[Federal Register: August 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 47853-47854]
[DOCID:fr18au06-136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54306; File No. SR-OCC-2006-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Expiration Date
Exercise Procedures

 August 11, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on April 26, 2006, The
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') 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
primarily by OCC. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would amend Rule 805, which describes
expiration date exercise procedures including exercise by exception
processing.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified parts of these statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would amend Rule 805, Expiration Date
Exercise Procedure, to reduce the threshold amounts used to determine
the equity options that are in the money for purposes of exercise by
exception processing. A conforming change would also be made to Rule
1106, Open Positions, which concerns the treatment of open positions
following the suspension of a clearing member.
    OCC has for years maintained an ``exercise by exception''
procedure. Under that procedure, options that are in the money at
expiration by more than a specified threshold amount are exercised
automatically unless the clearing member carrying the position
instructs otherwise. Equity options are determined to be in the money
or not based on the difference between the exercise price and the
closing price of the underlying equity interest on the last trading day
before expiration. In September 2004, in order to streamline expiration
processing, OCC reduced the threshold amounts for equity options from
$.75 to $.25 in a clearing member's customers' account and from $.25 to
$.15 in any other account (i.e., firm and market makers' accounts).\3\
This change, which was implemented at the request of the OCC
Roundtable,\4\ immediately yielded significant benefits to both OCC and
clearing members as the time for submitting exercise instructions was
reduced by one to three hours on an average expiration weekend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50178 (August 10, 2004),
69 FR 51343 (August 18, 2004) [File No. SR-OCC-2004-04].
    \4\ The OCC Roundtable is an OCC sponsored advisory group
comprised of representatives from OCC's participant exchanges, OCC,
a cross-section of OCC clearing members, and industry service
bureaus. The Roundtable considers operational improvements that may
be made to increase efficiencies and lower costs in the options
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Increasing options volumes in 2004 and 2005 prompted the OCC
Roundtable to review the thresholds applied to equity options in an
effort to further reduce operational risks and improve expiration
processing. Initially, the Roundtable proposed that the threshold for
all account types be set at $.01, but an OCC survey of clearing members
found that while 65% of responding clearing members supported this
change, 35% were against it. A second OCC survey determined that 75% of
responding clearing members were in favor of a threshold change to $.05
for all account types and 25% were opposed to it. The Roundtable then
requested that OCC establish $.05 as the threshold applicable to equity
options exercises for all account types.
    In response to this request, OCC analyzed equity options exercise
information from the June 2004 through December 2005 expirations. OCC's
analysis determined that 70% of equity option contracts carried in
clearing members' customers' accounts that were in the money by the
amount of $.05 to $.24 (i.e., the change in the ``in-the-money'' amount
represented by the proposed threshold) were exercised. OCC's analysis
also determined that exercise activity in other account ranges
supported the proposed threshold change.
    OCC surveyed all clearing members to obtain their views and
comments on the proposed change to $.05 as the threshold amount for
equity options for all account types. Survey results demonstrated
strong support across the membership for the change. Eighty-seven
clearing members \5\ responded to the survey with sixty-five clearing
members (75 percent) in favor of the threshold change and 22 clearing
members (25 percent) opposed. Clearing members supporting the change
confirmed the Roundtable's view that it would significantly reduce the
number of instructions they are required to input on expiration thereby
shortening the timeframe for completing instructions to OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OCC contacted clearing members that did not respond to its
survey. These firms expressed no opinion on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC contacted each firm that opposed the threshold change. These
firms are generally mid-size to small retail clearing members. Their
opposition to the change reflected their principal concern about having
to input more ``do not exercise'' instructions. Some indicated concerns
about the need to educate customers and the possibility that commission
costs could make an exercise unprofitable.\6\ However, all of these
firms agreed that they could adapt to the change if supported by the
majority of clearing members. OCC further reviewed the positions
carried by these firms and determined that, on average, they carry
positions in fewer than 10 expiring series per expiration that are
below the current threshold of $.25. This review led OCC to conclude
that the threshold change would result in only a slight increase in
processing time for these firms and that they would not be unduly
burdened by its implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As noted, clearing members are able to instruct OCC not to
exercise an expiring equity option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC's survey of clearing members also asked firms to provide an
estimate of the time needed to accommodate the threshold change based
upon supplied time frames (e.g., 0-3 months or 4-6 months). The
majority of firms indicated that they could complete the necessary
systems development and customer notifications within six months. OCC
contacted every firm that commented on the proposed time frames, and
all expressed the view that their efforts would be completed in the six
month time period.

    The Roundtable has recommended that this change be implemented for
the October 2006 expiration. OCC therefore requests that the Commission
approve the proposed rule change with an effective date of October 1,
2006, and that the Commission authorize OCC to implement the threshold
change thereafter based upon its assessment of clearing member
readiness. OCC would provide at least ten days advance notice to
clearing members of the effective date for the new threshold amounts by
information memoranda and other forms of electronic notice such as e-
mail. Additionally, OCC would allow clearing members additional time to
complete preparations for the threshold change if necessary.
    OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A of the Act because it facilitates the prompt and accurate
processing of exercise information on expiration.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
) or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-OCC-2006-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2006-05. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's
Web site at http://www.optionsclearing.com. 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-OCC-2006-05 and should be submitted on
or before September 8, 2006.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-13616 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 16171]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06015]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL21-9-000]

North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation v. Duke Energy
Progress, LLC; Notice Granting Motion To Continue To Hold Proceeding in
Abeyance

    On March 7, 2022, North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation
(NCEMC) filed a motion to continue to hold the complaint filed in the
above-captioned proceeding in abeyance until June 1, 2022. NCEMC
represents that itself and Duke Energy Progress, LLC (DEP) have been
negotiating an agreement to implement several changes to the Power
Supply and Coordination Agreement at issue in this proceeding, but the
parties need additional time to finalize the agreement. NCEMC asks that
the Commission delay taking any action in this docket for an additional
period up to and including June 1, 2022, to allow parties to continue
to finalize these details. NCEMC also states that DEP supports the
motion.
    Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that NCEMC's motion is
granted. As such, the Commission will not take any action on the
complaint filed in this proceeding until after June 1, 2022.

    Dated: March 16, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06015 Filed 3-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31565-31566]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11843]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 35

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0120; FRL-9946-59-Region 9]

Clean Air Act Grant: South Coast Air Quality Management District;
Opportunity for Public Hearing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed action; determination with request for comments and
notice of opportunity for public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made a proposed
determination that the reduction in expenditures of non-Federal funds
for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in support
of its continuing air program under section 105 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) for the calendar year 2015 is a result of non-selective
reductions in expenditures. This determination, when final, will permit
the SCAQMD to receive grant funding for FY2016 from the EPA under
section 105 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments and/or requests for a public hearing must be received
by the EPA at the address stated below by June 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-R09-
OAR-2016-0120] at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Lance, EPA Region IX, Grants and
Program Integration Office, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105-3901; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email address at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
provides grant support for the continuing air programs of eligible
state, local, and tribal agencies. In accordance with 40 CFR 35.145(a),
the Regional Administrator may provide air pollution control agencies
up to three-fifths of the approved costs of implementing programs for
the prevention and control of air pollution. Section 105 contains two
cost-sharing provisions which recipients must meet to qualify for a CAA
section 105 grant. An eligible entity must meet a minimum 40% match. In
addition, to remain eligible for section 105 funds, an eligible entity
must continue to meet the minimum match requirement as well as meet a
maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement under section 105(c)(1) of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7405.
    Program activities relevant to the match consist of both recurring
and non-recurring (unique, one-time only) expenses. The MOE provision
requires that a state or local agency spend at least the same dollar
level of funds as it did in the previous grant year, but only for

the costs of recurring activities. Specifically, section 105(c) (1), 42
U.S.C. 7405(c)(1) provides that ``no agency shall receive any grant
under this section during any fiscal year when its expenditures of non-
Federal funds for recurrent expenditures for air pollution control
programs will be less than its expenditures were for such programs
during the preceding fiscal year.'' Pursuant to CAA section 105(c)(2),
however, the EPA may still award a grant to an agency not meeting the
requirements of section 105(c)(1), ``if the Administrator, after notice
and opportunity for public hearing, determines that a reduction in
expenditures is attributable to a non-selective reduction in the
expenditures in the programs of all Executive branch agencies of the
applicable unit of Government.'' These statutory requirements are
repeated in the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 35.140 through
35.148. The EPA issued additional guidance to recipients on what
constitutes a nonselective reduction on September 30, 2011. In
consideration of legislative history, the guidance clarified that a
non-selective reduction does not necessarily mean that each Executive
branch agency need be reduced in equal proportion. However, it must be
clear to the EPA, from the weight of evidence, that a recipient's CAA-
related air program is not being disproportionately impacted or singled
out for a reduction.
    A section 105 recipient must submit a final financial status report
no later than 90 days from the close of its grant period that documents
all of its federal and non-federal expenditures for the completed
period. The recipient seeking an adjustment to its MOE for that period
must provide the rationale and the documentation necessary to enable
the EPA to make a determination that a nonselective reduction has
occurred. In order to expedite that determination, the recipient must
provide details of the budget action and the comparative fiscal impacts
on all the jurisdiction's executive branch agencies, the recipient
agency itself, and the agency's air program. The recipient should
identify any executive branch agencies or programs that should be
excepted from comparison and explain why. The recipient must provide
evidence that the air program is not being singled out for a reduction
or being disproportionately reduced. Documentation in key areas will be
needed: Budget data specific to the recipient's air program, and
comparative budget data between the recipient's air program, the agency
containing the air program, and the other executive branch agencies.
The EPA may also request information from the recipient about how
impacts on its program operations will affect its ability to meet its
CAA obligations and requirements; and documentation which explains the
cause of the reduction, such as legislative changes or the issuance of
a new executive order.
    In FY-2015, the EPA awarded the SCAQMD $5,082,526, which
represented approximately 5% of the SCAQMD budget. In FY-2016, the EPA
intends to award the SCAQMD approximately $5,039,863, which represents
roughly 5% of the SCAQMD budget.
    SCAQMD's final Federal Financial Report for FY-2014 indicated that
SCAQMD's maintenance of effort (MOE) level was $106,315,128. SCAQMD's
final Federal Financial Report for FY-2015 indicates that SCAQMD's
maintenance of effort (MOE) level was $105,858,708. The reduced MOE is
not sufficient to meet the MOE requirements under the CAA section 105
because it is not equal to or greater than the MOE for the previous
fiscal year.
    In order for the SCAQMD to be eligible to receive its FY-2016 CAA
section 105 grant, the EPA must make a determination, (after notice and
an opportunity for a public hearing), that the reduction in
expenditures is attributable to a non-selective reduction in the
expenditures in the programs of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District.
    The South Coast Air Quality Management District is a single-purpose
air pollution control agency whose primary source of funding is from
stationary sources of emissions. It is the ``unit of government for
section 105 (c)(2) purposes.''
    The Maintenance of Effort (MOE) level for FY-2015 is higher than
the last MOE adjustment in FY 2013. Specifically, the MOE for FY-2015
is $762,655 higher than the FY-2013 level, the last time a non-
selective reduction was approved. As compared to the FY-2014 level, the
FY-2015 MOE is $456,420 or 0.43% lower.
    The FY-2015 MOE was lower than the FY-2014 level due to relatively
high uncollectible accounts receivable expenditures in FY-2014. Without
this higher level of uncollectible accounts receivable in FY-2014, the
MOE level would have been met in FY-2015.
    Also, in FY 2014-15, ``Other Revenue'' decreased by $10.5 million
from FY 2013-14 and total revenue (Stationary Sources and Other
Revenue) for this time period decreased by $9.3 million. This
unpredictable revenue decrease, combined with lower levels of
Stationary Source revenues since FY-2009-10, results in SCAQMD budget
reductions. This may cause fluctuations in the MOE level from year to
year. Stationary Source Revenues and Other Revenue for FY-2012-13
through 2014-15 is detailed below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Stationary
                  Year                        sources      Other revenue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013....................................     $83,307,359     $49,624,690
2014....................................      84,341,483      60,438,706
2015....................................      85,546,869      49,962,777
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The request for a reset of SCAQMD's MOE meets the criteria for a
non-selective reduction determination based on: 1. SCAQMD's inability
to levy taxes, 2. regulated and voluntary emissions reductions, 3.
agency-wide expenditure cuts, and 4. use of financial reserves to
balance the budget.
    Although SCAQMD receives less than 5 percent of its support from
the section 105 grant, the loss of that funding would seriously impact
SCAQMD's ability to carry out its clean air program.
    The SCAQMD's MOE reduction resulted from a loss of revenues due to
circumstances beyond its control. The EPA proposes to determine that
lowering SCAQMD's FY-2015 MOE level to $105,858,708 meets the CAA
section 105(c)(2) criteria as resulting from a non-selective reduction
of expenditures.
    This notice constitutes a request for public comment and an
opportunity for public hearing as required by the Clean Air Act. All
written comments received by June 20, 2016 on this proposal will be
considered. The EPA will conduct a public hearing on this proposal only
if a written request for such is received by the EPA at the address
above by June 20, 2016. If no written request for a hearing is
received, the EPA will proceed to the final determination. While notice
of the final determination will not be published in the Federal
Register, copies of the determination can be obtained by sending a
written request to Gary Lance at the above address.

    Dated: May 10, 2016.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016-11843 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 71883]
[DOCID:fr19de07-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-29-000]

Vector Pipeline L.P.; Notice of Application

December 12, 2007.
    Take notice that on November 30, 2007, Vector Pipeline L.P.
(Vector), 38705 Seven Mile Road, Suite 490, Livonia, Michigan 48152,
filed in Docket No. CP08-29-000, an application, pursuant to section 7
of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), to construct, own, and operate compressor
facilities associated with an expansion of its mainline capacity. This
project is known as the Athens Compressor Expansion, or ACE Project,
and entails the construction of a new compressor station located in
Calhoun County, Michigan, along with minor changes to existing
compressor facilities at Vector's Highland and Springville stations.
The ACE Project will increase Vector's mainline capacity by
approximately 105,000 Dth per day, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY, (202)
208-3676.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Mr.
Robert Smith, Manager, Regulatory and Administration, 38705 Seven Mile
Road, Suite 490, Livonia, Michigan 48152, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: January 2, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-24554 Filed 12-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 180 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55768-55773]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23298]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0574; FRL-9933-00]

Halosulfuron-methyl; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
halosulfuron-methyl in or on the pome fruit group 11-10 and a tolerance
with regional registration for residues of halosulfuron-methyl in or on
the small vine climbing fruit, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F.
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 17, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 16, 2015,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0574, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0574 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
November 16, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0574, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 11, 2015 (80 FR 7559) (FRL-
9921-94), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
4E8297) by IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, Suite 201 W, 500 College Road East,
Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.479 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide
halosulfuron-methyl, methyl 5-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidiny)amino]
carbonylaminosulfonyl]-3-chloro-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the raw agricultural
commodities: Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.05 parts per million (ppm),
and fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F
at 0.05 ppm (associated with a regional registration). That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the Canyon Group, c/o
Gowan Company, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received on the notice of
filing.
    Based upon available data, EPA is establishing tolerances as
requested.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for halosulfuron-methyl including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with halosulfuron-
methyl follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    With repeated dosing, the available data on halosulfuron-methyl did
not demonstrate a target organ or tissue in any of the test animals.
Reduction in body weight was seen in the 90-day and 1-year oral
toxicity studies in dogs. Reduced body weights were also seen in

rat studies at higher dose levels than those seen in dogs. An effect on
the hematological parameters was detected in the dog studies, but the
magnitude of changes was slight and the effect was considered to be
marginal. Thus, the slight hematological changes were not considered to
be adverse.
    In the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats, increases in
resorptions, soft tissue (dilation of the lateral ventricles) and
skeletal variations, and decreases in body weights were seen in the
fetuses compared to clinical signs and decreases in body weights and
food consumption in the maternal animals at a similar dose level. In
the rabbit developmental toxicity study, increases in resorptions and
post-implantation losses and decreases in mean litter size were
observed in the presence of decreases in body weight and food
consumption in maternal animals. The fetal effects seen in
developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits represented a
qualitative increase in susceptibility. However, a clear no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) for these effects was established in both
rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies. No quantitative
susceptibility was found in studies following pre-and/or post-natal
exposures. Halosulfuron-methyl did not produce any effects on
reproductive parameters in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats.
No neurotoxic effects were observed in the acute or subchronic
neurotoxicity studies up to 2,000 mg/kg or 760 mg/kg/day, respectively.
In addition, no adverse effect was found in a 21-day dermal toxicity
study at doses up to the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day).
    Halosulfuron-methyl is negative for mutagenicity in a battery of
genotoxicity studies and is classified as ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans'' based on lack of evidence for carcinogenicity
in mice and rats following long-term dietary administration.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by halosulfuron-methyl as well as the NOAEL and
the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity
studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document
``Halosulfuron-Methyl. Human Health Risk Assessment for a Proposed Use
on Pome Fruit Crop Group 11-10 and Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup,
Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit, Subgroup 13-07F'' at page 28 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0574.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for halosulfuron used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III. B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of December 3, 2012 (77 FR 71555)
(FRL-9370-6). However, there is one change to the prior toxicity
endpoint and point of departure selections for halosulfuron-methyl
discussed in the 2012 document. The previous toxicity endpoint for
dermal exposure assessments was based on the results of a 21-day dermal
toxicity study, where the no observed effect level (NOEL) and lowest
observed effect level (LOEL) were established at 100 and 1,000 mg/kg/
day, respectively. The LOEL was based on ``total body weight gains in
males.'' However, following a reevaluation of this study according to
the current evaluation standard, there was only 4% reduction in
absolute body weight in the affected 1,000 mg/kg/day males. This
reduction was not considered to be adverse and no other adverse effect
was reported in this study. No LOAEL could be established, and the
NOAEL was 1,000 mg/kg/day. Based on this re-evaluation, halosulfuron-
methyl did not cause adverse effects at the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/
day), and no toxicity endpoint could be established for the dermal
exposure scenario. In addition, no quantitative susceptibility was
found in studies following pre-and/or post-natal exposures. Hence, no
dermal exposure assessment was necessary.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to halosulfuron-methyl, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing halosulfuron-methyl
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.479. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
halosulfuron-methyl in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for halosulfuron-methyl. Exposure and
risk assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation
Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID).
This software uses 2003-2008 food consumption data from the United
States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As
to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100
percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/
WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level
residues and 100 PCT for all commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that halosulfuron-methyl does not pose a cancer risk to
humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of
assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for
halosulfuron-methyl. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were assumed
for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for halosulfuron-methyl in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport

characteristics of halosulfuron-methyl. Further information regarding
EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of halosulfuron-methyl
for acute exposures are estimated to be 59.2 parts per billion (ppb)
for surface water and 0.065 ppb for ground water and for chronic
exposures are estimated to be 59.2 ppb for surface water and 0.065 ppb
for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 59.2 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 59.2 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Halosulfuron-methyl is currently registered for use by residential
handlers on residential turf. EPA re-assessed residential exposure for
aggregate risk assessment reflecting the removal of the dermal POD. EPA
assessed short-term (1-30 days) exposure to halosulfuron-methyl for
residential handlers (inhalation exposure) and children 1 to < 2 years
old (post-application incidental oral exposures).
    The residential exposure scenario used in the adult aggregate
assessment reflects inhalation exposure from mixing/loading/applying
halosulfuron-methyl via backpack sprayer or manually pressurized
handwand to turf.
    The residential exposure scenario used in the children 1 to <2
years old aggregate assessment reflects hand-to-mouth incidental oral
exposures from post-application exposure to treated turf.
    Intermediate-term exposures are not likely because of the
intermittent nature of applications by homeowners.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found halosulfuron-methyl to share a common mechanism
of toxicity with any other substances, and halosulfuron-methyl does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
halosulfuron-methyl does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no quantitative
evidence of increased susceptibility following pre- and/or post-natal
exposure to halosulfuron-methyl. Qualitative susceptibility was seen in
the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats and in rabbits;
however, this qualitative susceptibility was of low concern because (1)
in both studies, there were clear NOAELs/LOAELs for developmental and
maternal toxicities; (2) the developmental effects were seen in the
presence of maternal toxicity; and (3) the effects were only seen at
the high dose levels. In rats, the developmental effects were seen at a
dose (750 mg/kg/day) which was approaching the limit-dose (1,000 mg/kg/
day). Furthermore, the PODs for risk assessment are protective of the
effects which occur at high doses.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for halosulfuron-methyl is considered
complete.
    ii. There is no indication that halosulfuron-methyl is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There was no quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility
following pre- and/or post-natal exposure and the qualitative
susceptibility observed in the developmental toxicity studies in rats
and rabbits was of low concern for the reasons outlined in section
III.D.2.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to halosulfuron-methyl in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure
of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
halosulfuron-methyl.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to halosulfuron-methyl will occupy <1% of the aPAD for females 13-49
years old, the only population group of concern.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
halosulfuron-methyl from food and water will utilize

5.7% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population subgroup
receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit
III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential
exposure to residues of halosulfuron-methyl is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Halosulfuron-methyl is currently registered for uses that could
result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has
determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through
food and water with short-term residential exposures to halosulfuron-
methyl.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 25,000 for adults
and 1,800 for children 1 to < 2 years old. Because EPA's level of
concern for halosulfuron-methyl is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs
are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
halosulfuron-methyl is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus
chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term
residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating
intermediate-term risk for halosulfuron-methyl.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, halosulfuron-methyl is not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to halosulfuron-methyl residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography (GC)
thermionic-specific detection (TSD, nitrogen specific)) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for halosulfuron-methyl for any
of the crops covered by this Final Rule.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of halosulfuron-
methyl, methyl 5-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidiny)amino]
carbonylaminosulfonyl]-3-chloro-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the fruit, pome,
group 11-10 at 0.05 ppm, and a tolerance with regional registration is
established for fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,
subgroup 13-07F at 0.05 ppm. In addition, the existing tolerance for
the commodity ``Apple'' in paragraph (a)(2) of Sec.  180.479 is removed
since it is covered by the newly established fruit, pome, group 11-10
tolerance.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary

consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 4, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    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. In Sec.  180.479:
0
a. Remove the entry for ``Apple'' from the table in paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Add alphabetically the entry for ``Fruit, pome, group 11-10'' to the
table in paragraph (a)(2), and
0
c. Revise paragraph (c).
    The additions and revision read as follows:

Sec.  180.479  Halosulfuron-methyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruit, pome, group 11-10...................................         0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with
regional registrations are established for residues of the herbicide
halosulfuron-methyl, methyl 5-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-
pyrimidiny)amino]carbonylaminosulfonyl]-3-chloro-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-
4-carboxylate, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in the following table is to be determined by
measuring only halosulfuron-methyl.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,                 0.05
 subgroup 13-07F...........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-23298 Filed 9-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 50480]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20228]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

 In the Matter of Redfin Network, Inc.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

August 15, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Redfin Network, Inc. (``Redfin'') because it has not filed a periodic
report since it filed its Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2012, filed on November 9, 2012.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of Redfin. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section
12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the
securities of Redfin is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on
August 15, 2013, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on August 28, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-20228 Filed 8-15-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 72950]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30472]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-P-0488]

Determination That TAXOTERE (Docetaxel) Injection, 40 Milligrams/
Milliliter Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or
Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that
TAXOTERE (docetaxel) Injection, 40 milligrams/milliliter (mg/mL), was
not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This
determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs) for docetaxel injection, 40 mg/mL, if all other
legal and regulatory requirements are met.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nam Kim, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, rm. 6320, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants
must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are
seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same
strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a version of
the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to
repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain
approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical data
required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the subject
of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is known generally as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed
drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21
CFR 314.162).
    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may
determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale,
but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed
drug (Sec.  314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that
does not refer to a listed drug.
    TAXOTERE (docetaxel) Injection, 40 mg/mL is the subject of NDA 20-
449, held by Sanofi-aventis U.S., and initially approved on May 14,
1996. TAXOTERE is indicated for breast cancer, non-small cell lung
cancer, hormone refractory prostate cancer, gastric adenocarcinoma, and
squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck cancer as described in
detail on the drug product's labeling.
    TAXOTERE (docetaxel) Injection, 40 mg/mL, is currently listed in
the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book.
    Sandoz, Inc. (Sandoz), submitted a citizen petition dated June 21,
2011 (Docket No. FDA-2011-P-0488), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that
the Agency determine whether TAXOTERE (docetaxel) Injection, 40 mg/mL,
was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. After
considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based
on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under Sec.
314.161 that TAXOTERE (docetaxel) Injection, 40 mg/mL was not withdrawn
for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner Sandoz has
identified no data or other information suggesting that TAXOTERE
(docetaxel) Injection, 40 mg/mL, was withdrawn for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records
concerning the withdrawal of TAXOTERE (docetaxel) Injection, 40 mg/mL,
from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and
data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no
information that would indicate that this product was withdrawn from
sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list TAXOTERE (docetaxel)
Injection, 40 mg/mL, in the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section
of the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' delineates,
among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from
marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that
refer to TAXOTERE (docetaxel) Injection, 40 mg/mL, may be approved by
the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory
requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling
for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the
Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: November 22, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-30472 Filed 11-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: January 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 3060]
[DOCID:fr16ja09-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-1999-D-0170] (formerly Docket No. 1999D-5424)

Guidance for Industry: Significant Scientific Agreement in the
Review of Health Claims for Conventional Foods and Dietary Supplements;
Withdrawal of Guidance

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
withdrawal of a guidance entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Significant
Scientific Agreement in the Review of Health Claims for Conventional
Foods and Dietary Supplements,'' that was issued December 1999.

DATES: The withdrawal is effective January 16, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Paula R. Trumbo, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD, 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of December 22, 1999 (64 FR 71794), FDA announced the
availability of a guidance entitled ``Guidance for Industry:
Significant Scientific Agreement in the Review of Health Claims for
Conventional Foods and Dietary Supplements.'' This guidance is being
withdrawn because it is obsolete.

    Dated: January 13, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-964 Filed 1-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73613-73614]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30672]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 13005-002; 14278-000]

Oliver Hydro LLC; FFP Project 97 LLC; Notice of Competing
Preliminary Permit Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On September 1, 2011, Oliver Hydro LLC (Oliver Hydro), and FFP
Project 97 LLC (FFP 97) filed preliminary permit applications, pursuant
to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the
feasibility of a hydropower project at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' (Corps) William Bacon Oliver Lock & Dam, located on the
Black Warrior River in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. The sole purpose of
a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    Oliver Hydro's Project No. 13005-002 would consist of: (1) A
forebay; (2) an intake structure; (3) a powerhouse containing two
generating units with a total capacity of 11.72 megawatts (MW); (4) a
195-foot-long, 72-foot-wide tailrace; and (5) a proposed 1.6-mile-long,
25 kilo-volt (KV) transmission line to an existing transmission
facility. The proposed project would have an average annual generation
of 47.8 GWh, and operate run-of-river utilizing surplus water from the
William Bacon Oliver Lock & Dam, as directed by the Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent L. Smith, Symbiotics LLC, 371 Upper
Terrace, Suite 2, Bend, OR 97702.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FFP 97's Project No. 14278-000 would consist of: (1) An 320-foot-
long, 120-foot-wide approach channel; (2) a powerhouse, located on the
south side of the dam, containing four generating units with a total
capacity of 16.4 MW; (3) a 320-foot-long, 140-foot-wide tailrace; (4) a
4.16/115 KV substation; and (5) a 1.0-mile-long, 115 KV transmission
line. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of
65.8.0 GWh, and operate run-of-river utilizing surplus water from the
William Bacon Oliver Lock & Dam, as directed by the Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power Corp.,
239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
6093.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and
contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support. Although the Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To
paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13005-002, or P-14278-000) in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: November 22, 2011.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30672 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 22 (Thursday, February 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4653-4654]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02046]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9973-34--Region 2]

Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlement for the Facet
Enterprises, Inc. Superfund Site, Elmira Heights, Chemung County, New
York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''),
notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA''), Region 2, of a proposed cost recovery settlement agreement
pursuant to CERCLA, with Motor Components, LLC (``Motor Components'')
and Honeywell International, Inc. (``Honeywell'') (collectively,
``Settling Parties'') for the Facet Enterprises, Inc. Superfund Site
(``Site''), located in Elmira Heights, Chemung County, New York.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection
at EPA Region 2 offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Comments should reference the Facet Enterprises, Inc. Superfund Site,
Elmira Heights, Chemung County, New York, Index No. II-CERCLA-02-2017-
2037. To request a copy of the proposed settlement agreement, please
contact the EPA employee identified below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren Charney, Attorney, Office of
Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, NY
10007-1866. email: [email protected]. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Settling Parties agree to reimburse EPA
for past response costs paid at or in connection with the Site as set
forth: (a) Within 30 days of the effective date, Honeywell shall pay
$550,000, plus interest accrued, and (b) Motor Components shall pay
$1,300,000, plus accrued interest in up to four

installments over a period not to exceed three years from the effective
date.
    The settlement includes a covenant by EPA not to sue or to take
administrative action against the Settling Party/Parties pursuant to
Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), with regard to the
response costs related to the work at the Site enumerated in the
settlement agreement. For thirty (30) days following the date of
publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating
to the settlement. EPA will consider all comments received and may
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received
disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed
settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to
any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA
Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.

    Dated: January 3, 2018.
Walter Mugdan,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2018-02046 Filed 1-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 92 (Thursday, May 13, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26904-26906]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11430]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927; FRL-9150-9]

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Notice of Data
Availability; Default Emission Factors for Semiconductor Manufacturing
Refined Process Categories

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Data availability and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making available
to the public draft default emission factors for semiconductor
manufacturing refined process categories. On April 12, 2010 EPA
published a proposed rule, Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases:
Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs (75 FR 18652) which included
proposed methods for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gases (GHGs)
from electronics manufacturing. More specifically, as one option for
monitoring and reporting, EPA proposed semiconductor manufacturers
estimate emissions using default emission factors for nine distinct
process categories. For each default emission factor, EPA proposed a
range of values differentiated by production technology generation
(i.e., wafer size). Based on additional information received since the
publication of the proposed rule, EPA has developed draft emission
factors for the proposed process categories. EPA is making those draft
emission factors as well as the underlying data that was used to
develop the draft emission factors available to the public for review
and comment in the report, Draft Emission Factors for Refined
Semiconductor Manufacturing Process Categories.

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0927 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: EPA Docket Center, Attention Docket OAR-2009-0927,
Mail code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading
Room, Room 3334, EPA West Building, Attention Docket OAR-2009-0927,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA's Docket Center,
Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirsten Cappel, Climate Change
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline

1. What is today's action?
2. What information is EPA making available for review and comment?
3. How does this information relate to the proposed rule Mandatory
Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of Fluorinated
GHGs?
4. Where can I get the information?
5. What is EPA taking comment on and what supporting documentation
do I need to include in my comments?

6. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
7. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI)

1. What is today's action?

    This notice of data availability (NODA) provides for public review
and comment draft emission factors for the nine proposed refined
semiconductor process categories differentiated by production
technology generation (i.e., wafer size). The draft emission factors
are being made available in Draft Emission Factors for Refined
Semiconductor Manufacturing Process Categories. In Draft Emission
Factors for Refined Semiconductor Manufacturing Process Categories EPA
also presents detailed information on how the draft emission factors
were developed and the underlying data used to develop the draft
emission factors.

2. What information is EPA making available for review and comment?

    EPA is making available for review and comment draft default
emission factors for semiconductor manufacturing refined process
categories in Draft Emission Factors for Refined Semiconductor
Manufacturing Process Categories. EPA is also making available to the
public the underlying emissions measurement data that were used to
develop the draft emission factors.

3. How does this information relate to the proposed rule Mandatory
Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs?

    On April 12, 2010 EPA published a proposed rule (Mandatory
Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs
(75 FR 18652)) revising and supplementing its initial proposed actions
to require reporting of fluorinated greenhouse gas (fluorinated GHG)
emissions from certain source categories.\1\ In that rule EPA proposed
requirements for monitoring and reporting GHG emissions from
electronics manufacturing, which includes facilities that manufacture
semiconductors, photovoltaic cells (PV), micro-electro-mechanical
systems (MEMS), and liquid crystal displays (LCDs). For semiconductor
manufacturing, as one option, EPA proposed a method based on a refined
set of process categories. More specifically, EPA proposed nine process
categories differentiated by wafer diameter sizes of 150 mm, 200 mm and
300 mm. For each of the nine proposed process categories, EPA proposed
to establish default emission factors within a range of values. EPA
used the term ``NA'' where currently available information did not
exist to support a range. Within each process category, the emission
factor ranges accounted for (1) the mass fraction of the input gas that
is utilized during (i.e., not emitted from) the process and (2) the
mass of each fluorinated GHG by-product formed as a fraction of the
mass of the dominant fluorinated GHG input used. EPA proposed ranges
because it had not yet received sufficient data to select a specific
value within each range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA initially proposed monitoring and reporting methods for
electronics manufacturing in Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases
(74 FR 16448).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its proposal, EPA requested comment on the nine process
categories that were proposed. In particular, EPA requested comment on
whether the categories should be further refined to better capture the
variability in emission rates among fluorinated GHG using manufacturing
activities (e.g., whether any additional categories should be added or
whether the proposed categories should be combined, and the definition
of those categories).
    EPA also stated that if additional data were received in a timely
fashion, EPA might develop draft emission factors for each category
prior to the issuance of a final rule, differentiating among wafer
sizes to the extent feasible. EPA noted that it would use a method of
aggregation similar to the 2006 IPCC factor development methodology.
EPA is making available, for public review and comment, draft emission
factors for each of the nine proposed refined process categories in
Draft Emission Factors for Refined Semiconductor Manufacturing Process
Categories.
    It is important to note that in addition to an approach where EPA
would publish draft emission factors for the nine proposed process
categories, in its proposal, EPA stated that it is considering other
approaches for monitoring and reporting emissions from semiconductor
manufacturing. Please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing section of
the notice titled Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional
Sources of Fluorinated GHGs (75 FR 18652) for a detailed discussion of
the additional alternatives that EPA is considering for monitoring and
reporting GHG emissions from semiconductor manufacturing.

4. Where can I get the information?

    All of the information can be obtained through the Air Docket and
at http://www.regulations.gov (see ADDRESSES section above for docket
contact information).

5. What is EPA taking comment on and what supporting documentation do I
need to include in my comments?

    EPA requests comment on topics including, but not limited to the
following:
     The representativeness and reliability of the draft
emission factors for each process category based on measurements
conducted. Where commenters provide data (i.e., emission measurement
results), EPA encourages the submission of supporting information such
as details of the method used to characterize process equipment
emissions.
     The validity of applying 200 mm processing technology
emission factors to 150 mm processing technology emission factors, and
potential alternatives for drawing analogies for 150 mm processing
technology emission factors. Where commenters provide data (e.g.,
emission factors), EPA encourages the submission of supporting
information such as details of the method used to characterize process
equipment emissions.
    X Method used to form the draft emission factors, including EPA's
method for averaging the factors that account for gas utilization and
by-product formation for multi-gas chemistries.
    X The potential merits and disadvantages of consolidating emission
factors by process category across all wafer technologies and how EPA
could weight emission factors collected from various wafer technology
equipment.
    X Number of significant figures to provide in emission factor
tables for both gas utilization and by-product formation factors.
    X Alternatives to the analogies EPA used to assign gas utilization
and by-product formation factors when information for a gas or category
is not currently available.
    X The merits and disadvantages of maintaining three wafer-
technology categories compared to combining them into a single
category.
    X The merits and disadvantages of reducing the number of etching
categories from four to three (from oxide, nitride, silicon and metal
etch to, for example, dielectric, silicon and metal etch categories),
reducing the number of wafer cleaning categories from two to one, or
reducing the number of categories for both etching and wafer cleaning.

6. 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 any technical information or data you used that support
your views.
    4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    5. Offer alternatives.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Federal Register citation related to your comments.

7. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI)

    Do not submit information you are claiming as CBI to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part of the
information that you claim to be CBI. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark
the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.

    Dated: May 6, 2010.
Brian J. McLean,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-11430 Filed 5-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P