoup Creek Hipower Creek Catching Creek Har rington Creek Buckhorn Creek Clover Creek Johnson Creek Warrior Creek Marsters Creek McCullough Creek Warm Spring Creek Da Motta Branch Falcon C reek Mitchell Creek Loon Lake Willis Creek Lake Creek Elk Creek Coon Creek Bear Creek Rock Cr eek Boulder Creek Lost Creek Cougar Creek Rock Creek Panther Creek Wolf Creek Drain Elkton Glendale Roseburg Sutherlin Reedsport Canyonville Legend Salmonid Use Designations 1:

Salmon and Steelhead Core Juvenile Rearing: 16C/ 61F Salmon and Trout 2 Juvenile Rearing and Migration: 18C/ 64F Subbasins ( HUCs)

North Umpqua South Umpqua Lower Umpqua Salmonid Use Designations1, Umpqua Basin, Oregon DRAFT, September 16, 2003 Map produced by Bill Bogue, EPA Region 10, September 16, 2003 Main, North & South Umpqua Rivers shown with bolder lines. 1 Based upon summertime salmonid use. 2 Includes all salmon species, steelhead and rainbow trout.

PACIFIC OCEAN


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 43626]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15810]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4245-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Texas; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of Texas (FEMA-4245-DR), dated November 25, 2015, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 23, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, William J.
Doran III, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Kevin L. Hannes as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-15810 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P