1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Memorandum DATE: May 23, 2002 SUBJECT: Benefits Assessment for the Use of Methyl Parathion on Rice: Impacts of Cancellation FROM: Colwell Cook, Entomologist Herbicide and Insecticide Branch Tim Kiely, Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

THROUGH: David Brassard, Senior Entomologist Arnet Jones, Chief Herbicide and Insecticide Branch David Widawsky, Chief Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

TO: Laura Parsons, Chemical Review Manager Special Review and Reregistration Division CC: Denise Keehner, Director Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

Reviewed by BEAD Peer Review Panel: May 22, 2002 2 SUMMARY The following analysis estimates the impacts to rice growers of no longer having methyl parathion available for use on rice. Because nearly all of the methyl parathion use on rice occurs in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, the analysis focuses on the Southern U. S. rice production region ( Southern Region). Per acre impacts as well as industry wide impacts are estimated assuming that methyl parathion is no longer available for use on rice.

Without methyl parathion available for use on rice, rice growers will suffer significant impacts. Methyl parathion is used to control a number of insect pests, but its use is critical for the late season control of rice stink bug. It is estimated that without methyl parathion available for this use, rice growers will be forced to use more expensive and potentially less effective chemical controls, which would result in reductions in the quality of the rice harvested, as well as increases in the cost of rice production. Reductions in the quality of the rice harvested are estimated to result in losses in gross revenues of up to 12% per acre, while the costs of production are estimated to increase 1% per acre. Net returns are estimated to decline from $ 54 per acre to $ 5$ 12 per acre, a loss of 78 91%. Estimated state level losses range from up to $ 2.5 million in Louisiana to nearly $ 7 million in Texas. In total, for the Southern Region, losses could be as high as $ 15.2 million. There is also concern over the potential for resistance without methyl parathion available for use on rice, since the most effective alternatives are synthetic pyrethroids.

LIMITATIONS AND SCOPE OF ANALYSIS The scope of this analysis includes an examination of potential per acre and industry level impacts associated with no longer allowing the use of methyl parathion on rice. This mitigation scenario reflects the health risks to pesticide mixers, loaders, and applicators as identified by the Health Effects Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs. This analysis does not attempt to address impacts associated with mitigation efforts targeted at farm workers entering fields after the application of methyl parathion, nor potential mitigation for various environmental risks ( i. e., risk mitigation for risks to terrestrial plants and organisms or water contamination). Nor does it address the impacts of a reduction in the allowable application rate.

There are limitations to this assessment. The impacts estimated by this analysis only represent potential short term   1 to 2 years   impacts on the rice production system and grower returns. National impacts are calculated by simply scaling up the estimated per acre impacts. We ignore potential changes in price that may result from production changes and we assume that grower impacts will not result in a shift from rice to other crops.

Assumptions about yield and quality losses associated with the various scenarios are based on the best professional judgement of BEAD analysts when estimates were not available from other sources. Assumptions are based on a review of available USDA crop profiles, state crop production guides, discussions with university extension and research entomologists knowledgeable in rice production, and 3 other sources listed. Rice production is a very complex system that can be influenced by a variety of parameters ( e. g., weather). BEAD's ability to quantitatively capture the wide array of events that could unfold given each hypothetical scenario listed above is very limited.

U. S. RICE PRODUCTION Total U. S. rice production averaged more than 19 billion pounds on an average of 3.3 million acres harvested over the years 1998 2000, and was valued at $ 1.3 billion. The Southern Region, which is comprised of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas, accounts for more than 80% of U. S. rice production. The other production region ( State) of California accounts for the remaining 19% of U. S. rice production. The major rice producing states are Arkansas, which accounts for nearly half of U. S. rice production, and California and Mississippi, which account for 19% and 14% of U. S. production, respectively ( Table 1).

Table 1. Rice Production Statistics by State, Region and in Total for the U. S. 1 State Area Harvested ( 1,000 Acres) Yield ( pounds / acre) Production ( 1,000 pounds) Percent of Total U. S. Production Price ($/ pound) Value of Production ($ 1,000)

U. S. 3,271 5,936 19,386,700  0.0686 1,319,068 CA 504 7,357 3,722,000 19% 0.0715 258,389 Southern Region 2,764 5,667 15,664,400 81% 0.0677 1,060,679 AR 1,507 5,917 8,906,100 46% 0.0676 598,650 LA 572 4,870 2,777,800 14% 0.0689 191,828 MS 266 5,783 1,555,200 8% 0.0669 103,987 MO 167 5,433 909,700 5% 0.0665 58,749 TX 252 6,067 1,515,300 8% 0.0704 107,465 1. Based on USDA/ NASS Agricultural Statistics, 1998 2000.

U. S. rice exports in 2000 were more than 3 million metric tons ( MT) ( FATUS, 2001). Mexico was the largest consumer with more than 560,000 MT, followed by Japan at 310,000 MT. Exports of rice were valued at over $ 834 million. 4 USAGE OF METHYL PARATHION ON RICE Over the years 1998 2000, methyl parathion usage on U. S. rice averaged 360,000 pounds applied. An average of 10% ( or 320,000 acres) of the U. S. crop was treated over the same time period. Texas received the majority of the methyl parathion usage on rice, with more than 200,000 pounds applied to Texas rice, and more than 50% of the Texas acreage treated. Nearly all of the remaining methyl parathion usage occurs in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi ( Table 2).

On average, less than 1 pound of methyl parathion is applied per acre per application in the U. S., and only Texas receives more than 2 application per acre per year on average.

Table 2. Major States of Methyl Parathion Usage on Rice.

State Acres Grown ( 1000 acres) Acres Treated ( 1000 acres) Percent Crop Treated Pounds Active Ingredient Applied ( 1000 pounds) Average Number of Applications Average Application Rate ( pounds ai/ acre)

U. S. 3,300 320 10% 360 1.6 0.7 Southern Region 1 2,656 311 12% 353

Arkansas 1,547 56 4% 48 1.1 0.7 Louisiana 580 51 9% 53 1.5 0.7 Mississippi 267 64 24% 49 1.3 0.6 Texas 262 140 53% 203 2.2 0.7 1. Usage for Missouri not included. Missouri usage of methyl parathion is relatively small. Source: USDA/ NASS Agricultural Chemical Usage: Field Crops ( 2000) and EPA proprietary data ( 1998 2000).

USE OF METHYL PARATHION ON RICE The major insect pest of rice for which methyl parathion is used is the rice stink bug ( RSB). Secondary insect pests for which methyl parathion is used are true armyworms, fall armyworms, and chinch bugs ( Appendix A). The secondary pests are sporadic and early in the season.

Stink bugs feed on grasses near rice fields and invade rice fields soon after rice begins to head. There the stink bug feeds on developing rice grains and deposits eggs. Both the adults and the developing 5 nymphs feed by sucking juice from the developing kernels. Feeding on the flowering and milk stage of rice produces blank, empty grains and reduced yields. Feeding on the soft dough stage causes a discoloration of the rice, known as pecky rice. Pecky rice from RSB has been known to reduce the quality of the rice harvested and lower revenues 10 12% ( Smith and Anisco, 2000).

Methyl parathion is critical to rice growers for late season RSB control. It is preferred because it is still very effective, has short residual with a relatively short PHI ( 15 days), and is inexpensive. Rice growers are operating on a thin margin, and any reduction in control or increase in control costs can result in significant economic losses. Rice growers are trying to be more economical by scouting more and applying insecticides only when they have an insect problem, consequently rice growers often have to make a late season application of methyl parathion for control of the RSB. Lambda cyhalothrin is also available for use against RSB, and is widely used by rice growers. However, it is more likely to be used earlier in the season due to its long PHI ( 21 days). Growers find that in some circumstances, lambda cyhalothrin does not have enough residual to protect the rice from RSB through harvest. As a result, an application of methyl parathion is often necessary to protect the grain until harvest.

Without methyl parathion available for use, rice growers would likely use lambda cyhalothrin or zeta cypermethrin for late season stink bug control. Zeta cypermethrin has a recent registration for use on rice, but it has not been available long enough for evaluation in commercial applications. Carbaryl is also used to some extent for rice stink bug control, primarily in Texas, but is less effective than methyl parathion and may reduce fertilization if used during pollination. The typical practice in Texas is to apply carbaryl at heading and then follow with an application of methyl parathion if RSB appear. Rice hulls open in the morning for fertilization, so some areas have recommended an evening application of carbaryl to reduce the chance of interfering with fertilization. However, morning is the optimal time that the RSB feeds on the developing grains, so evening applications of carbaryl may result in less adequate control.

IMPACTS OF CANCELLATION OF METHYL PARATHION Biological Assessment It is assumed that due to the limitations of the available alternatives to methyl parathion on rice for late season RSB control ( i. e., lambda cyhalothrin has a long PHI, performance of zeta cypermethrin in commercial fields is unknown, and carbaryl is less effective), rice growers could suffer losses in rice quality ( pecky rice) as a result of damage due to inadequate control of the pest if methyl parathion is not available for use on rice. Pecky rice from RSB has been known to reduce quality and lower revenues 10 12% ( Smith and Anisco, 2000).

Economic Assessment 6 Grower Level Per Acre Impacts A crop budget approach was used to determine the per acre economic impact of no longer having methyl parathion available for use on rice. The impacts are estimated only for those states in the Southern Region which have significant use of methyl parathion ( Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) ( Table 2). Due to similar regional production characteristics and methyl parathion use patterns, per acre impacts are assumed to be the same for all 4 states. Statistics on production and revenue were obtained from USDA/ NASS ( Table 1), while representative sample costs of production were obtained from production budgets published by the University of Arkansas, Louisiana State University, Mississippi State University, and Texas A& M University. These budgets are reflective of the likely incurred costs, but are not based on cost of production surveys. This analysis assumes that farm gate prices are not affected by any changes at the grower level and that growers do not drastically alter their production practices. The analysis focuses solely on operating costs, ignoring overhead and other opportunity costs, as these are difficult to measure. Thus the net cash returns listed overstate actual per acre profits to the grower.

As previously mentioned, the critical use of methyl parathion on rice is for late season rice stink bug control in the Southern Region of the U. S. Without methyl parathion available for use on rice, it is assumed that growers would switch to a less effective and more costly chemical control, which would result in a reduction in the quality of the rice harvested, and an increase in chemical control costs.

It is assumed that although the alternatives to methyl parathion available for late season control of RSB ( lambda cyhalothrin and zeta cypermethrin) will likely result in less control and losses in rice quality, growers will still choose to apply them to avoid potentially higher quality and yield losses. It is assumed that the alternatives to methyl parathion will not provide adequate late season control of the RSB, and growers will face gross revenue losses of 10 12% per acre from reductions in the quality of the harvested rice. In the analysis, the losses in gross revenue are attributed to a reduction in the price received ( Table 3). Because the actual reduction in price received and the amount of production that will suffer losses in quality is not known, it is assumed that all production will suffer the same loss in quality and receive the reduced price. Per acre gross revenues would decline from $ 384 per acre ( base scenario) to $ 338$ 345 per acre without methyl parathion available for use ( alternative scenario).

The alternatives to methyl parathion for late season stink bug control are also more expensive than methyl parathion, and their use will result in increased costs of production for rice growers. It is assumed that methyl parathion is applied once for late season rice stink bug control, and that one application of an alternative to methyl parathion would be made in the absence of methyl parathion. Costs of control are only estimated to increase $ 3 per acre, but that is a 100% increase over the cost of methyl parathion. The increase in chemical control costs without methyl parathion ( alternative scenario) results in a 1% increase in production costs ( Table 3).

As a result of the decline in gross revenues of 10 12% and the increase in production costs of 1% without methyl parathion available for use on rice, net returns are estimated to decline from $ 54 per acre 7 in the base scenario to between $ 5$ 12 per acre in the alternative scenario, a loss of 78 91% per acre. ( See Table 3.)

Table 3. Gross Returns, Production Costs and Net Returns to Rice Production in Southern U. S. Rice.

Base Scenario: methyl parathion Alternative Scenario: lambda cyhalothrin zeta cypermethrin % Change Per Acre Gross Revenues rice production ( pounds/ acre) 5,667 5,667 0%

price received for rice ($/ pound) 0.0677 0.0609 0.0596 10% 12%

gross revenues ($/ acre) 384 345 338 10% 12%

Per Acre Operating Costs insecticide costs ($/ acre)

methyl parathion lambda cyhalothrin/ zeta cypermethrin 3 6 100%

other insecticides 17 17 other operating costs ($/ acre) 310 310 total operating costs ($/ acre) 330 333 1%

Per Acre Net Cash Returns1 net cash returns ($/ acre) 54 12 5  78%  91% 1. Per acre net cash returns equal per acre gross revenues minus total per acre operating costs. Source: University of Arkansas, Louisiana State University, Mississippi State University, Texas A & M University.

State and Regional Impacts Table 4 lists the state and regional impacts of no longer having methyl parathion available for use on rice. Impacts are estimated only in those states currently using methyl parathion to control rice stink bug on rice ( Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) ( Table 2). The estimated impacts are based on the 8 assumption that net returns are the same for every acre of rice harvested in each state in the Southern Region in the base scenario ( methyl parathion available for use), and that only those rice acres treated with methyl parathion in the Southern Region will face a decline in net returns if methyl parathion is no longer available for use ( alternative scenario). The acres impacted ( or treated with methyl parathion) are listed in column 2 of Table 4.

The state level impacts as listed in columns 3 and 4 of Table 4, which are based on the estimated $ 42$ 49 per acre losses without methyl parathion available for use ( Table 3), range from a loss of up to $ 2.5 million in Louisiana to a loss of nearly $ 7 million in Texas. For the Southern Region, losses could be as high as $ 15.2 million. The losses are further characterized in columns 5 and 6 of Table 4, as a proportion of total gross revenues and net cash returns in the base scenario, respectively. As a percent of gross revenues, which do not account for operating expenses, losses range from < 1% in Arkansas to more than 6% in Texas. As a percent of net cash returns, which do account for operating expenses, the range of losses jump to more than 3% in Arkansas to more than 50% in Louisiana. 9 Table 4. State and Regional Impacts of No Longer Having Methyl parathion Available for Use on Rice in the Southern Region of the U. S.

State Acres Impacted (% of crop treated in State) 1 Impact ($) of 10% Quality Loss ($ 42/ treated acre Loss) 2 Impact ($) of 12% Quality Loss ($ 49/ treated acre Loss) 3 % of Base Scenario Gross Revenues4 % of Base Scenario Net Cash Returns5 Arkansas 56,000 ( 4%) $ 2,352,000 $ 2,744,000 0.4% 2.9  3.4%

Louisiana 51,000 ( 9%) $ 2,142,000 $ 2,499,000 1.1  1.3% 6.9  8.1%

Mississippi 64,000 ( 24%) $ 2,688,000 $ 3,136,000 2.6  3.0% 18.7  21.8%

Texas 140,000 ( 53%) $ 5,880,000 $ 6,860,000 5.5  6.4% 43.2  50.4%

Southern6 Region 311,000 ( 12%) $ 13,062,000 $ 15,239,000 1.0  1.2% 8.8 10.2%

1. Acres impacted is the number of acres treated with methyl parathion in the state/ region ( see Table 2). 2. The impact of 10% quality loss is equal to the acres impacted multiplied by the per acre loss of $ 42 ($ 39/ acre quality loss plus $ 3/ acre cost increase) ( see Table 3). 3. The impact of 12% quality loss is equal to the acres impacted multiplied by the per acre loss of $ 49 ($ 46/ acre quality loss plus $ 3/ acre cost increase) ( see Table 3). 4. The % of base scenario gross revenues is equal to the impact at 10% and 12% divided by the gross revenues with methyl parathion available. See Table 1 for current gross revenues. 5. The % of base scenario net cash returns is equal to the impact at 10% and 12% divided by the net returns with methyl parathion available ( acres harvested x $ 54/ acre). See Appendix B for current ( base Scenario) net cash returns. 6. Southern Region impacts are based on the total impacts of the 4 states listed.

CONCLUSION Without methyl parathion available for use on rice, rice growers in the Southern Region ( specifically Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) would use the more costly and potentially less effective lambda cyhalothrin or zeta cypermethrin for the late season control of rice stink bug. As a result, growers would suffer a loss in gross revenues of an estimated 10 12% due to loss of quality in the rice harvested, and an increase in operating costs of 1% due to increased chemical control costs. Under this scenario, cash returns could decline significantly from $ 54 per acre to between $ 5$ 12 per acre, a loss of 78 91% per acre. State level impacts would be significant as well, ranging from a loss of up to $ 2.5 million in Louisiana to a loss of nearly $ 7 million in Texas. In total for the Southern Region, losses could be as high as $ 15.2 million, which is more than 10% of current regional net cash returns. 10 REFERENCES Bernhardt, John. University of Arkansas Extension. Personal Communication, May 13, 2002.

Johnson, D. R., J. Bernhardt, G. Lorenz, G. Studebaker, and J. Greene. 1999. Management of the Insect Pests of Rice. University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension. Can be found at: hpp:// www. uaex. edu/ Other_ Areas/ publcations/ HTML/ FSA 2068. asp.

Louisiana State University. Crop budget for rice production in Louisiana, 2002.

Mississippi State University. Crop budget for rice production in Mississippi, 2002.

Saichuck, John. Louisiana State University Extension. Personal Communication, April 15 and May 2, 2002.

Smith, Dudley and Juan Anisco, 2000. Rice in Texas, Crop Brief on Production, Pests, and Pesticides. The Agriculture Program of the Texas A & M University System. Can be found at: http:// aggiehorticulture tamu. edu/ extension/ cropbriefs/ rice. html.

Texas A& M University. Crop budget for rice production in Texas, 2000.

University of Arkansas. Crop budget for rice production in Arkansas, 2002.

USDA Crop Profile for Rice in Louisiana. 2000. Found at: http:// pestdata. ncsu. edu/ cropprofiles/ docs/ LArice. html.

Way, M. O. Texas A& M Extension. Personal Communication, May 7, 2002.

USDA, Economic Research Service, Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States ( FATUS), www. ers. usda. gov/ db/ fatus, 1999/ 2000 calendar years.

USDA, National Agricultural Statistic Service, Agricultural Chemical Usage, Field Crop Summary, various years.

USDA, National Agricultural Statistic Service, Agricultural Statistics, 2001. 11 Appendix A. Target Insects and Control Rice Stink Bug, Oebalus pugnax ( Fabricius)

Stink bugs feed on grasses near rice fields and invades rice fields soon after rice begins to head. There it feeds on developing rice grains and deposits eggs. Both the adults and the developing young nymphs feed by sucking juice from the developing kernels. Feeding on the flowering and milk stage of rice produces blank, empty grains and reduced yields. Feeding on the soft dough stage can cause peckiness of the grains, but peckiness can be caused by factors other than stink bug feeding.

Controls Biological control: Several natural enemies are important in reducing the density of RSB populations in rice. Adults and nymphs are parasitized by Beskia aelops ( Walker), and Euthera tentatrix Lav. ( both Diptera: Tachinidae). Eggs of RSB are parasitized by Oencyrtus anasae ( Ashm.) ( Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), and Telonomus podisi ( Ashm.) ( Hymenoptera: Scelionidae). Management of RSB relies significantly on the activity of these naturally occurring biological control agents. Intervention using chemical control based on established monitoring procedures and thresholds is recommended when RSB escapes from the control provided by natural enemies .

Chemical control: Carbaryl is generally slower acting than methyl parathion and is therefore not used often; additionally it is more costly. Malathion is not very efficacious against the RSB. Methyl Parathion has a PHI of 15 days, is efficacious, and is usually selected for use against this late season pest. Lambda cyhalothrin is efficacious but has a PHI of 21 days, and therefore is not always useful to control RSB. Zeta cypermethrin is newly registered for use in rice for the RSB. However, little information on field performance is available.

Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda ( J. E. Smith); True Armyworm, Pseudaletia unipuncta ( Haworth)

Armyworm larvae feed on the leaves of young rice plants, destroying large amount of leaf tissue. Seedlings are eventually pruned to the ground as the larvae feed. Armyworm infestations generally occur along field borders, levees and in high areas of fields, where larvae escape drowning. The most severe damage occurs in fields of seedling rice that is too young to flood. The preferred treatment option is to flood infested fields. Fields must remain flooded for several hours in order to drown armyworm larvae. If plants are too young to flood, fields can be treated with methyl parathion ( 0.5 lb. ai/ A), malathion ( 1.5 lb. ai/ A), or a Bacillus thuringiensis formulation ( 0.5 lb. ai/ A). Malathion and B. thuringiensis are the only chemical control options available for rice grown in rotation with crawfish. Problems. Flooding rice fields to control armyworm may be more expensive than chemical control, and 12 may not be possible in drill seeded rice fields where levee construction has been delayed. Chemical control using methyl parathion may interact with weed management practices. Applying methyl parathion within 14 days of the herbicide propanil may cause severe damage to rice. Formulations of B. thuringiensis are slow acting and may not provide adequate control of large larvae. Controls Chemical control: Control when finding 1 worm per 2 plants. Carbaryl, malathion, methyl parathion, and lambdacyhalothrin are registered.

Chinch Bug, Blissus leucopterus leucopterus ( Say)

Adult and nymph chinch bugs feed by piercing the leaves and stems of rice plants and sucking plant juices. Chinch bug feeding on young seedlings causes leaves and stems to turn light brown. Heavy infestations can kill young plants resulting in severe stand reductions. Both adult and immature chinch bugs contribute to damage in rice. The chinch bug is generally only a problem in dry planted fields in heavy clay soils. Controls Chemical control: There is no threshold for chinch bug in rice. Products available for control are carbaryl, malathion, and methyl parathion. Additionally, if seed is treated with fipronil for rice water weevil control, it will control chinch bugs as well. However, fipronil has been implicated as a cause of crawfish demise in areas near rice fields.

Apendix B. Current ( Base Scenario) Net Cash Return By State and for the Southern Region State Current ( Base Scenario) Net Cash Returns 1 Arkansas 81,378,000 Louisiana 30,888,000 Mississippi 14,364,000 Texas 13,608,000 Southern Region 149,256,000 1. The current ( base scenario) assumes methyl parathion is available for use on rice.


[Federal Register: September 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 176)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52594-52597]
[DOCID:fr10se08-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0507; FRL-8378-8]

Hexythiazox; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends the established tolerances for combined
residues of hexythiazox in or on citrus dried pulp; citrus oil; pome
fruit, crop group 11; wet apple pomace; and meat byproducts of cattle,
goat, horse, and sheep. Gowan Company requested these tolerances under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 10, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 10, 2008,
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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0507. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in

regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (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 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 Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga Odiott, 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 those
engaged in the following activities:
     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 to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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-2007-0507 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before November 10, 2008.
    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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0507, 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'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>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60367) (FRL-
8154-1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP
7F7211 and PP 7F7223) by Gowan Company, 370 S. Main Street, Yuma, AZ
85364. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.448 be amended by
revising the established tolerances for combined residues of the
insecticide hexythiazox, trans-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-N-cyclohexyl-4-
methyl-2-oxothiazolidine-3-carboxamide and its metabolites containing
the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-thiazolidine moiety (expressed as
parent), in or on citrus dried pulp from 1.5 parts per million (ppm) to
0.6 ppm; and citrus oil from 0.9 ppm to 24 ppm (PP 7F7223); pome fruit,
crop group 11 from 1.7 ppm to 0.25 ppm; wet apple pomace from 2.5 ppm
to 0.40 ppm; and meat byproducts of cattle, goat, horse, and sheep from
0.12 ppm to 0.02 ppm (PP 7F7211). That notice referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by Gowan Company, the registrant, which is
available to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.
There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

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 section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, 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 the petitioned-for
tolerances for combined residues of hexythiazox on citrus dried pulp;
citrus oil; pome fruit, crop group 11; wet apple

pomace; and meat byproducts of cattle, goat, horse, and sheep. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing
tolerances follows.
    On March 22, 2006 the Agency published in the Federal Register a
final rule (71 FR 14409, FRL-7768-3) establishing tolerances for
combined residues of hexythiazox on apple, wet pomace at 2.5 ppm;
citrus, dried pulp at 1.5 ppm; citrus, oil at 0.90 ppm; fruit, pome,
group 11 at 1.7 ppm; and cattle, goat, horse, and sheep meat by
products at 0.12 ppm. The tolerances were based on an exaggerated use
rate from the wettable powder (WP) formulation residue trials and the
maximum factor by which the emulsifiable concentrate (EC) formulation
exceeded the WP formulation in the apple side-by-side field trials.
Since the tolerances were likely to overestimate actual expected
residues following application of hexythiazox as labeled, the Agency
requested an orange processing study and apple and pear field trial
data for the EC formulation as conditions of registration.
    On May 28, 2008 the Agency published in the Federal Register a
final rule (73 FR 30498, FRL-8365-2) establishing tolerances for
combined residues of hexythiazox on corn, field, grain at 0.02 ppm;
corn, field, stover at 2.5 ppm; and corn, field, forage at 6.0 ppm.
    When the Agency conducted the acute dietary risk assessments in
support of the 2006 and 2008 tolerance actions it assumed residues of
hexythiazox would be present in the aforementioned commodities at the
currently published levels. For the chronic/cancer dietary assessments
the Agency assumed that average field trial residue levels of
hexythiazox would be present. The data submitted to fulfill the
conditions of registration mentioned above indicate that with the
exception of citrus oil, the subject petitioned-for tolerances should
be reduced. Acute, chronic, and cancer dietary analyses conducted to
address the increase in the citrus oil tolerance resulted in no
exposure for all subpopulations and scenarios from citrus oil.
Therefore, the increase in the orange oil tolerance from 0.90 to 24 ppm
will not result in an increased dietary human health risk and the
assumptions used for the 2006 and 2008 risk assessments remain
appropriate. EPA relies upon those risk assessments and the findings
made in the Federal Register documents in support of this action.
    Based on the risk assessments discussed in the final rules
published in the Federal Register of May 28, 2008 and March 22, 2006,
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 hexythiazox residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    The Pesticide Analytical Manual Volume II (PAM II) of the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) includes suitable analytical methods for the
determination of hexythiazox and metabolites containing the (4-
chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-thiazolidine moiety (AMR-985-87) in pome
fruits, citrus, and livestock tissue.

B. International Residue Limits

    Codex maximum residues limits (MRLs) for apple, pear, and citrus
are established for residues of hexythiazox per se. The Agency has
previously determined that the residues of concern for application of
hexythiazox to fruit crops are hexythiazox and its metabolites
containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-thiazolidine moiety
(expressed as parent). Since the Codex and EPA tolerance expression
differ, harmonization is not possible.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, 40 CFR 180.448 is amended by revising the established
tolerances for combined residues of hexythiazox, trans-5-(4-
chlorophenyl)-N-cyclohexyl-4-methyl-2-oxothiazolidine-3-carboxamide and
its metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-
thiazolidine moiety (expressed as parent), in or on citrus dried pulp
to 0.60 ppm; citrus oil to 24 ppm; pome fruit, crop group 11 to 0.25
ppm; wet apple pomace to 0.40 ppm; and meat byproducts of cattle, goat,
horse, and sheep at 0.02 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA 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 final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This final rule 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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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 final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    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 of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in
the Federal Register. This final rule 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: August 26, 2008.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.448 is amended in paragraph (a), in the table by
revising the entries for the following commodities to read as follows:

Sec. 180.448  Hexythiazox; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Apple, wet pomace..........................................         0.40
                                * * * * *
Cattle, meat byproducts....................................         0.02
Citrus, dried pulp.........................................         0.60
Citrus, oil................................................           24
                                * * * * *
Fruit, pome, group 11......................................         0.25
                                * * * * *
Goat, meat byproducts......................................         0.02
                                * * * * *
Horse, meat byproducts.....................................         0.02
                                * * * * *
Sheep, meat byproducts.....................................         0.02
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-20513 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


Encina Losses species stage year impinged. est entrained. est junk junk  999  999  999 aeolidia. papillosa age01 1979 1 na aggregate. sea. anenome age01 1979 3 na anchovy age01 1979 65 na anthonys. rock. crab age01 1979 2,761 na barred. sand. bass age01 1979 723 na barred. surfperch age01 1979 256 na bass. paralabrax. spp age01 1979 14 na bat. ray age01 1979 298 na bay. blenny age01 1979 15 na bay. mussel age01 1979 72 na bay. pipefish age01 1979 140 na black. bullhead age01 1979 1 na black. croaker age01 1979 46 na black. spotted. shrimp age01 1979 29 na black. surfperch age01 1979 134 na blacksmith age01 1979 58 na bocaccio age01 1979 1 na brachyuran. true. crabs age01 1979 376 na brittle. star age01 1979 1 na brown. shrimp age01 1979 7 na brown. smoothhound age01 1979 2 na california. barracuda age01 1979 545 na california. butterfly. ray age01 1979 263 na california. corbina age01 1979 156 na california. flying. fish age01 1979 34 na california. green. shrimp age01 1979 1 na california. grunion age01 1979 18,995 na california. halibut age01 1979 1,649 na california. killifish age01 1979 36 na california. moray age01 1979 2 na california. needlefish age01 1979 48 na california. sea. hare age01 1979 20 na california. spiny. lobster age01 1979 2 na california. tonguefish age01 1979 153 na cancer. sp age01 1979 1 na carid. shrimp age01 1979 1 na common. rock. crab age01 1979 38 na deepbody. anchovy age01 1979 37,589 na diamond. turbot age01 1979 685 na dwarf. surfperch age01 1979 12 na epialtus. nutallii age01 1979 1 na family. atherinidae age01 1979 288 na family. portunidae age01 1979 17 na fantail. sole age01 1979 7 na garibaldi age01 1979 7 na ghost. shrimp age01 1979 60 na giant. kelpfish age01 1979 2,557 na giant. keyhole. limpet age01 1979 2 na grass. rockfish age01 1979 1 na gray. smoothhound age01 1979 31 na hairy. crab age01 1979 5 na halfmoon age01 1979 23 na hermissenda. crassicornis age01 1979 16 na horn. shark age01 1979 3 na hornyhead. turbot age01 1979 3 na hydroid age01 1979 17 na hydromedusa age01 1979 34 na hypsoblennius. sp age01 1979 58 na island. kelpfish age01 1979 11 na island. surfperch age01 1979 13 na jack. mackerel age01 1979 4 na jacksmelt age01 1979 64 na kelp. bass age01 1979 605 na kelp. crab age01 1979 131 na kelp. isopod age01 1979 1 na kelp. pipefish age01 1979 35 na Encina Losses kelp. surfperch age01 1979 15 na larval. fish larvae 1979 8 na leopard. shark age01 1979 4 na lined. shore. crab age01 1979 323 na longfin. sanddab age01 1979 5 na lumpy. crab age01 1979 1 na masking. crab age01 1979 2 na mexican. scad age01 1979 2 na monterey. spanish. mackerel age01 1979 12 na moray. eel age01 1979 9 na mussel. blenny age01 1979 304 na mytilidae age01 1979 0 na northern. anchovy age01 1979 27,643 na northern. kelp. crab age01 1979 5 na ochre. starfish age01 1979 1 na octopus age01 1979 76 na opaleye age01 1979 687 na order. decapoda age01 1979 811 na pachygrapsus. spp age01 1979 8 na pacific. angel. shark age01 1979 2 na pacific. bonito age01 1979 13 na pacific. butterfish age01 1979 322 na pacific. electric. ray age01 1979 24 na pacific. goose. barnacle age01 1979 439 na pacific. herring age01 1979 4 na pacific. mackerel age01 1979 6 na pacific. spear. scallop age01 1979 5 na painted. greenling age01 1979 2 na painted. urchin age01 1979 60 na penaeid. shrimp age01 1979 238 na pile. surfperch age01 1979 111 na pistol. shrimp age01 1979 1 na plainfin. midshipman age01 1979 11 na portunus. spp age01 1979 18 na pugettia. spp age01 1979 2 na purple. sea. urchin age01 1979 17 na purple. shore. crab age01 1979 48 na purple. striped. jellyfish age01 1979 5 na purple. urchin age01 1979 1 na queenfish age01 1979 23,778 na red. and. white. barnacle age01 1979 176 na red. crab age01 1979 1 na red. rock. crab age01 1979 1 na ribbon. worm age01 1979 2 na rock. crab age01 1979 144 na rock. crab. family age01 1979 28 na rock. wrasse age01 1979 1 na rockpool. blenny age01 1979 277 na rosy. sculpin age01 1979 1 na round. stingray age01 1979 3,451 na rubberlip. surfperch age01 1979 9 na salema age01 1979 745 na san. diego. sea. slug age01 1979 1 na sargo age01 1979 266 na sculpin. or. spotted. scorpionfish age01 1979 1 na sculpin. spotted. scorpionfish age01 1979 4 na sea. hare age01 1979 1 na sea. porcupine age01 1979 1 na senorita age01 1979 1 na shiner. surfperch age01 1979 19,436 na shore. crab. family age01 1979 1 na shovelnose. guitarfish age01 1979 8 na slough. anchovy age01 1979 2,374 na southern. kelp. crab age01 1979 12 na speckled. sanddab age01 1979 4 na speckled. scallop age01 1979 17 na specklefin. midshipman age01 1979 738 na spider. crab age01 1979 4 na Encina Losses spiny. dogfish age01 1979 3 na spiny. lobster age01 1979 6 na spotfin. croaker age01 1979 46 na spotted. kelpfish age01 1979 2 na spotted. sand. bass age01 1979 695 na spotted. turbot age01 1979 33 na squid age01 1979 666 na squid. family age01 1979 68 na staghorn. sculpin age01 1979 348 na striped. kelpfish age01 1979 4 na striped. mullet age01 1979 89 na striped. sea. slug age01 1979 54 na striped. shore. crab age01 1979 941 na striped. shrimp age01 1979 1 na sweet. potato. cucumber age01 1979 39 na swimming. crab age01 1979 960 na talipus. spp age01 1979 2 na thornback age01 1979 8 na thornback. ray age01 1979 190 na threadfin. shad age01 1979 89 na topsmelt age01 1979 33,645 na two. spotted. octopus age01 1979 77 na walleye. surfperch age01 1979 10,344 na white. croaker age01 1979 291 na white. seabass age01 1979 40 na white. surfperch age01 1979 2,506 na wooly. sculpin age01 1979 1 na xantus. swimming. crab age01 1979 18 na yellow. snake. eel age01 1979 4 na yellowfin. croaker age01 1979 60 na yellowfin. croaker age01 1979 306 na zebra. perch age01 1979 23 na Encina Losses notes junk Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Encina Losses Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Encina Losses Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Sum of thermal treatmt & imp. losses from # 22484 Table 7.4 3 & # 22484 Table 7.12 1 Losses data for Encina. See P:\ INTAKE\ IntakeIV\ Data\ California\ s. california\ losses. data\ encina. data. entry. xls for more info.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53915-53916]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-7416; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWA-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class C Airspace; Peoria, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies the Peoria, General Downing-Peoria
International Airport, IL, Class C airspace area by amending the legal
description to contain the current airport name and updated airport
reference point (ARP) information. This action does not change the
boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the Class C
airspace area.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, October 13, 2016. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://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: (202) 267-
8783. The order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

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 updates the airport name and ARP geographic coordinates for the
General Downing-Peoria International Airport that is contained in the
Peoria, IL, Class C airspace description.

History

    Class C airspace areas are designed to improve air safety by
reducing the risk of midair collisions in high volume airport terminal
areas and to enhance the management of air traffic operations in that
area. During a recent review of the Peoria, General Downing-Peoria
International Airport, IL, Class C airspace area description, the FAA
identified that the airport's name and ARP geographic coordinates were
incorrect. This action updates the airport name and ARP geographic
coordinates to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database
information. There are no changes to routing or air traffic control
procedures resulting from this action.
    Class C airspace designations are published in paragraph 4000 of
FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
C airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending the Peoria, IL, Class C airspace area description.
The airport formerly known as ``Greater Peoria Regional Airport'' is
renamed ``General Downing-Peoria International Airport'' and the ARP
geographic position for the airport is changed from ``lat.
40[deg]39'53'' N., long. 89[deg]41'30'' W.'' to ``lat. 40[deg]39'51''
N., long. 89[deg]41'36'' W.'' These amendments to the airport name and
ARP geographic coordinates reflect the current information in the FAA's
aeronautical database. Additionally, minor administrative edits to the
legal description were made for readability.
    This is an administrative change and does not affect the
boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace,
therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is
unnecessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this 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
Department of Transportation (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 only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act, and its agency
implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures'' regarding categorical exclusions for
procedural actions at paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes
from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate
or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting
points. Since this action does not change the boundaries, altitudes, or
operating requirements of the Class C airspace area, and only amends
the legal description to contain the current airport name of Peoria,
General Downing-Peoria International Airport, IL, and updated ARP
information, this airspace action is not expected to cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance

with FAAO 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances,
this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a
normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined
that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of
an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 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 FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015,
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 4000 Class C Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL IL C Peoria, General Downing-Peoria International Airport, IL
[Amended]

General Downing-Peoria International Airport, IL
    (Lat. 40[deg]39'51'' N., long. 89[deg]41'36'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
4,700 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the General Downing-Peoria
International Airport; that airspace extending upward from 2,000
feet MSL to and including 4,700 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of
the airport from the 284[deg] bearing from the airport clockwise to
the 154[deg] bearing from the airport; and that airspace extending
upward from 1,800 feet MSL to and including 4,700 feet MSL within a
10-mile radius of the airport from the 154[deg] bearing from the
airport clockwise to the 284[deg] bearing from the airport.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 8, 2016.
Leslie M. Swann,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2016-19241 Filed 8-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 103)]
[Notices]
[Page 30099-30100]
[DOCID:fr28my10-151]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Applications for
Modification of Special Permit

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of Applications for Modification of Special Permits

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107,
Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. This
notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because
the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of
application have been shown in earlier Federal Register publications,
they are not repeated here. Requests for modification of special
permits (e.g. to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging
design changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described
in footnotes to the application number. Application numbers with the
suffix ``M'' denote a modification request. These applications have
been separated from the new application for special permits to
facilitate processing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 14, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Address Comments To: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at http://
regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special
permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR
1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 20, 2010.
Delmer F. Billings,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Regulation(s)       Nature of special
        Application No.             Docket No.          Applicant           affected          permit thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Modification Special Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10407-M........................  ................  Thermo Process      49 CFR             To modify the special
                                                    Instruments, LP     173.302a(a);.      permit to authorize
                                                    175.3 (Former                          the addition of Boron
                                                    Grantee: Thermo                        trifluoride.
                                                    Measure Tech),
                                                    Sugar Land, TX
10646-M........................  ................  Schlumberger        49 CFR 173.302...  To modify the special
                                                    Technologies                           to authorize
                                                    Corporation,                           additional Division
                                                    Sugar Land, TX                         2.1 and 2.3 hazardous
                                                                                materials.
10785-M........................  ................  Thermo Process      49 CFR             To modify the special
                                                    Instruments, LP     173.301(a)(1),     permit to authorize
                                                    (Former Grantee:    173.302a, 175.3.   the addition of Boron
                                                    Thermo Measure                         trifluoride.
                                                    Tech), Sugar
                                                    Land, TX
14466-M........................  ................  Alaska Central      49 CFR 172.101     To modify the special
                                                    Express, Inc.,      Column (9B).       permit to authorize
                                                    Anchorage, AK                          an additional
                                                                                Division 1.1D
                                                                                hazardous material.
14546-M........................  ................  Linde Gas North     49 CFR 180.209...  To modify the special
                                                    America LLC,                           permit to remove the
                                                    Murray Hill, NJ                        requirement to comply
                                                                                with 49 CFR
                                                                                172.203(a), marking
                                                                                of shipping papers.
14573-M........................  ................  Polar Tank          49 CFR 178.345-2.  To modify the special
                                                    Trailer, LLC,                          permit to authorize
                                                    Holdingford, MN                        the use of an
                                                                                alternative duplex
                                                                                stainless steel.
14763-M........................  ................  Weatherford         49 CFR 173.302a    To modify the special
                                                    International,      and 173.301(f).    permit to change the
                                                    Forth Worth, TX                        minimum elongation
                                                                                from 12% to 10%.
14844-M........................  ................  Northern Air        49 CFR 173.302(f)  To modify the special
                                                    Cargo, Anchorage,                      permit to authorize
                                                    AK                                     cylinders of less
                                                                                than 116 cubic feet
                                                                                to be used after June
                                                                                30, 2010, to include
                                                                                other oxidizing gases
                                                                                and that the human
                                                                                and veterinary use
                                                                                only provision be
                                                                                removed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-12717 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72482-72483]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30196]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65772; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-086]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule To Increase the
Number of Series Permitted Per Class in the Short Term Option Series
Program

November 17, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On September 19, 2011, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') 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 increase the number of series
permitted per class in the Short Term Options Series Program. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on October 6, 2011.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on
the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65445 (September 30,
2011), 76 FR 62102 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The proposed rule change seeks to amend CBOE Rules 5.5 and 24.9 to
increase the number of Short Term Options Series (``Weekly options'')
that may be opened for each option class that participates in the
Exchange's Short Term Option Series Program (``Weeklys Program'').\4\
Currently, Exchange rules

allow a total of 20 series to be opened for trading in each class that
participates in the Weeklys Program. The proposed rule would increase
this to a total of 30 series per class that may be opened for
trading.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In 2005, the Commission approved the Weeklys Program on a
pilot basis. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52011 (July 12,
2005), 70 FR 41451 (July 19, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2004-63). In 2009, the
Commission approved the Weeklys Program on a permanent basis. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59824 (April 27, 2009), 74 FR
20518 (May 4, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-018).
    \5\ The Exchange previously increased the total number of series
per Weeklys option class from seven to 20 series. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58870 (October 28, 2008), 73 FR 65430
(November 3, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-110). The existing rules provide
that series must be added pursuant to CBOE Rules 5.5 and 24.9.
Initial series shall be within 30% above or below the closing price
of the underlying security on the preceding day. Any additional
strikes listed by the Exchange shall be within 30% above or below
the current price of the underlying security. The existing rules
also provide that the Exchange may open additional strikes of Short
Term Options Series that are more than 30% above or below the
current price of the underlying security if demonstrated customer
interest exists for such series, as expressed by institutional,
corporate, or individual customers or their brokers. Market-Makers
trading for their own account are not considered when determining
customer interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Notice, the Exchange stated that the principal reason for
the proposed expansion is market demand for additional series in Weekly
option classes in which the maximum number of series (20) has already
been reached. Specifically, CBOE cited an increased demand for more
series when market-moving events, such as corporate events and large
price swings, have occurred during the life span of an affected Weekly
option class. Currently, if the maximum number of series has been
reached, the Exchange must delete or delist certain series in order to
make room for more in-demand series. The Exchange deletes series with
no open interest and delists series with open interest if those series
are open for trading on another exchange.

III. Discussion

    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 exchange.\6\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ which requires, among other things, that
the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that the
proposal strikes a reasonable balance between the Exchange's desire to
offer a wider array of products and the need to avoid unnecessary
proliferation of options series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving this proposal, the Commission notes that the Exchange
has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price
Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems capacity to
handle the potential additional traffic associated with trading of an
expanded number of series for classes that participate in the Weeklys
Program. The Commission expects the Exchange to monitor the trading
volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result
of this proposal and the effect of these additional series on market
fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's, OPRA's, and
vendors' automated systems.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\8\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2011-086) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30196 Filed 11-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P