[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 73924]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23710]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-564, OMB Control No. 3235-0628]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 17g-2

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 17g-
2 (17 CFR 240.17g-2) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act'').
    Rule 17g-2, ``Records to be made and retained by nationally
recognized statistical rating organizations,'' implements the
Commission's recordkeeping rulemaking authority under Section 17(a) of
the Exchange Act.\1\ The rule requires a Nationally Recognized
Statistical Rating Organization (``NRSRO'') to make and retain certain
records relating to its business and to retain certain other business
records, if such records are made. The rule also prescribes the time
periods and manner in which all these records must be retained. There
are 10 credit rating agencies registered with the Commission as NRSROs
under section 15E of the Exchange Act, which have already established
the recordkeeping policies and procedures required by Rule 17g-2. Based
on staff experience, NRSROs are estimated to spend a total industry-
wide burden of 2,650 annual hours to make and retain the appropriate
records.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78q.
    \2\ 10 currently registered NRSROs x 265 hours = 2,650 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on
respondents; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by November 27, 2023 to (i) [email protected]
and (ii) Please direct your written comments to: Dave Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F St. NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: October 23, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23710 Filed 10-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 212 (Monday, November 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 69370]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24285]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4, 2020.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topic:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims;
    Disclosure of non-public information; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: October 28, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-24285 Filed 10-29-20; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22685-22687]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09923]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80653; File No. SR-BatsEDGA-2017-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related
to Fees

May 11, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 5, 2017, Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-Members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGA Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.bats.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. 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 amend its fee schedule to: (i) Lower the
rate for fee code RT; and (ii) add the RMPT/RMPL Tier 2.
Fee Code RT
    The Exchange proposes to decrease the fee for orders yielding fee
code RT, which is appended to orders routed using the ROUT \6\ routing
strategy, from $0.00260 to $0.00250 per share for securities priced at
or above $1.00 per share. The Exchange does not propose to amend the
rate for orders yielding fee code RT in securities priced below $1.00
per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ROUT is a routing strategy that checks the System for
available shares and then are sent to destinations on the System
routing table. See Exchange Rule 11.11(g)(3)(B). The term ``System
routing table'' refers to the proprietary process for determining
the specific trading venues to which the System routes orders and
the order in which it routes them. See Exchange Rule 11.11(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RMPT/RMPL Tier 2
    The Exchange offers one tier under footnote 4, the RMPT/RMPL Tier
under which a Member receives a discounted fee of $0.0008 per share for
orders yielding fee codes PT \7\ or PX \8\ where that Member adds or
removes an ADV \9\ greater than or equal to 2,000,000 shares using the
RMPT or RMPL \10\ routing strategy. The Exchange now proposes to add a
new tier under footnote 4 to be known as Tier 2 under which a Member
would receive a discounted fee of $0.0006 per share for orders yielding
fee codes PT or PX where that Member adds or removes an ADV greater
than or equal to 4,000,000 shares using the RMPT or RMPL routing
strategy.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Fee code PT is appended to orders that remove liquidity from
the Exchange using RMPT or RMPL routing strategy and is assessed a
fee of $0.0010 per share on securities priced over $1.00, and there
is no fee on securities priced below $1.00. See the Exchange's fee
schedule available at http://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edga/.
    \8\ Fee code PX is append to orders that are routed using the
RMPL routing strategy to a destination not covered by Fee Code PL,
or are routed using the RMPT routing strategy, and is assessed a fee
of $0.0012 per share on securities priced over $1.00, and a fee of
30% of the total dollar value on securities priced below $1.00. Id.
    \9\ ADV is generally defined as average daily volume calculated
as the number of shares added to, removed from, or routed by, the
Exchange, or any combination or subset thereof, per day. Id.
    \10\ The RMPT routing strategy operates similarly to RMPL in
that under both Mid-Point Peg Orders check the System for available
shares and any remaining shares are then sent to destinations on the
System routing table that support midpoint eligible orders. If any
shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are posted on the EDGA
Book as a Mid-Point Peg Order, unless otherwise instructed by the
User. While RMPL and RMPT operate in an identical manner, the
trading venues that each routing strategy routes to and the order in
which it routes them differ. See Exchange Rule 11.11(g)(13).
    \11\ As a result of the fee schedule layout change in adding a
second tier, the description of which fee codes are appended with
footnote 3 will be moved above the table similar to the layout of
the table in footnote 4.

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

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement the above changes to its fee
schedule immediately.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange initially submitted the proposed fee change on
May 1, 2017. (SR-BatsEDGA-2017-09). On May 5, 2017, the Exchange
withdrew SR-BatsEDGA-2017-09 and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\14\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Code RT
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to decrease the fee for
orders that yield fee code RT represents an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other
persons using its facilities in that it continues to be designed to
cover the costs of routing incurred by the Exchange. The Exchange
believes the decreased fee will attract additional liquidity to the
Exchange as orders routed using the ROUT routing strategy first check
the Exchange for available shares before routing and any unexecuted
returned shares are posted to the Exchange. While the affected Members'
orders will be charged a lower fee due to the proposal, the revenue
received by the Exchange will continue to be used to fund the Exchange
generally, including the cost of maintaining and improving the
technology used to handle and route orders from the Exchange as well as
programs that the Exchange believes help to attract additional
liquidity and thus improve the depth of liquidity available on the
Exchange. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that routing through the
Exchange is voluntary. Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the
proposed amendment is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly
to all Members.
RMPT/RMPL Tier 2
    The Exchange believe that the addition of the RMPL/RMPT Tier 2 is
also reasonable and equitable because it is similar to the RMPL/RMPT
Tier 1 and its inclusion of the RMPL and RMPT routing strategies
results in the equal treatment of those orders under the Exchange's
tiered pricing structure. The proposed new RMPT/RMPL Tier 2 should also
attract additional midpoint liquidity to the Exchange, resulting in
increased price improvement opportunities for orders seeking an
execution at the midpoint of the NBBO on the Exchange or elsewhere.
    In addition, volume-based rebates such as that proposed herein have
been widely adopted by exchanges and are equitable because they are
open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits
or discounts that are reasonably related to: (i) the value to an
exchange's market quality; (ii) associated higher levels of market
activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth
patterns; and (iii) the introduction of higher volumes of orders into
the price and volume discovery processes. The Exchange believes that
the proposed tier is a reasonable, fair and equitable, and not an
unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees and rebates, because it will
provide Members with an additional incentive to reach certain
thresholds on the Exchange.

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

    This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange does not believe that this change represents a
significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or
from pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. The proposed rates
would apply uniformly to all Members, and Members may opt to disfavor
the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them
better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
Further, excessive fees would serve to impair an exchange's ability to
compete for order flow and members rather than burdening competition.
The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket
competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all
Members.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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 paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-BatsEDGA-2017-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsEDGA-2017-12. 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 the 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 No. SR-BatsEDGA-2017-12, and should be
submitted on or before June 7, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09923 Filed 5-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 58)]
[Notices]
[Page 13428]
[DOCID:fr27mr09-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2232-522]

Duke Power Company, LLC; North Carolina and South Carolina;
Notice of Public Meetings for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

March 20, 2009.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the
Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2232), located on the
Catawba River in the counties of Burke, McDowell, Caldwell, Catawba,
Alexander, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Lincoln, and Gaston in North Carolina,
and the counties of York, Lancaster, Chester, Fairfield, and Kershaw in
South Carolina, and has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(draft EIS) for the project.
    In addition to, or in lieu of, sending written comments, all
interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to
attend one or more of the meetings. The agency meeting will focus on
resource agency and non-governmental organization (NGO) concerns, while
the evening meetings are primarily for public input. The time and
location of the meetings are as follows:

Evening Meeting

    Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2009.
    Time: 7 p.m.-9 p.m. (EST).
    Place: Charles Mack Citizens Center (Town of Mooresville Citizen
Center).
    Address: 215 North Main St., Mooresville, NC.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Daytime Meeting

    Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2009.
    Time: 9 a.m.-4 p.m. (EST).
    Place: Baxter Hood Center (York Technical College).
    Address: 452 S. Anderson Rd., Rock Hill, SC.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Evening Meeting

    Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2009.
    Time: 7 p.m.-9 p.m. (EST).
    Place: Baxter Hood Center (York Technical College).
    Address: 452 S. Anderson Rd., Rock Hill, SC.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental
expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meetings and to
discuss their comments on staff's recommendations included in the draft
EIS. At these meetings, resource agency personnel and other interested
persons will have the opportunity to provide oral and written comments
and recommendations regarding the draft EIS. The meeting will be
recorded by a court reporter, and all statements (verbal and written)
will become part of the Commission's public record for the project.
This meeting is posted on the Commission's calendar located at http://
www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related
information.
    Written comments should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC, 20426. All comments must be filed by May 8, 2009, and
should reference Project No. 2232-522. Comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and instructions on the Commission's Web site at http:// www.ferc.gov
under the eLibrary link.
    Copies of the draft EIS were distributed to the parties on the
Commission's mailing list. Electronic copies of the draft EIS on CD
will be available at the meetings. The draft EIS contains staff's
evaluation of the applicant's proposal and the alternatives for
relicensing the Catawba-Wateree Project. A copy of the draft EIS is
also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Branch,
Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The
draft EIS also may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov under the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding
the last three digits in the docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http:// www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Sean Murphy at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-6867 Filed 3-26-09; 8:45 am]


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OPP-2006-xxxx; FRL-xxxx-1]

Flutolanil; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Add Tolerances for
a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the amendment of pesticide petition PP
0F6159 proposing to amend the regulations in 40 CFR §180.484 for the
indirect or inadvertent residues of the fungicide flutolanil
[N-(3-(1-methylethoxy) phenyl)-2-(trifluoromethyl) benzamide] and its
metabolite, M-4, desisopropylflutolanil
[N-(3-hydroxyphenyl)-2(trifluromethyl) benzamide], expressed as
2-trifluoromethyl benzoic acid and calculated as flutolanil on various
food and feed commodities.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number OPP-
2006-xxxx, must be received on or before date.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through
hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in
Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Mary Waller, Registration
Support Branch, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460- 0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address:  ADVANCE \d4<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if you an agricultural producer, food
manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories
and entities may include, but are not limited to:

· Crop production (NAICS 111)

· Animal production (NAICS 112)

· Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)

· Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 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 Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action
under docket ID number OPP-2006-xxxx. The official public docket
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any
public comments received, and other information related to this action.
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is
the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119,
Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This 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>.

2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the
public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and
comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to
access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1.
Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate
docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the
EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the
official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in
EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted
material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will
be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket.
To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made
available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected
from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket.
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through
the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards
providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket
materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters,
it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for
public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them
and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material,
CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will
provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that
is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment,
including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public
docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of
your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the
comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider
these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is
otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit
I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information
protected by statute.

1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in
this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address,
and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your
comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any
disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk
or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of
the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on
the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit
your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the
body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed
in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic
public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties [[Page 76944]] and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

 i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit
comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving
comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at  ADVANCE \d4 http://www.epa.gov/
edocket/, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in docket ID number
OPP-2006-xxxx. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

 ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2006-xxxx. In contrast to EPA's
electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an ``anonymous
access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket
without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail
system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that
are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part
of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made
available in EPA's electronic public docket.

 iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These
electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2006-xxxx.

3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
#2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number
OPP-2006-xxxx. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's
normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

 ADVANCE \d4 D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

     Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You
may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part
or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM,
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to
one complete version of the comment that includes any information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the
information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public
docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that
does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or
CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as
CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public
docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the
procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that
support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at
the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID
number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of
your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register
citation.

 ADVANCE \d4

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the
establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain
pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA
has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding
the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not
fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or
whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may
be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food
additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated: xxxxxxxxxxxx xx, 2006.

Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.

Nichino America, Inc.

PP 0F6159

Summary of Petition

EPA has received a revision to pesticide petition PP 0F6159 from Nichino
America, Inc., 4550 New Linden Hill Road, Suite 501, Wilmington, DE
19808-proposing, pursuant to section 408 (d) of FFDCA, 21. U.S.C.
346a(d), to amend 40 CFR 180.484 by establishing increased tolerances
for residues of the fungicide flutolanil
[N-(3-(1-methylethoxy)phenyl)-2-(trifluoromethyl) benzamide] and its
metabolite, M-4, desisopropylflutolanil
[N-3(3-hydroxyphenyl)2-(trifluromethyl) benzamide]. Flutolanil and its
metabolites are converted to 2-trifluoromethyl benzoic acid and
calculated as flutolanil in the GC/MS MS detection method used for
soybean and wheat commodities. Flutolanil and M-4 are detected directly
in the LC/MS MS-detection method used for corn and cotton. Inadvertent
or indirect tolerances in or on the following raw agricultural
commodities (RACs) are proposed: soybean forage at 9.0 ppm, soybean hay
at 2.0 ppm, soybean seed 0.20 ppm; wheat bran at 0.30 ppm, wheat forage
at 2.0 ppm, wheat grain at 0.10 ppm, wheat hay at 1.0 ppm, wheat straw
at 0.30 ppm; corn, field, forage at 0.30 ppm, corn, field, grain at 0.20
ppm, corn field, stover at 0.30 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.20
ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

1. Plant metabolism. The metabolic profile of flutolanil is well
understood and has been elucidated in the three crops; peanuts, rice,
and cucumber. The metabolic profile is similar in all crops. The major
route of degradation is 4'-0-dealkylation to desisopropylflutolanil,
followed by conjugation. Other metabolites may occur at very low levels
due to hydroxylation and oxidation of the side chain, hydroxylation of
the aniline ring, and methylation of the hydroxyl groups. These minor
metabolites were also subject to conjugation. The residues of concern
are the parent, flutolanil, and M-4.

2. Analytical Method. A previously submitted analytical method
designated AU-95R-04 (MRID 45104001), a gas chromatography, mass
spectrometry detection method has been independently validated and is
adequate for enforcement purposes for flutolanil residue detection in
soybean and wheat raw agricultural commodities. A liquid chromatography,
mass spectrometry detection method XAM-65, is submitted with this
tolerance petition and is adequate for enforcement purposes of
flutolanil residue detection in corn and cotton raw agricultural
commodities. A multi-residue method for flutolanil has been previously
submitted.

3. Magnitude of residue. Ten rotational crop field residue trails were
conducted in 1994 in Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Virginia,
Oklahoma, and North Carolina. Flutolanil formulated as Moncut 70WP was
applied to bare soil at a total seasonal rate for peanuts (the highest
labeled rate for use on food crops) at 2.0 lb. a.i./acre, followed by
planting of the typical rotational crops wheat, soybeans, corn and
cotton at 30 days after application. The rotational crops were grown to
maturity and samples of relevant commodities collected at the
appropriate developmental stage. These applications of flutolanil
resulted in residues that are within the proposed crop tolerances.

Processing studies were conducted for soybeans and wheat using samples
of wheat grain and soybean seed collected from one of the trial sites
above, using normal agricultural practice. Residues of concern were
within the proposed crop tolerances.

B. Toxicological Profile

An extensive battery of toxicology studies has been conducted with
flutolanil. EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered
its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship
of the results of the studies to human risk. The nature of the toxic
effects caused by flutolanil is discussed in Unit III.A. of the Final
Rule on Flutolanil Pesticide Tolerance published in the Federal Register
on February 20, 2001 (66 FR 10817) (FRL-6761-1).

1. Animal metabolism. The metabolism of flutolanil has been extensively
studied in various species of mammals. Studies in rats, ruminants, and
poultry suggest that flutolanil is not well absorbed following oral
administration. Once absorbed, however, it is rapidly metabolized,
primarily to desisopropylflutolanil and it conjugates, and rapidly
excreted via urine and feces.

2. Endocrine effects. No special studies have been conducted to
investigate the potential of flutolanil to induce estrogenic or other
endocrine effects. No evidence of such effects has been observed in the
subchronic, chronic or reproductive studies previously discussed. Thus,
the potential for flutolanil to cause endocrine effects is considered to
be not relevant.

3. Toxicity endpoint selection. Flutolanil is of low acute toxicity via
all route of administration and did not induce significant maternal or
developmental toxicity in either rats or rabbits, even at the limit dose
of 1000 mg/kg/day. Furthermore, no evidence of toxicity was noted
following repeated dosing at 1000 mg/kg/day in a 21-day dermal toxicity
study. Thus acute dietary, occupational and residential risk assessments
are not considered necessary. The Agency has concluded that the cPAD
(chronic population adjusted dose) for flutolanil should be 0.87
mg/kg/day, based on the NOEL of 87 mg/kg/day from the rat 2-year
chronic/oncogenicity study and a 100-fold uncertainty factor. The Agency
has also determined that the cancer classification for flutolanil should
be “Group E-Evidence of Non-Carcinogenicity for Humans.”

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Chronic dietary risk
analyses were conducted to estimate the potential flutolanil residues
in/on the following crops: rice, peanuts, potato, wheat, corn cottonseed
(undelinted), and soybeans. Meat, milk, poultry, and egg residues were
included. Analyses were performed using the Lifeline TM Version 3.0
which incorporates data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII) and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity.
Chronic exposure estimates to food were based on tolerance levels and
assumed 100% crop treatment, yielding the worst case chronic dietary
exposure estimates.

2. Food. An acute dietary assessment is not required as there is no
acute toxicity associated with flutolanil exposure.

The chronic dietary exposure estimated food exposure to be 0.0027
mg/kg/day for the U.S. population, based on the Lifeline TM Version 3.0.
The number of individuals simulated was 3000. The highest exposure group
was children, age 1-2, with exposures of 0.0069 mg/kg/day. These are
considered conservative values as all exposure was based on tolerance
levels and assumed all crops were treated with flutolanil.

3. Drinking water. The potential for flutolanil to leach into
groundwater has been assessed in two terrestrial field dissipation
studies, a long-term terrestrial field dissipation study, and an aquatic
field dissipation study. Under field conditions, the half-life of
flutlanil varied from 101 to 123 days in the long-term study, which was
consistent with the other field studies, and was approximately 180 days
in the aquatic environment. Flutolanil strongly adsorbs to soil
following application and did not exhibit mobility under either
terrestrial or aquatic conditions. Based on these observations, the
Agency concluded that the most important means of dissipation in surface
was and also in groundwater will most likely be dilution. Due to the
lack of sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a dietary risk
assessment for flutolanil in drinking water, models that best accounted
for the application of flutolanil to rice paddies were used to simulate
exposure to flutolanil in drinking water. Based on the First
Approximation Rice Model and Screening Concentrations in Ground Water
(SCI-GROW) model, the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of
flutolanil for acute exposures are 3.8 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 0.34 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic
exposures are 3.8 ppb for surface water and 0.34 ppb for ground water.

4. Non-Dietary Exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in
this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g.
for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and
flea and tick control on pests). Flutolanil is currently registered for
use on the following residential non-dietary sites: Turf grass. The risk
assessment was conducted using the following residential exposure
assumptions: There are non-occupational uses associated with flutolanil.
Non-occupational handlers may mix, load, and apply flutolanil products
on turf grass. These exposures were assessed for inhalation risk.
Post-application inhalation exposure following turfgrass treatment is
considered negligible and was not assessed. Because certain flutolanil
products are registered for use on residential lawns, post-application
exposure to infants may result in their hand-to-mouth activities on
treated turf. The MOE’s for these scenarios ranged from 6.7 x 102 to
1.4 x 103. These MOEs are greater than the LOC of 100 and lie above the
Agency’s level of concern.

5. Cumulative exposure to substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide’s residues and “other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk
approached based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a
common mechanism of toxicity finding as to flutolanil and any other
substances and flutolanil does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action,
therefore, EPA has not assumed that flutolanil has a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances.

For information regarding EPA’s efforts to determine which chemicals
have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative
effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA’s
OPP concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for
cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on
EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.

Flutolanil has demonstrated only minimal toxicity in animal studies. The
mechanism of this toxicity is not known. Furthermore, there are no
available data to indicate that flutolanil has a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances. Thus, only the potential risks from
flutolanil are being considered in this document.

D. Safety Determination

1. U.S. Population

The (cPAD) was determined to be 0.87 mg/kg/day based on an oral NOEL of
87 mg/kg/day in the rat chronic oncogenicity study and an uncertainty
factor of 100X for inter- and intra-species variations and an FQPA
children’s safety fax of 1X. Based on the existing tolerances in rice,
peanuts, and secondary commodities plus the proposed tolerances in
soybean, wheat, corn and cotton commodities, the chronic food exposure
is estimated to be 0.0027 mg/kg/day for the U.S. population in general.
There is generally no concern for exposures below 100% of the cPAD since
the cPAD represents the exposure level at or below which daily exposure
over a lifetime will not pose any appreciable risks to human health.
Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
the U.S. population in general from aggregate exposure to flutolanil.

i. Acute risk. An acute risk assessment is not required as there is no
acute toxicity associated with flutolanil exposure.

ii. Chronic Risk. Based on the toxicology data base and available
information on anticipated residues, the chronic dietary exposure to the
U.S. Population (total) was estimated to be 0.0027 mg/kg/day, which
represented a margin of exposure (MOE) of 5980 and 0.031% of the cPAD.
The most sensitive exposure group was children, age 1-2, with exposures
of 0.0069 mg/kg/day. This represented a MOE of 1750 and 0.79% of the
cPAD. Based on these assessments, it can be concluded that there is
reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population or any population
subgroup from exposure to flutolanil.

2. Infants and children. Data from reproductive and developmental
toxicity studies are generally sued to assess the potential for
increased sensitivity of infants and children. No evidence of
developmental toxicity was evident. Therefore, there is no reason to
believe there is an increased sensitivity in infants and children. The
FQPA safety factor was determined to be 1X.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

OPP estimates the total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food,
drinking water, and residential uses.

1. Acute Risk. Acute aggregate risk is based upon the estimated risks
from the combined exposures of food and drinking water sources. EPA did
not recommend an acute dietary endpoint for flutolanil, therefore no
acute aggregate risk assessment was conducted and there is no
expectation of acute risk.

2. Chronic Risk. Using the exposure assumptions and modeling estimates
of exposure discussed earlier, and based on a cPAD of 0.87 mg/kg/day, it
is concluded that exposure to flutolanil from food, including the
additional new uses, will utilize <1% of the cPAD for all subpopulation
groups. In addition, there is potential for chronic dietary exposure to
flutolanil in drinking water. The DWLOC for the general population is 3
X 104 and for infants less than one year old 8.6 x 103. Based on the use
pattern, chronic residential exposure to residues of flutolanil is not
expected. In addition there is potential for chronic dietary exposure to
flutolanil in drinking water. After calculation DWLOCs and comparing
them to the EECs for surface and ground water, the EPA concluded that
the aggregate exposure to no exceed 100% of the cPAD. The MOEs scenarios
for the non-dietary exposure ranged from 6.7 x 102  to 1.4 x 10 3 .
These MOEs are greated than LOC of 100 and are above the Agency’s
level of concern. Therefore, these three routes of exposure, when
aggregated, present a certainty of no harm to the population.

3. Short-Term Risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).

EPA has determined that although residential exposure could occur with
the use of flutolanil, no toxicological effects have been identified for
short-term dermal toxicity. Incidental oral exposure to adult
residential handlers is expected to be insignificant and is therefore
not assessed. Incidental oral exposure to infants eating treated turf is
assessed below under intermediate-term aggregate risk.

4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Flutolanil is classified
as a “not likely” to be a human carcinogen considering the Proposed
EPA Weight-of-the-Evidence Categories (August, 1999), based on lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in male and female rats and mice up to the
guideline limit dose and on the lack of mutagenicity in an acceptable
battery of mutagenicity studies. Therefore, no cancer risk is required.

5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population,
and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to flutolanil
residues.

F. International Tolerances

Canada, Codex, and Mexico do not have maximum residue limits (MRLs) for
flutolanil or desisopropylfultolanil residues on soybean, wheat, corn,
or cotton.