[Federal Register: August 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 163)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49368-49373]
[DOCID:fr23au06-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0561; FRL-8084-3]

Phosphorous Acid; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of phosphorous acid and its ammonium,
sodium, and potassium salts in or all food commodities to allow for
post-harvest application to stored potatoes at 35,600 parts per million
(ppm) or less of phosphorus acid. This exemption is being issued at
EPA's own initiative under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA),
requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of phosphorous acid and its ammonium, sodium, and
potassium salts.

DATES: This regulation is effective August 23, 2006. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 7, 2006,
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-2006-0561. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index for the docket. 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 Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Linda Hollis, Biopesticides and

Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

B. 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 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, as amended by the FQPA, any person
may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also
request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations
which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings
appear in 40 CFR part 178. 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-2006-0561 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 on or before September 7,
2006.
    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 your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0561, 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
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, 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 telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of June 28, 2006 (71 FR 36731-36736) (FRL-
8075-5), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the Agency initiated proposed rule. The
proposed rule proposed to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
phosphorous acid and its ammonium, sodium and potassium salt. There
were no comments received in response to the Agency initiated proposed
rule.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C), which require 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.... ''
Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires that the Agency
consider ``available information concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide's residues '' and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children.
    The toxicity profile for phosphorous acid and its ammonium,
potassium and sodium salts has already been assessed for its pesticidal
use by the Agency and published in support of the tolerance exemption
for residues of phosphorous acid in or on all food commodities when
used as an agricultural fungicide. See 65 FR 59346 (October 5, 2000).
For the purposes of this tolerance exemption amendment, the Agency has
relied on the data and/or information previously submitted and has
reassessed that data in order to evaluate the request to add post-
harvest uses to the tolerance exemption. Additionally, the Agency has
reviewed publicly available data and information on phosphoric acid,
which is chemically and structurally similar to phosphorous acid. The
Agency believes that in combination,

the data and other information relied upon for this tolerance exemption
supports its conclusion that there is reasonable certainty of no harm
that will result from the post-harvest treatment of potatoes with
phosphorous acid when used according to the recommended application
rate.
    The technical grade of the active ingredient (TGAI) of phosphorous
acid has also been fully characterized and assessed by the Agency in
the Mineral Acids RED (December 1993) since it is an ingredient which
falls within the class of compounds known as the mineral acids.
Information on phosphorous acid indicates that it is classified in
Toxicity Category III for the oral and dermal routes of exposure, and
that it is corrosive to the eyes and skin. The corrosive nature of
concentrated or technical grade phosphorous acid is not of a concern
because phosphorus acid is applied at very dilute solutions such as
0.25 pounds of phosphorus acid per ton of stored potatoes. Phosphorous
acid as applied at such very dilute rates is only slightly irritating
to the skin. Further, when applied at such a permissible application
rate, the residues of the applied phosphorous acid solution have an
acute toxicity that is several hundred times lower than the acute
toxicity of phosphorous acid in a 100% pure form.
    As mentioned above, the Agency, on its own initiative, re-examined
the previously reviewed toxicity data on an end use product that
contains 35.6% phosphorus acid by weight and would be applied at 0.25
pounds of active ingredient per ton of stored potatoes. The results
demonstrated that there is a margin of exposure of nearly 1,000 for
children or the equivalent of a 30 kilogram (kg) child consuming 932
pounds of potatoes at one time. This large margin of exposure provides
reasonable certainty of no harm at application rates in excess of that
for the reviewed end use product. Specifically, an end use product
containing 53.8% phosphorous acid by volume (or 35.6% phosphorus acid
by weight) was tested on rats at > 5,000 milligrams/kilogram of
bodyweight (mg/kg bodyweight). The total amount of phosphorous acid
that would be consumed for each kg of potatoes based on a 30 kg child
was calculated. Based on these calculations the acute oral toxicity was
estimated to be equivalvent to 1,780 mg PA/kg bodyweight for a 30 kg
child. This is a conservative scenario which assumes that all of the
phosphorous acid that is applied to stored potatoes will remain on the
crop such that a 30 kg child would need to consume 424 kg of potatoes
(to include peel and flesh) in one sitting. The Agency further assumed
that there are 2.2lbs/kg of potatoes which would mean that a child
would need to consume 932 pounds of potatoes that have been treated
post-harvest with phosphorous acid in one sitting to achieve the
equivalent of a limit dose in laboratory animals. This is a margin of
exposure of nearly a thousandfold.
    The toxicological profile of a solution containing 53.8%
phosphorous acid is briefly summarized below.
    1. Acute oral (rat) 449404-04. LD50 > 5,000 mg/kg body
weight (53.8% phosphorous acid aqueous solution). The test material is
classified as a Toxicity Category IV for acute oral toxicity which
demonstrates low toxicity. These results also demonstrate that a
dilution of the active ingredient significantly decreases the order of
toxicity as compared to the technical grade of the active ingredient
(TGAI) and supports the Agency conclusion that use of the proposed end-
use product eliminates the potential of the active ingredient to cause
acute toxic effects. There were no adverse effects reported at 5,000
mg/kg.
    2. Acute dermal (rat) 449404-05. LD50 > 5,000 mg/kg body
weight (53.8% phosphorous acid aqueous solution). The test material is
classified as a Toxicity Category IV for acute dermal toxicity and
demonstrates that a dilution of the active ingredient significantly
decreases the order of toxicity as compared to the TGAI and supports
the Agency conclusion that use of the proposed end-use product will be
slightly irritating to the skin.
    3. Acute inhalation (rat) 449404-06. LC50 > 2.06 mg/L
(53.8% phosphorous acid aqueous solution. The test material is
classified as a Toxicity Category IV for acute inhalation toxicity and
demonstrates that a dilution of the active ingredient to a level that
is comparable to concentration of phoshporous acid in the proposed end
use product will not cause acute inhalation effects at greater than
2.06 milligrams/liter (mg/L).
    4. Developmental/reproductive effects, chronic effects and
carcinogenicity. There is adequate information available from
literature sources to characterize the toxicity of phosphorous acid.
Phosphorous acid can affect human health through inhalation of mist,
ingestion, and contact with the skin and eyes. In a concentrated form,
it will cause corrosive effects (burns or irreversible damage) to the
eyes, skin, throat, digestive tract, upper respiratory tract and nose.
Signs of overexposure to this chemical are severe burning of eyes and
skin, possible nausea and vomiting, coughing, burning and tightness of
the chest and shortness of breath. Based on corrosivity and the current
use patterns for the mineral acids, EPA did not require these studies
as part of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) on the Mineral
Acids (EPA 738-R-029; December 1993).
    A typical end use product was tested for acute toxicity. As
described above, a 53.8% phosphorous acid product did not cause acute
toxicity at > 5,000 mg/kg bodyweight. This product would be further
diluted when applied to stored potatoes so that something on the order
of a quarter of a pound of phosphorous acid would be applied to a ton
of stored potatoes. Calculated estimates of the residue from such an
application would give a margin of exposure near 1,000 for young
children.
    The Agency concludes therefore that the primary hazards such as
corrosivity and irritation that are associated with concentrated
phosphorous acid are significantly reduced when used as a post-harvest
treatment on potatoes at dilute application rates such as those in the
typical end use product tested and evaluated by the Agency.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

    The primary issue for adding post-harvest applications to a
tolerance exemption is whether such application causes any new exposure
that would not be safe. In order to evaluate that issue, the Agency
relied on the existing toxicology data already reviewed on phosphorous
acid to conduct a conservative dietary exposure and risk assessment to
evaluate any additional risk that might result from post-harvest
application of this chemical. In the absence of acute oral studies and
any magnitude of residue data, the Agency based it's risk assessment on
default assumptions, (i.e. information from the inhalation data base
was used to compare to dietary risks, a common approach in the Agency),
to ensure that the maximum application rates will not result in
unacceptable dietary risks. As a result of this risk assessment, the
Agency concludes that the use of phosphorous acid as a post-harvest

treatment to stored potatoes at the recommended application rate will
not add any new exposures or risks and is considered safe.
    Phosphorous acid rapidly dissociates to form hydrogen and phosphite
ions when applied to growing crops in the environment and therefore, it
has already been established that no dietary exposure is expected from
pre-harvest applications. The degradates of phosphorous acid, hydrogen
and phosphite ions are important nutrients for plants and animals.
Formation of these degradates however, may be compromised when
phosphorous acid is applied as a post-harvest treatment. Since post-
harvest treatment of phosphorous acid to potatoes is likely to occur in
indoor storage facilities, the oxidation process of phosphorous acid
will most likely be slowed down. The fact that the phosphorous acid at
the time of post-harvest treatment has not been oxidized to its
degradates is clear and it is unknown how much this oxidation process
reduces the potential dietary exposure to phosphorous acid under the
conditions of post-harvest treatment. However, even with these
uncertainties, the Agency believes that when phosphorous acid is used
as a post-harvest treatment at the recommended application rate, the
remaining residues of PA on stored potatoes will not increase toxicity
or add any new dietary exposure or risks and the toxicity of
phosphorous acid would still be classified in category IV (which is low
toxicity) and will be safe.
    1. Food. The Agency has determined that post-harvest treatment of
phosphorous acid to stored potatoes at the typical application rate
evaluated by the Agency may reduce any new anticipated exposure to
phosphorous acid. However, even if dietary exposure is not reduced, the
Agency believes, based on its reassessment of the data and information,
that post-harvest application of phosphorous acid to potatoes is safe.
    2. Drinking water exposure. No significant drinking water exposure
is expected to result from phosphorous acid when applied as a post-
harvest treatment to potatoes because phosphorous acid rapidly
degrades, is very soluble in water and is applied in storage
facilities.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    There are no residential, school or day care uses proposed for this
product. Since the proposed use pattern is for agricultural food crops
and post-harvest treatment on potatoes, the potential for non-
occupational, non-dietary exposures to phosphorous acid by the general
population, including infants and children, is highly unlikely.
Further, even if persons were exposed via the non-occupational route,
the Agency believes that the low toxicity from a dilute application
such as the one evaluated by the Agency is safe and the primary hazards
associated with concentrated phosphorous acid (corrosivity and
irritation) will be significantly reduced because the end use products
are diluted and the residues following application are very low.

V. Cumulative Effects

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.'' These considerations include the
possible cumulative effects of such residues on infants and children.
    BPPD has considered the potential for cumulative effects of
phosphorous acid and other substances in relation to a common mechanism
of toxicity. phosphorous acid may share a common metabolic mechanism
with other salts of phosphorous acid (such as calcium); however, due to
the low order of toxicity associated with and lack of reported dietary
toxicity associated with the use of phosphorous fertilizers on crops,
no cumulative effect from the use of phosphorous acid is expected.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    1. U.S. population. There is reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of phosphorous acid as a result of
preharvest and post-harvest uses, as that toxicity and exposure is
expected to be minimal. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures
and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. This
chemical will be applied as a fungicide to agricultural food crops and
as a post-harvest treatment to stored potatoes at 35,600 ppm or less.
There is very little potential for dietary exposure to phosphorous
acid, exposure in drinking water, and from non-dietary, non-
occupational exposures. Once released into the environment, the
chemical rapidly dissociates to form hydrogen and phosphite ions,
important nutrients for plants and animals. While the formation of
these degradates may be compromised when phosphorous acid is applied as
a post-harvest treatment, the recommended application rate will
significantly reduce any new dietary exposure or risks and is
considered to be safe.
    Many phosphite salts are generally recognized as safe (GRAS).
Therefore, the health risk to humans is negligible based on the low
toxicity of these ions and a low application rate and magnitude of
dilution for post-harvest use of the active ingredient, and one can
conclude that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to phosphorous acid.
    2. Infants and children. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that
EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of exposure (MOE) for
infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base
on toxicity and exposure, unless EPA determines that a different MOE
will be safe for infants and children. Margins of exposure which are
often referred to as uncertainty (safety) factors, are incorporated
into EPA risk assessments either directly, or through the use of a MOE
analysis, or by using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a
dose level that poses no appreciable risk. In this instance, based on
all reliable available information the Agency has reviewed on
phosphorous acid, the Agency concludes that the additional MOE is not
necessary to protect infants and children and that not adding any
additional MOE will be safe for infants and children. Aggregate
exposure to phosphorous acid is expected to be minimal. There is very
little potential for exposure to phosphorous acid in drinking water and
from non-dietary, non-occupational exposures. This chemical will be
applied preharvest to agricultural food crops and as a post-harvest
treatment on potatoes. Once released into the environment, the chemical
rapidly dissociates to form hydrogen and phosphite ions. The hydrogen
ions affect pH, but this is moderated by natural means. Many phosphite
salts are ``GRAS''. Therefore, the health risk to humans is negligible
based on the low toxicity of dilute applications of phosphorous acid.
One can conclude that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to phosphorous
acid residues.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Endocrine Disruptors

    EPA is required under section 408(p) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA,
to develop a screening program to

determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active
and other ingredients) ``may have an effect in humans that is similar
to an effect produced by a naturally-occurring estrogen, or other such
endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.'' Following the
recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing
Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was scientific
basis for including, as part of the program, the androgen- and thyroid
hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also
adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the program include evaluations of
potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use
FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine
whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to
require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources
allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).
    At this time, the Agency is not requiring information on the
endocrine effects of this active ingredient, phosphorous acid. Based on
the weight-of-the-evidence of available data and the absence of any
reports to the Agency of sensitivity or other adverse effects, no
endocrine system related effects are identified for phosphorous acid
and none are expected because of its use. To date there is no evidence
that phosphorous acid affects the immune system, functions in a manner
similar to any known hormone, or that it acts as an endocrine
disruptor. Thus, there is no impact via endocrine-related effects on
the Agency's safety finding set forth in this rule amending the
phosphorous acid exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

B. Analytical Method(s)

    Through this action, the Agency is amending the existing exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for phosphorous acid to include
post-harvest treatment on potatoes for the reasons stated above which
include low toxicity to mammals and negligible exposure from the
pesticidal use of products containing phosphorous acid. For the same
reasons, the Agency concludes that an analytical method is not required
for enforcement purposes for phosphorous acid.

C. Codex Maximum Residue Level

    No maximum residue levels (MRLs) have been established for
phosphorous acid by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CODEX).

VIII. Conclusions

    The Agency concludes that if products containing phosphorous acid
as an active ingredient are used in accordance with label directions,
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to the U.S. population,
including infants and children, will result from aggregate exposure to
residues of phosphorous acid, when used as an agricultural fungicide on
all food commodities or when used as a post-harvest treatment on
potatoes.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance 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 rule has been exempted from review under Executive
Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this 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). 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., or 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). 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);
or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a
petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the exemption from the
requirement of a 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. The Agency
hereby certifies that this rule will not have significant negative
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition,
the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial
direct effect on 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, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that 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.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has
determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications'' as
described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175.

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule

X. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
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 14, 2006.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution 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 180.1210 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1210  Phosphorous acid; exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of phosphorous acid and its ammonium, sodium, and potassium
salts in or on all food commodities when used as an agricultural
fungicide and in or on potatoes when applied as a post-harvest
treatment at 35,600 ppm or less phosphorous acid.
[FR Doc. E6-13954 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 17 (Monday, January 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4364-4366]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01425]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71361; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Proposing To Extend the
Operation of Its Supplemental Liquidity Providers Pilot, Currently
Scheduled To Expire on January 31, 2014, Until the Earlier of the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Approval To Make Such Pilot
Permanent or July 31, 2014

January 21, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 6, 2014 NYSE MKT LLC (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE MKT'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its Supplemental
Liquidity Providers Pilot (``SLP Pilot'' or ``Pilot'') (See Rule 107B--
Equities), currently scheduled to expire on January 31, 2014, until the
earlier of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (``Commission'')
approval to make such Pilot permanent or July 31, 2014.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its SLP Pilot,\3\
currently scheduled to expire on January 31, 2014, until the earlier of
Commission approval to make such Pilot permanent or July 31, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61308 (January 7,
2010), 75 FR 2573 (January 15, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-98)
(establishing the NYSE Amex Equities SLP Pilot). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 61841 (April 5, 2010), 75 FR 18560 (April
12, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-33) (extending the operation of the SLP
Pilot to September 30, 2010); 62814 (September 1, 2010), 75 FR 54671
(September 8, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-88) (extending the operation
of the SLP Pilot to January 31, 2011); 63615 (December 29, 2010), 76
FR 611 (January 5, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-123) (extending the
operation of the SLP Pilot to August 1, 2011); 64772 (June 29,
2011), 76 FR 39455 (July 6, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-44) (extending
the operation of the SLP Pilot to January 31, 2012); 66041 (December
23, 2011), 76 FR 82328 (December 30, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-011-103)
(extending the operation of the SLP Pilot to July 31, 2012); 67496
(July 25, 2012), 77 FR 45390 (July 31, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-22)
(extending the operation of the SLP Pilot to January 31, 2013);
68557 (January 2, 2013), 78 FR 1284 (January 8, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-
2012-85) (extending the operation of the SLP Pilot to July 31,
2013); and 69820 (June 21, 2013), 78 FR 38748 (June 27, 2013) (SR-
NYSEMKT-2013-52) (extending the operation of the SLP Pilot to
January 31, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The information contained herein is a summary of the NMM
Pilot and the SLP Pilot. See supra note 3 and infra note 5 for a
fuller description of those pilots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October 2008, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'')
implemented significant changes to its market rules, execution
technology and the rights and obligations of its market participants
all of which were designed to improve execution quality on the NYSE.
These changes were all elements of the NYSE's and the Exchange's
enhanced market model referred to as the ``New Market Model'' (``NMM
Pilot'').\5\ The NYSE SLP Pilot was launched in coordination with the
NMM Pilot (see NYSE Rule 107B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58845 (October 24,
2008), 73 FR 64379 (October 29, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the NMM Pilot, NYSE eliminated the function of
specialists on the Exchange creating a new category of market
participant, the Designated Market Maker or ``DMM.'' \6\ Separately,
the NYSE established the SLP Pilot, which established SLPs as a new
class of market participants to supplement the liquidity provided by
DMMs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Rule 103.
    \7\ See NYSE Rule 107B and NYSE MKT Rule 107B--Equities. NYSE
amended the monthly volume requirements to an ADV that is a
specified percentage of NYSE CADV. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 67759 (August 30, 2012), 77 FR 54939 (September 6, 2012)
(SR-NYSE-2012-38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NYSE adopted NYSE Rule 107B governing SLPs as a six-month pilot
program commencing in November 2008. This NYSE pilot has been extended
several times, most recently to January 31, 2014.\8\ The NYSE is in the
process of requesting an extension of their SLP Pilot until July 31,
2014 or until the Commission approves the pilot as permanent.\9\ The
extension of the NYSE SLP Pilot until July 31, 2014 runs parallel with
the extension of the NMM pilot until July 31, 2014, or until the
Commission approves the NMM Pilot as permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58877 (October 29,
2008), 73 FR 65904 (November 5, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-108) (adopting
SLP Pilot program); 59869 (May 6, 2009), 74 FR 22796 (May 14, 2009)
(SR-NYSE-2009-46) (extending SLP Pilot program until October 1,
2009); 60756 (October 1, 2009), 74 FR 51628 (October 7, 2009) (SR-
NYSE-2009-100) (extending SLP Pilot program until November 30,
2009); 61075 (November 30, 2009), 74 FR 64112 (December 7, 2009)
(SR-NYSE-2009-119) (extending SLP Pilot program until March 30,
2010); 61840 (April 5, 2010), 75 FR 18563 (April 12, 2010) (SR-NYSE-
2010-28) (extending the SLP Pilot until September 30, 2010); 62813
(September 1, 2010), 75 FR 54686 (September 8, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-
62) (extending the SLP Pilot until January 31, 2011); 63616
(December 29, 2010), 76 FR 612 (January 5, 2011) (SR-NYSE-2010-86)
(extending the operation of the SLP Pilot to August 1, 2011); 64762
(June 28, 2011), 76 FR 39145 (July 5, 2011) (SR-NYSE-2011-30)
(extending the operation of the SLP Pilot to January 31, 2012);
66045 (December 23, 2011), 76 FR 82342 (December 30, 2011) (SR-NYSE-
2011-66) (extending the operation of the SLP Pilot to July 31,
2012); 67493 (July 25, 2012), 77 FR 45388 (July 31, 2012) (SR-NYSE-
2012-27) (extending the operation of the SLP Pilot to January 31,
2013); 68560 (January 2, 2013), 78 FR 1280 (January 8, 2013) (SR-
NYSE-2012-76) (extending the operation of the SLP Pilot to July 31,
2013); and 69819 (June 21, 2013), 78 FR 38764 (June 27, 2013) (SR-
NYSE-2013-44) (extending the operation of the SLP Pilot to January
31, 2014).
    \9\ See SR-NYSE-2014-03.

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

Proposal to Extend the Operation of the NYSE MKT SLP Pilot
    The Exchange established the SLP Pilot to provide incentives for
quoting, to enhance competition among the existing group of liquidity
providers, including the DMMs, and add new competitive market
participants. NYSE MKT Rule 107B--Equities is based on NYSE Rule 107B.
NYSE MKT Rule 107B--Equities was filed with the Commission on December
30, 2009, as a ``me too'' filing for immediate effectiveness as a pilot
program.\10\ The Exchange's SLP Pilot is scheduled to end operation on
January 31, 2014 or such earlier time as the Commission may determine
to make the rules permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61308 (January 7,
2010), 75 FR 2573 (January 15, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-98).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the SLP Pilot, in coordination with the
NMM Pilot and the NYSE SLP Pilot, allows the Exchange to provide its
market participants with a trading venue that utilizes an enhanced
market structure to encourage the addition of liquidity, facilitate the
trading of larger orders more efficiently and operates to reward
aggressive liquidity providers. As such, the Exchange believes that the
rules governing the SLP Pilot (NYSE MKT Rule 107B--Equities) should be
made permanent.
    Through this filing the Exchange seeks to extend the current
operation of the SLP Pilot until July 31, 2014, in order to allow the
Exchange to formally submit a filing to the Commission to convert the
SLP Pilot rule to a permanent rule. The Exchange is currently preparing
a rule filing seeking permission to make the Exchange's SLP Pilot
permanent, but does not expect that filing to be completed and approved
by the Commission before January 31, 2014.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The NMM Pilot was scheduled to expire on January 31, 2014
as well. On January 6, 2014, the Exchange filed to extend the NMM
Pilot until July 31, 2014 (See SR-NYSEMKT-2014-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member
organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, because
it is 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 regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to
facilitate transactions in securities and to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system because the SLP Pilot provides its market participants with a
trading venue that utilizes an enhanced market structure to encourage
the addition of liquidity and operates to reward aggressive liquidity
providers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and
to promote just and equitable principles of trade because it seeks to
extend an existing pilot program. Moreover, requesting an extension of
the SLP Pilot will permit adequate time for: (i) The Exchange to
prepare and submit a filing to make the rules governing the SLP Pilot
permanent; (ii) public notice and comment; and (iii) completion of the
19b-4 approval process. Finally, the Exchange believes that it is
subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the
Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition. For these
reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\14\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that extending the operation
of the SLP Pilot will enhance competition among liquidity providers and
thereby improve execution quality on the Exchange. The Exchange will
continue to monitor the efficacy of the program during the proposed
extended pilot period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting the services it offers and the
requirements it imposes to remain competitive with other U.S. equity
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ thereunder
because the proposal does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden
on competition; and (iii) by its terms, become operative for 30 days
from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \18\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period. The Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay period is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest because waiver
would allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted. Accordingly,
the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
and designates the

proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the
Commission.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEMKT-2013-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-03. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-NYSEMKT-2014-03 and should
be submitted on or before February 18, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01425 Filed 1-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9038-9039]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3431]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3317-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Missouri; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Missouri (FEMA-3317-EM), dated February 3,
2011, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 3, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated February 3, 2011, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the State of
Missouri resulting from a severe winter storm beginning on January
31, 2011, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude
to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency
exists in the State of Missouri.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program. This assistance excludes regular time costs for
subgrantees' regular employees.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended,
Elizabeth Turner, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal
Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Missouri have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct
Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program for all 114
counties and the Independent City of St. Louis in the State of
Missouri.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-3431 Filed 2-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 14832-14833]
[DOCID:fr29mr07-122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0027]

Presence Sensing Device Initiation (PSDI); Extension of the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend
OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in
its Standard on Presence Sensing Device Initiation (29 CFR
1910.217(h)).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
May 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2007-
0027, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2007-0027). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
 For further information on submitting comments see

the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled ``Supplementary Information.''
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at

the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;

however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at

the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries,
illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires
that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers,
especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the
maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Paragraph 1910.217(h) regulates the use of presence sensing devices
(``PSDs'') used to initiate the operation of mechanical power presses;
a PSD (e.g., a photoelectric field or curtain) automatically stops the
stroke of a mechanical power press when the device detects an operator
entering a danger zone near the press. A mechanical power press using
Presence Sensing Device Initiation (PSDI) automatically starts
(initiates) the stroke when the device detects no operator within the
danger zone near the press. The certification/validation of safety
systems for PSDI shall consider the press, controls, safeguards,
operator, and environment as an integrated system which shall comply
with 29 CFR 1910.217(a) through (h). Accordingly, the Standard protects
employees from serious crush injuries, amputations, and death.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Standard on Presence Sensing
Device Initiation (PSDI) (29 CFR 1910.217(h)). The Agency is requesting
to retain its current burden hour of 1 hour. The Agency will summarize
the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include
this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of currently approved information
collection requirement.
    Title: Presence Sensing Device Initiation (PSDI) (29 CFR
1910.217(h)).
    OMB Number: 1218-0143.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 0.
    Frequency: Initially, Annually; On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: 0.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR Docket No. OSHA-2007-0027. You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and

access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available through the Web site, and for assistance in using the
Internet to locate docket submissions.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://www.regulations.gov. This document as well as news releases

and other relevant information also are available at OSHA's Web page at
http://www.osha.gov.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on March 20, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
 [FR Doc. E7-5779 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P