[Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 73995-73996]
[DOCID:fr14de05-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-138-000]

Gulf States Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes
in FERC Gas Tariff

December 8, 2005.
    Take notice that on December 6, 2005, Gulf States Transmission
Corporation (Gulf States) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the tariff Sheets listed on Appendix A
to the filing, to become effective December 26, 2005.
    Gulf States states that copies of this filing are being served on
all customers of Gulf States and applicable state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov
.

Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14
copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7319 Filed 12-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47586-47588]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21994]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81824; File No. SR-FINRA-2017-031]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 6121 To Reflect Recent
Amendments to the Regulation NMS Plan To Address Extraordinary Market
Volatility

October 5, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 29, 2017, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under
the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this
filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 6121 (Trading Halts Due to
Extraordinary Market Volatility) to reflect recent amendments to the
Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Volatility (``Plan'')
regarding the resumption of trading in a security subject to the
Plan.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Unless otherwise specified, the capitalized terms used
herein have the same meanings as set forth in the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    FINRA Rule 6121.01 (Resumption of Trading in Securities Subject to
the Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility)
(``Rule'') addresses the circumstances under which a member may resume
trading otherwise than on an exchange following a Trading Pause or
Regulatory Halt in an NMS Stock that is subject to the Plan.
    The Rule currently provides that, following a Trading Pause or
Regulatory Halt in an NMS Stock that is subject to the Plan, a member
may resume trading otherwise than on an exchange if trading has
commenced on the Primary Listing Exchange (or on another national
securities exchange in the case of the resumption of trading following
a ten-minute Trading Pause) and either: (1) The member has received the
Price Bands from the Processor; or (2) if immediately following a
Trading Pause or Regulatory Halt the member has not yet received the
Price Bands from the Processor, the member has calculated an upper
price band and lower price band consistent with the methodology
provided for in Section V of the Plan and ensures that any transactions
prior to the receipt of the Price Bands from the Processor are within
the ranges provided for pursuant to the Plan. In addition, the Rule
provides that, where the Primary Listing Exchange does not reopen for
trading at the end of a ten-minute Trading Pause (and has issued notice
that it cannot resume trading for a reason other than a significant
imbalance), a member may resume trading otherwise than on an exchange
if trading has commenced in such NMS Stock on at least one other
national securities exchange.
    On January 19, 2017, the Commission approved the Twelfth Amendment
to the Plan, which provides, among other things, that a Trading Pause
will continue until the Primary Listing Exchange has reopened trading
using its established reopening procedures, even if such reopening is
more than 10 minutes after the beginning of a Trading

Pause.\5\ The Twelfth Amendment generally provides that the only time
trading may resume in the absence of a Reopening Price from the Primary
Listing Exchange is if the Primary Listing Exchange notifies the
Processor that it is unable to reopen due to a systems or technology
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79410 (November 28,
2016), 81 FR 87114 (December 2, 2016) (Notice of Filing of the
Twelfth Amendment to the National Market System Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility) (``Twelfth Amendment''); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79845 (January 19, 2017), 82 FR
8551 (January 26, 2017) (Order Approving the Twelfth Amendment to
the National Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market
Volatility) (``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To conform to this change, FINRA is amending Rule 6121.01 to
provide that a member may not resume trading otherwise than on an
exchange following a Trading Pause or Regulatory Halt in an NMS Stock
that is subject to the Plan unless trading has commenced on the Primary
Listing Exchange and either: (1) The member has received the Price
Bands from the Processor; or (2) if the Processor hasn't yet
disseminated Price Bands, but a Reference Price is available, the
member calculates and applies Price Bands based on the same Reference
Price that the Processor would use for calculating such Price Bands
until such member receives Price Bands from the Processor, consistent
with Section V(A)(1) \6\ of the Plan (i.e., ``Synthetic Price Bands'').
Thus, consistent with the Twelfth Amendment, the proposed amendments
provide that a member may only use Synthetic Price Bands in the limited
circumstance where a Reference Price is available but Price Bands have
not yet been disseminated by the Processor.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FINRA is correcting a reference to the Plan in the existing
rule text by replacing ``Section VI(A)(1)'' with ``Section
V(A)(1).''
    \7\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed amendments provide that a member may,
nonetheless, resume trading otherwise than on an exchange in an NMS
Stock that is subject to the Plan if the Primary Listing Exchange
notifies the Processor that it is unable to reopen the security due to
a systems or technology issue, or if the Primary Listing Exchange
reopens trading with a quotation that has a zero bid or zero offer, or
both, and: (1) The member has received the Price Bands from the
Processor; and (2) trading has commenced on at least one other national
securities exchange. In these limited circumstances, trading may resume
otherwise than on an exchange in the absence of a Reopening Price from
the Primary Listing Exchange, but only where the member has received
the Price Bands from the Processor and at least one other national
security exchange has already resumed trading. FINRA believes that
requiring trading to first commence on at least one other national
securities exchange prior to the resumption of trading over the counter
continues to be appropriate and is consistent with existing FINRA rules
and guidance regarding the resumption of over-the-counter trading in a
paused security.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See FAQ #6 (When can trading in a paused security resume?)
in Regulatory Notice 10-30 (June 2010); see also Regulatory Notice
13-12 (March 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The operative date of the proposed rule change will be
the same as the implementation date of the Twelfth Amendment to the
Plan.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81720 (September 26,
2017), https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nms/2017/34-81720.pdf (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Fifteenth Amendment to
the National Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market
Volatility) (providing that the implementation date for the changes
to the Plan set forth in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Amendment would
be changed to no later than November 30, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change is designed to conform to the Twelfth
Amendment to the Plan, which was approved by the Commission as being
consistent with Section 11A of the Act \11\ and Rule 608 thereunder
\12\ because it is appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets, and that it removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism
of, a national market system.\13\ The proposed rule change seeks to
help ensure that the goals of the Plan are met; thus, FINRA believes
that the proposed rule change will further the goals of investor
protection and fair and orderly markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \12\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \13\ See Approval Order at 8552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change seeks
to conform the requirements applicable to member trading otherwise than
on an exchange under the Rule to the Twelfth Amendment to the Plan.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2017-031 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-2017-031. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2017-031 and should be
submitted on or before November 2, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21994 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80314-80318]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32830]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080; FRL-9610-1]
RIN 2060-AR16

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area
Source Standards for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing; Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to revise certain provisions of the area
source national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) for prepared feeds manufacturing published on January 5, 2010
(final rule). These revisions will clarify the regulatory requirements
for this source category and ensure that those requirements are
consistent with the record. The revisions address the generally
available control technology (GACT) requirements for pelleting
processes at large, existing prepared feeds manufacturing facilities,
specifically removal of the cyclone 95-percent design efficiency
requirement, as well as associated requirements for compliance
demonstration, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping; clarification
of the requirement that doors be kept closed in areas where materials
containing chromium and manganese are stored, used, or handled; and
clarification of the requirement to install a device at the point of
bulk loadout to minimize emissions. These amendments are not expected
to result in increased emissions or in the imposition of costs beyond
those described in the January 5, 2010, final rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received by January 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0080, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov:
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and
Radiation Docket Web site.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0080 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: Send comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080.
     Mail: Area Source NESHAP for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing
Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0080. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and

may be made available online at 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
http://www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the 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. For additional instructions on
submitting comments, see Section III of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
    Docket: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080. All documents in the docket are
listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at
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, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Public
Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. 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 Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan King, Outreach and Information
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C404-05),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:

I. Why is the EPA issuing a proposed rule?
II. Does this action apply to me?
III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
    A. Submitting CBI
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
IV. Where can I get a copy of this document?
V. What amendments are being proposed?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Why is the EPA issuing a proposed rule?

    This document proposes amendments affecting sources regulated under
the area source national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) for prepared feeds manufacturing published on
January 5, 2010 (75 FR 522). Because we view this as a noncontroversial
action and anticipate no adverse comment, we have published a direct
final rule in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register revising the generally available control technology (GACT)
standard for pelleting operations at large, existing prepared feeds
manufacturing facilities; clarifying the requirement to keep doors
closed in areas where materials containing chromium and manganese are
stored, used, and handled; and clarifying the requirement that a device
of any type can be used during the bulk loadout process.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposed rule and the direct final rule will become effective
on February 21, 2012 without further notice. If we receive adverse
comment, we will address all public comments in any subsequent final
rule based on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comment by
January 23, 2012 on a distinct provision of this proposed rule, we will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which
provisions we are withdrawing. The provisions that are not withdrawn
will become effective on the date set out above, notwithstanding
adverse comment on any other provision.
    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information, please see the information provided in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. The regulated categories and entities
potentially affected by the rule include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
           Category               NAICS code 1           entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Animal Foods                        311119  Animal feeds, prepared
 Manufacturing.                                    (except dog and cat),
                                                   manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11619,
subpart DDDDDDD (NESHAP for Area Sources: Prepared Feeds
Manufacturing). If you have any questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular entity, consult either the state
delegated authority or the EPA regional representative, as listed in 40
CFR 63.13 of subparts A (General Provisions).

III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to the 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.
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register date
and page number).
     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.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

IV. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    Electronic Access. In addition to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of this direct final action will also be available on
the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Because this is an amendment of regulatory language through rulemaking,
a redline version of the regulatory language has been created and has
been placed in the docket (http://www.regulations.gov, see Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080) to aid the public's ability to comment on the
regulatory text. Following signature, a copy of this final action will
be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various
areas of air pollution control.

V. What amendments are being proposed?

    On January 5, 2010 (75 FR 522), the EPA promulgated the NESHAP for
area source prepared feeds manufacturing facilities as subpart DDDDDDD
in 40 CFR part 63. Existing affected sources (i.e., construction or
reconstruction of the facility began on or before July 27, 2009) must
comply with the rule by January 5, 2012, while new affected sources
(i.e., construction or reconstruction of the facility began after July
27, 2009) were required to comply by January 5, 2010, or upon startup,
whichever is later.
    Today's proposal consists of three revisions and clarifications.
The rule requires that pelleting operations at large prepared feeds
manufacturing facilities (i.e., those facilities with an average daily
feed production level exceeding 50 tons per day) use cyclones. In the
final rule, these cyclones were required to have a 95-percent design
efficiency. This proposal revises this requirement for existing sources
only.\2\ Such sources must use cyclones, and those cyclones must be
operated in accordance with good air pollution control practices and
manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions, if available,
or standard operating procedures must be developed by the facility
owner or operator to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the
cyclone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We are not changing any requirements for new large, prepared
feeds manufacturing facilities. We have amended the regulatory text
to clarify that the design efficiency requirement and associated
compliance mechanisms, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements apply only to new sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preamble to the final rule, we recognized that the cyclones
employed on pelleting operations at existing, large prepared feeds
manufacturing facilities were generally available and provided
effective Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) emissions control (75 FR 533).
We added the 95-percent design efficiency requirement in the final rule
because we thought, based on limited data from sources that would need
to install cyclones, that a large percentage of existing cyclones at
large facilities already met that design efficiency (75 FR 544). In
assessing the costs of the design efficiency requirement as part of our
GACT analysis, we estimated that few existing sources (approximately 2
percent) did not have cyclones and would need to install them to meet
the requirement (Economic Impact Analysis for the Prepared Feeds
Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP, June 17, 2009, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0080-0036). We also explained in the final rule that it was not
our intent to force prepared feed manufacturers to replace older, well-
designed, and properly operating cyclones with new high-efficiency
cyclones (75 FR 533). Indeed, we recognized that requiring the
replacement of older, well designed, properly operating cyclones was
not cost effective, because the incremental emission reductions would
be very low and the costs would be high (75 FR 533).
    The EPA included in the final rule three different mechanisms by
which a source could demonstrate compliance with the design efficiency
requirement. 40 CFR 63.11621(e)(1)-(3). A source could show compliance
by having either cyclone manufacturer certification/specifications, a
certification by a professional engineer or responsible official, or a
Method 5 performance test that indicates whether PM is being released
from the system (Appendix A to part 60) (which determines the
particulate matter mass rate at the inlet and outlet of the cyclone).
The EPA has recently learned that most existing sources would need to
install new cyclones to provide the required documentation for
demonstrating compliance with the final rule. (Material presented by
prepared feeds industry representatives at the January 25, 2011,
meeting with EPA staff, and Industry Request for Administrative Stay
and Reconsideration--June 10 2011, both of which are located in Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080). That was not the intent of the final rule,
and this result cannot be reconciled with the GACT analysis underlying
the final rule.
    As noted above, we premised the design efficiency requirement in
the final rule for existing sources on the assumption that all but a
few cyclones were meeting that requirement and that only a few sources
would need to install new cyclones. Our cost analysis in the final rule
tracked this assumption. We now recognize that this assumption was
incorrect, and that our regulations, as written, would require many
existing facilities to replace existing cyclones, which is contrary to
our GACT analysis. As explained in the final rule, the replacement of
older, well designed, properly operating cyclones is not cost

effective (75 FR at 533). We are therefore proposing to revise the
requirement of the final rule for pelleting operations at existing
large, prepared feeds manufacturing facilities (i.e., those facilities
with an average daily feed production level exceeding 50 tons per day)
to require the use of cyclones. We are also proposing that the cyclones
be operated in accordance with good air pollution control practices and
manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions, if available,
or standard operating procedures must be developed by the facility
owner or operator to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the
cyclone. These proposed revisions are wholly consistent with the record
supporting the final rule, including the cost analysis and our
determination that cyclones are generally available for existing
sources and effectively control HAP emissions.
    Further, the EPA is proposing to revise the requirements for
demonstration of compliance, monitoring, and the notification,
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for existing sources only,
consistent with the removal of the design efficiency requirement for
those sources. This action proposes to amend the notification of
compliance status requirements such that the cyclone manufacturer's
operating specifications or standard operating procedures developed by
the prepared feeds manufacturer be required as part of the record
instead of one of the cyclone parameters as specified in the final rule
(i.e., inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage
range). The revised annual compliance certification would include all
instances when the cyclone does not operate according to manufacturer
specifications or the standard operating procedures. This would replace
the requirement for existing sources to include in the annual
compliance certification the cyclone parameters listed in the final
rule. We are also proposing to revise the recordkeeping requirements
for existing sources to require the owner or operator to record the
results of weekly visual inspections. This would replace the
requirement in the January 5, 2010, final rule for existing sources to
record the daily inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan
amperage.
    This action also clarifies that the requirement to keep doors
closed in areas where materials containing manganese and chromium are
stored, used, or handled does not apply to areas where finished
prepared feeds product is stored in closed containers, since there are
no HAP emissions in these areas. See 40 CFR 63.11621(a)(iii).
    Finally, there has been some confusion regarding the type of device
needed to comply with the bulk loadout provision at 40 CFR 63.11621(d).
These proposed amendments would clarify that any type of device may be
used to minimize the distance between the place where bulk loadout
occurs and the vehicle being loaded. The distance may also be minimized
by the design of the loadout process itself (e.g., the loadout arm
positioned directly above the vehicle being loaded).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden above
that required in the original rule. The revisions do not require
additional information collection requirements and may result in an
overall reduction of the information collection burden. Therefore, the
information collection requests are not being amended. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved the information
collection request (ICR) contained in the existing regulations (subpart
DDDDDDD, 40 CFR part 63) under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control
number 2060-0635 (ICR 2354.02). The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's regulations found at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action
does not impose any additional costs over those in the final rule
published on January 5, 2010 (75 FR 522). In fact, the clarifications
contained in this action are expected to reduce costs for some small
businesses that would otherwise have installed control equipment, but
that would not be required to do so as a result of these amendments.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandate under the provisions of
title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments, or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on state, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this action is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes
no obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It
will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This direct final
rule does not impose any requirements on state and local governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This direct
final rule imposes no requirements on tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under Section 5-501 of the Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology
performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12886.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (''NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the
EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this direct final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This direct final rule makes revisions and clarifications
to the rule and should not result in increased emissions beyond those
described in the final rule.

 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Particulate matter, Air pollution
control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: December 15, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-32830 Filed 12-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

	OPEN MEETING

October 9 - 12, 2007

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0498

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington,VA 22202

The Potential for Atrazine to Affect Amphibian Gonadal Development

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

  8:30 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures -- Joseph
E. Bailey, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination
and Policy, EPA

  8:40 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members -- Steven
G. Heeringa, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Chair

  8:50 A.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks -- William Jordan, Senior Policy
Advisor, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

  8:55 A.M.	Introduction - Goals and Objectives -- Arthur-Jean Williams,
Acting Division Director, Environmental Fate and Effects Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

  9:15 A.M	Introduction - Historical Perspective --Thomas Steeger,
Ph.D., Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs, EPA

  9:45 A.M.	Break

10:00 A.M	Public Comment

12:00 P.M.	Lunch

  1:15 P.M.	Public Comment

  2:45 P.M.	Break

  3:00 P.M.	Public Comment

  5:00 P.M. 	Adjournment

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

	OPEN MEETING

October 9 - 12, 2007

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0498

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington,VA 22202

The Potential for Atrazine to Affect Amphibian Gonadal Development

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

  8:30 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures -- Joseph
E. Bailey, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination
and Policy, EPA

  8:40 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members --

		Steven G. Heeringa, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Chair

  8:50 A.M.	Overview of Open Literature -- Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Office
of Pesticide Programs, EPA

  9:30 A.M.	Scientific Approach to the Design of the Data Call-In (DCI)
Studies -- Joseph Tietge, M.S., Office of Research and Development,
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, EPA

10:15 A.M	Break

10:30 A.M.	Overview of the Atrazine DCI Studies -- Thomas Steeger,
Ph.D., Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

11:15 A.M.	Overview of Statistical Analysis and Highlights of the
Results of the DCI Studies -- Mary Frankenberry, Office of Pesticide
Programs, EPA

11:45 P.M. 	Agency Conclusions --Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Office of
Pesticide Programs, EPA

12:00 P.M.	Lunch

1:15 P.M.	Charge to Panel - Question 1

	In reviewing the available laboratory and field studies, the Agency
used a number of criteria to evaluate individual investigations.
Criteria such as experimental design, test protocols, and quality
assurance information were used to evaluate the reliability of a
study’s ability to adequately assess a hypothesis that atrazine
elicits developmental effects in amphibians, and if so, the nature and
strength of associated dose-response relationships.

(a)  	Please provide comments and recommendations regarding the EPA’s
approach and criteria used to evaluate the studies.

	(b) 	Given the evaluation criteria employed by the Agency, please
comment on EPA’s overall application of these criteria to the
currently available studies.

2:15 P.M.	Charge to Panel - Question 2

	The Agency has concluded that the information contained in the open
literature published since the 2003 SAP does not provide any additional
information that could be used to refute or confirm the hypothesis that
exposure to atrazine alone causes adverse developmental effects in
amphibian gonads.

(a)  	Please comment on the comprehensiveness of the Agency’s
literature reviews relative to the potential effects of atrazine alone
on amphibian gonadal development.

(b) 	Please comment on the Agency’s evaluation of the open literature
studies and the Agency’s conclusion that the data derived from
laboratory studies, both individually and collectively, are not
sufficient to refute or confirm the hypothesis that atrazine exposure
causes developmental effects in amphibian gonads.

	(c) 	The Agency concluded that the field studies are not adequate for
assessing the hypothesis at hand.  Please comment on the Agency’s
conclusion.  If the SAP concludes one or more of the field studies do
provide the means to assess the hypothesis that atrazine exposure
results in effects on amphibian gonadal development, please suggest
interpretive and statistical methods that should be employed to evaluate
the data.

3:00 P.M.	Break

3:15 P.M.	Charge to Panel - Question 3

Please comment on the Agency’s evaluation of the final study design.
For example, the Agency concluded that the minor changes in the
experimental design [i.e., omitting atrazine degradate (DACT, DEA and
DIA) analysis and not conducting differential cell counts for ovarian
and testicular histology] did not compromise the means to assess the
hypothesis that atrazine exposure can affect amphibian gonadal
development.  If the SAP concludes that the alterations in the study
design preclude or significantly compromise the ability to assess the
hypothesis, please discuss to the extent possible, how the specific
design modifications could impact the means to assess the hypothesis.
Please provide comments on other aspects of the Agency’s evaluation as
well.

4:15 P.M.	Charge to Panel - Question 4

The Agency has described the exposure profiles for studies conducted in
response to the DCI and has stated that mean-measured concentrations in
the studies were lower than target nominal concentrations.  However, the
Agency concluded that the frequent analytical measurements provide a
sufficiently comprehensive understanding of the exposure profile over
the course of the studies.  Please comment on the Agency’s conclusion
that the atrazine exposure concentration profile is reasonably
characterized and sufficient for documenting the potential effects of
atrazine over a broad range of exposure concentrations.  In addition,
provide comments on whether the actual concentrations were consistent
and sufficiently stable to establish the means to analyze exposure
concentration-response relationships.

5:00 P.M.	Adjournment

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

	OPEN MEETING

October 9 - 12, 2007

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0498

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington,VA 22202

The Potential for Atrazine to Affect Amphibian Gonadal Development

Thursday, October 11, 2007

  8:30 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures -- Joseph
E. Bailey, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination
and Policy, EPA

  8:40 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members -- Steven
G. Heeringa, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Chair

  8:50 A.M.	Charge to Panel - Question 5

	The Agency described atrazine contamination of negative controls in one
out of the two studies and concluded that since the experimental design
had twice the number of controls relative to other treatments, the data
from these atrazine-contaminated controls could be removed from the
analyses without invalidating the statistical interpretation of the
results.

(a)	Please comment on the Agency’s decision to omit half of the
controls from the WLI study in the statistical analyses and on the
conclusion that the study is still scientific valid.  If the SAP has an
alternative approach to treating these control data in the statistical
analyses, please provide specific recommendations.

10:00 A.M.	Break

10:15 A.M.	Charge to Panel - Question 6

	The original White Paper (USEPA 2003) identified measurement endpoints
that included the possible enumeration of specific histological
structures such as the number of oogonia in ovaries and the number of
spermatids in testes.  Such a detailed analysis was not conducted in the
studies that are in response to the DCI.  Rather, a qualitative
assessment of the incidence of ovarian and testicular gonadocytes was
conducted. The Agency has concluded that the lack of these data does not
limit the means to assess the hypothesis that atrazine exposure affects
amphibian gonadal development.

	(a)	Please comment on whether the lack of these histological data
limits the utility of the available information to fail to support the
hypothesis that atrazine exposure affects amphibian gonadal development.

	(b) 	If the SAP concludes these data are necessary to adequately assess
the hypothesis, please provide options to processing and analyzing these
data in an efficient and robust manner.

11:15 A.M.	Charge to Panel - Question 7

	The Agency has described a number of measurement endpoints (e.g.,
translucent gonads, unpigmented ovaries, pigmented testes) based on
histology results that were reported in the studies. The Agency,
however, based on its understanding of relevant scientific literature,
could not conclude that these measurement endpoints are biologically
relevant indicators of effects on growth or reproductive success (i.e.,
the Agency did not interpret these responses as adverse effects per se)
nor was the Agency aware of any information that established these
responses as precursors to the apical endpoints of primary interest
(i..e., time to and size at metamorphosis, sex ratio, and the presence
of mixed and/or intersex animals).

(a)		Please comment on the biological relevancy of these endpoints and
the extent to which they may reflect reliable measures of developmental
abnormalities.

12:00 P.M.	Lunch

  1:15 P.M.	Charge to Panel - Question 8

	The Agency’s analysis of potential developmental effects in studies
responsive to the DCI has focused on histological data as opposed to
gross morphological data.  The histological data from these studies are
based on the analyses of a single certified pathologist.  While this
approach eliminates the potential variability associated with having
multiple pathologists analyze the histological slides, it may introduce
an avidity bias.

	(a)	Please comment on whether a single pathologist is sufficient for
interpreting the histology data.  If the SAP believes that a single
pathologist is not sufficient, please comment on the potential value of
convening a pathology review board to evaluate the findings of the DCI
study.

	(b)	Please also comment on the potential value of having a pathology
review board evaluate materials (e.g., digital images of gross
morphology and microscope slides containing histological sections) from
studies published in the open literature.  These data could be submitted
voluntarily by the authors and could include slides to evaluate
similarities or differences in identifying or describing histological
features and/or describing and quantifying histological responses.

2:00 P.M.	Charge to Panel - Question 9

	After an evaluation of the laboratory-based studies submitted in
response to the DCI, the Agency has concluded that these studies do not
provide sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that atrazine
causes adverse gonadal developmental effects in amphibians.

	(a)	In light of the responses to Questions 3 – 8, please comment on
whether the results from the study in response to the DCI are
sufficiently robust to address the hypothesis that atrazine exposure
causes gonadal abnormalities in X. laevis.   If the SAP concludes these
results are not sufficiently robust, what recommendations can the SAP
provide to efficiently and reasonably address remaining uncertainties?
For example, if the SAP does not believe the DCI study is sufficiently
robust to assess the hypothesis, does the SAP believe either the two
experiments or a specific component of the two experiments should be
reanalyzed or repeated?  Please provide the rationale for recommending
any additional analyses and/or experiments.

	(b)	Please comment and provide recommendations on alternate statistical
analyses, if any, to evaluate the data derived from the study.  If
alternative approaches are suggested, please comment, to the extent
possible, on the rationale for these approaches and how they represent
improvements in the existing statistical interpretations.

2:45 P.M.	Break

3:00 P.M.	Charge to Panel - Question 10

	Is the SAP aware of any other laboratory-based or field-based studies
not included in this White Paper that contradict the Agency’s
conclusions that 1) the designs associated with current studies
available in the open literature are not appropriate for evaluating the
hypothesis that atrazine affects amphibian gonadal development and 2)
the available data in the open literature combined with the results of
DCI study indicate that atrazine does not cause adverse effects on
gonadal development in X. laevis when investigated under conditions
consistent with those recommended by the SAP in its previous report (SAP
2003).  If so, please identify the studies and briefly outline how the
results from these studies would contradict the conclusion that atrazine
at concentrations up to 100 μg/L does not cause adverse effects on
amphibian gonadal development.

4:00 P.M.	Charge to Panel - Question 11

	The Agency is not aware of data that establish a mechanistic basis for
how atrazine could affect amphibian gonadal development.  Please
identify and comment on any studies that demonstrate the mechanistic
steps by which amphibian gonadal development could be affected by
atrazine, and thereby contradict the Agency’s overall conclusions
based on the studies evaluated for this SAP review.  If the SAP is aware
of any relevant study(ies), please comment on the data from this
study(ies) and how the data indicate and quantify a mechanistic pathway
from atrazine’s molecular site of action to histological and apical
endpoints associated with adverse effects on amphibian gonadal
development.  Please also comment on any dose-response relationships
associated with the steps in the reported toxicity pathway.

5:00 P.M.	Adjournment

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

	OPEN MEETING

October 9 - 12, 2007

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0498

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington,VA 22202

The Potential for Atrazine to Affect Amphibian Gonadal Development

Friday, October 12, 2007

  8:30 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures -- Joseph
E. Bailey, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination
and Policy, EPA

  8:40 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members -- Steven
G. Heeringa, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Chair

  8:50 A.M.	Charge to Panel - Question 12

	In its 2003 White Paper the Agency proposed a research approach using
focused, empirical laboratory studies based on initial investigations
with X. laevis, potentially followed by selective, confirmatory
laboratory studies with frog species native to North America.  However,
the 2003 SAP did not identify any important differences between
amphibian species to conclude that any affected developmental and/or
mechanistic processes observed in X. laevis would not be applicable to
indigenous ranid species.

	(a)  	Please comment on the Agency’s recommendation that data derived
from X. laevis in the studies evaluated for this review are sufficient
to conclude that additional testing with indigenous species is not
warranted.

10:00 A.M.	Break

10:15 A.M.	Charge to Panel - Question 13

	Based on the available data provided by the DCI studies, the Agency has
concluded that atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian gonadal
development.  The Agency has further concluded that no additional
studies are required to address the hypothesis that atrazine adversely
affects amphibian gonadal development.

	Please comment on the Agency’s recommendation that the current body
of data is sufficient to refute the hypothesis that atrazine by itself
can adversely affect amphibian gonadal development and that no
additional data are required to address this hypothesis.

11:15 A.M.	Continued Panel Discussion (as needed)

12:00 P.M.	Lunch

  1:15 P.M.	Continued Panel Discussion (as needed)

  2:45 P.M.	Break

  3:00 P.M.	Continued Panel Discussion (as needed)

  5:00 P.M.	Adjournment

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion
for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin.
For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official
for this meeting, Joseph Bailey, via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(202) 564-8382; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
`

 PAGE

 PAGE   10