[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12169-12171]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4903]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63985; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Relating
to Clarifying Changes to Rules 607 and 3202 Concerning the Application
and Collection of the Covered Sale Fee

February 28, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 16, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to make clarifying changes to Rules 607and
3202 concerning the application and collection of the Covered Sale Fee.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Website at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.sec.gov, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make clarifying
changes to Rules 607 and 3202 concerning the application and collection
of the Covered Sale Fee. In light of the varying means by which a
Covered Sale Fee is incurred by members, as described below, the
Exchange believes that a more detailed description of the circumstances
that trigger the Covered Sale Fee is warranted. Accordingly, the new
rule language proposed by the Exchange expressly discusses covered
sales in both equity and option securities. In addition, the proposed
new rule language includes a description of sell orders entered into
the Exchange transaction execution systems that result in a covered
sale on another exchange, expressly discussing the fee incurred by the
Exchange and

the application of the Covered Sale Fee in such circumstances.
PHLX Rule 607
    The Exchange is proposing amendments to Rule 607 to make clear the
circumstances that trigger application of the Covered Sale Fee, and to
make other clarifying changes. Initially, the Exchange is proposing to
enumerate all paragraphs in Rule 607 for clarity. Furthermore, the
Exchange proposes to amend paragraph two by removing the reference to
Rule 185(g), the former equities platform rule regarding the Exchange's
Routing Facility; and insert Rule 1080(m)(iii), the current options
platform rule regarding the Exchange's Routing Facility. This amendment
is predicated on the fact that upon the implementation of the
Exchange's current equities platform, NASDAQ OMX PSX, \3\ only options
transactions may be routed to other markets for executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rules 3000-3407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 607 permits the Exchange to collect a fee from its members for
sales of securities with respect to which the Exchange is obligated to
pay a fee to the SEC pursuant to Section 31 of the Act \4\ and Rule 31,
thereunder.\5\ Each national securities exchange and association is
required to calculate the aggregate dollar amount of ``covered sales''
occurring on the exchange or through a member of the national
securities association and to pay fees based on those covered sales to
the Commission (``Section 31 fees''). A covered sale is a ``sale of a
security, other than an exempt sale or a sale of a security future,
occurring on a national securities exchange or by or through any member
of a national securities association otherwise than on a national
securities exchange.'' \6\ Pursuant to Rule 607 the Exchange assesses a
member the Covered Sale Fee for an executed sell order entered into the
Exchange's transaction execution systems that results in a covered
sale. The Covered Sale Fee defrays the cost of the Section 31 fee
triggered by the covered sale. In this regard, the Covered Sale Fee
assessed a member is equal to the Section 31 fee assessed by the
Commission for the covered sale. Further, the Exchange adjusts the
Covered Sale Fee in lock step with changes to the Section 31 fee made
by the Commission.\7\ Assessing a sales fee is common practice among
the national securities exchanges and associations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78ee.
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.31.
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.31(a)(6).
    \7\ The Exchange issues Regulatory Alerts to provide members
with notice of Covered Sale Fee changes. See e.g., http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=ERA2011-01.
    \8\ See e.g., CBOE Fees Schedule (January 3, 2011), Item 6
``Sales Value Fee,'' ISE Rule 212, NYSE Rule 440H, and NYSE Amex
Rule 393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Covered Sale Fee defrays the cost of the
Section 31 fee. The Covered Sale Fee is triggered by the fulfillment of
a members [sic] sell order in equity or options securities entered into
the Exchange transaction execution systems that results in a covered
sale. If the member's sell order is fulfilled on the Exchange's equity
or options trading markets, the Exchange incurs a Section 31 fee
obligation. Sell orders in options securities entered into the Exchange
transaction execution system that are routed to another market for
execution, however, does [sic] not result in a covered sale on the
Exchange. Execution of such routed orders is facilitated by the
Exchange's routing broker,\9\ which acts as the selling member for a
routed order on the away market on behalf of the Exchange member. Such
routed sell orders result in a covered sale on the away market, which
incurs a Section 31 fee obligation. Like the Exchange, the away market
assesses a sales fee on the member that entered the sell order, in this
case Nasdaq Options Services LLC,\10\ to defray the cost of the Section
31 fee obligation. In turn, the Exchange assesses its member, the
original selling party, a Covered Sale Fee pursuant to Rule 607 to
defray the cost of the Section 31 fee passed on by the away exchange
pursuant to its sales fee. As such, the Exchange's Covered Sale Fee
offsets the sales fee it is assessed by the away market, the result of
which is to place the parties involved in the transaction in the same
position as if the covered sale had occurred on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Nasdaq Options Services LLC is the Exchange's routing broker
for option securities. See PHLX Options Rule 1080(m)(iii).
    \10\ See e-mail from Arlinda Clark, Assistant General Counsel,
Phlx, to Jennifer Dodd, Special Counsel, Office of Market
Supervision, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated
February 22, 2011 (requesting corrections to this sentence).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange is updating its rules to indicate that
the Covered Sale fee is collected by ``designated clearing agency,''
which is defined by rule promulgated under the Act as a ``clearing
agency registered under section 17A of the Act * * * that clears and
settles covered sales or covered round turn transactions.'' \11\ The
Exchange employs the National Security Clearing Corporation to collect
the Covered Sale Fee from members arising from their covered sales in
equity securities. Covered Sale Fees arising from options covered
sales, however, are collected from members by the Options Clearing
Corporation, another designated clearing agency that clears option
securities.\12\ The Exchange believes such amendment will more
accurately reflect all parts the Exchange employs to collect the
Covered Sale Fee from its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.31(a)(9).
    \12\ In addition to clearing transactions in options, the
Options Clearing Corporation also clears security futures. See
http://www.optionsclearing.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PHLX Rule 3202
    The Exchange also proposes to amend its equity rules to clarify
application and collection of the Covered Sale Fee. PHLX Rule 3202 sets
forth that certain rules of the Exchange are applicable to market
participants trading on the Exchange's equity trading platform. PHLX
Rule 607 is cross referenced within Rule 3202, however Rule 3202 only
references the first paragraph of Rule 607. For clarification, Rule
3202 will be amended to indicate that Rule 607 will be referenced in
its entirety. Such amendment serves to describe the full process for
collection of the Covered Sale Fee regarding equity transactions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \13\ in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which the Exchange operates or controls, and it does not unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The
proposed clarifying language does not change the application and
assessment of the Covered Sale Fee under the rule, but rather provides
greater detail on the transactions that trigger the fee. The Exchange
applies Rule 607 uniformly to all members' sell orders entered into the
Exchange's transaction execution systems resulting in covered sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\14\ in general and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, which requires that the
rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade,
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities,

remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors
and the public interest. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with these requirements because the proposed
amended rule text provides members with more detail regarding the
circumstances under which the Exchange assesses a Covered Sale Fee. As
such, the proposed changes will help avoid member confusion and foster
better understanding of the application of the rule. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change will promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change establishes or changes a
due, fee or other charge applicable only to a member, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2011-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-23. 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-23 and should be
submitted on or before March 25, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4903 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Pollutant Data ( chemdata. sd2)

MP& M pollutant data including ambient water quality criteria, reference doses, slope factors, etc..

Data Element Definitions CASNO  Pollutant Chemical Abstract Number CHEMICAL  Pollutant name FAVAL__ I  Freshwater acute value ( in ug/ L) FCVAL__ I  Freshwater chronic value ( in ug/ L) MAVAL__ I  Marine acute value ( in ug/ L) MCVAL__ I  Marine chronic value ( in ug/ L) HHVAL_ I  Human Health value for ingestion of water and organisms ( in ug/ L) HHORG_ IN  Human Health value for ingestion of organisms only ( in ug/ L) INHIBIT  Pollutant inhibition value ( in ug/ L) DECAY  Pollutant decay rate DRINKING  Drinking water criteria ( in ug/ L) HENRY_ S  Henry's Law value ( in ATM/ m3 mole) ADSORPTI  Adsorption coefficient ( in Koc) BIODEGRE  Biodegredation factor ( in days) SLOPE_ FA  Slope factor ( in [ mg/ kg day] 1) REFERENC  Reference dose ( in mg/ kg day) BIOCONC  Bioconcentration factor ( in L/ kg) POTW_ SLU  POTW sludge partition factor SLUDGE_ C  Sludge criteria HAZARDOU  Classified as a Hazardous Air Pollutant ( HAP) PRIORITY  Classified as a priority pollutant CONVENTI  Classified as a conventional pollutant OTHER_ P  Classified as an other pollutant


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 138 (Thursday, July 22, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38627-38630]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15396]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0437; FRL-8698-01-R6]

Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
in Nonattainment Areas and Former Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions
to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Oklahoma submitted by the
State of Oklahoma designee with a letter dated May 7, 2020. The
submittal covers updates to the Oklahoma SIP, as contained in the
state's 2019 annual SIP update. Specifically, this action addresses
revisions to Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC), Emission of Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Nonattainment Areas and Former
Nonattainment Areas. There are two Oklahoma counties affected by this
action: Tulsa County and Oklahoma County.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R6-OAR-
2020-0437, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments

cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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
Ms. Sherry Fuerst,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available due to docket file size restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Fuerst, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff,
the EPA Region 6 office will be closed to the public to reduce the risk
of transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the public to submit comments
via https://www.regulations.gov, as there will be a delay in processing
mail and no courier or hand deliveries will be accepted. Please call or
email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    On May 7, 2020, the Secretary of Energy and Environment for the
State of Oklahoma submitted for EPA review and approval under section
110 of the CAA and 40 CFR part 51, revisions to the Oklahoma Air
Quality SIP. The revisions were included in the state's annual SIP
update for 2019 and consisted of revisions to Subchapters 2 and 39 and
Appendix Q in the OAC Title 252 Chapter 100, which became effective on
September 15, 2019. In this action, we note that we are only proposing
to approve revisions to OAC Title 252 Chapter 100 Subchapter 39 (OAC
252:100-39) Sections 4, 16, 40, and 41. We are not taking action on
Subchapter 2 and Appendix Q at this time. The EPA plans to propose
action on these provisions in a future rulemaking action.
    The criteria used to evaluate these SIP revisions are found
primarily in section 110 of the Act. Section 110(l) requires that a SIP
revision submitted to the EPA be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing and also requires that the EPA not approve a SIP
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or
any other applicable requirement of the Act.
    These rules were promulgated in compliance with the Oklahoma
Administrative Procedures Act and published in the Oklahoma Register,
the official state publication for rulemaking actions.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

    In this action, we are proposing to approve revisions to OAC Title
252 Chapter 100 Subchapter 39 (OAC 252:100-39). Submittal documents for
Subchapter 39 are available in the docket for this action. ODEQ's May
7, 2020 submittal is amending the following sections:
    1. 252:100-39-4 to remove an incorrect citation to a revoked state
rule;
    2. 252:100-39-16 to update the timeframe listed as the non-oxidant
season, this revision is intended to ensure that the proper controls
are used during scheduled refinery unit turnarounds during Oklahoma's
current ozone season;
    3. 252:100-39-40 to correct the dates of Oklahoma's non-oxidant
season, this revision is intended to ensure that cutback asphalt cannot
be used during Oklahoma's ozone season; and,
    4. 252:100-39-41 to allow for the use of alternative testing
methods for leak inspections, to update references used for pressure
and vapor testing to incorporate the most recent EPA regulations, and
to update tank truck tag (OAC 252:100-39-41(e)(4)(A)(iv) and (v))
requirements to reflect current practices in Tulsa County.
    More information on the proposed changes is available in the
Technical Support Document prepared in conjunction with this rulemaking
action. This is a is a revision by revision discussion:
    OAC 252:100, Subchapter 39, Section 4 revision removes an incorrect
cross reference. The revision removes ``252:100-48'' from a list of
rules from which facilities are exempted because 252:100-48 has been
revoked. ODEQ provided notice of the proposed change, announced the
comment period from December 3, 2018 through January 9, 2019 and posted
a notice of public hearing in Volume 36, Number 6, page 44 of the
Oklahoma Register on December 3, 2018. The public hearing was held on
January 16, 2019, and no comments were received. The revision is
ministerial in nature. Examination of the record indicates that the
submitted revision to Subchapter 39, Section 4 is proper and provides
additional clarity. Thus, we find that the requirements of section
110(l) of the Act have been satisfied. Therefore, we are proposing to
approve the submitted revision to Subchapter 39, Section 4.
    OAC 252:100, Subchapter 39, Section 16 revisions update the non-
oxidant season from November 1 through March 31 to December 1 through
the last day of February. This update is consistent 40 CFR part 58,
Appendix D, Table D-3 titled ``Ozone Monitoring Season by State''.
Scheduled refinery unit turnarounds may only be accomplished without
the controls specified in OAC 252:100-39-16(b)(1) and OAC 252:100-39-
16(b)(2) during non-oxidant seasons. ODEQ provided notice of the
proposed change, announced the comment period from December 3, 2018
through January 9, 2019 and notice of a public hearing in Volume 36,
Number 6, page 44 of the Oklahoma Register on December 3, 2018. The
public hearing was held on January 16, 2019, and no comments were
received. The environment will likely benefit from shortening the
duration of non-oxidant season from 5 months to 3 months (changing from
November 1 through March 31 to December 1 through the last day of
February). Examination of the record indicates that the submitted
revision to Subchapter 39, Section 16 is proper and the revisions will
strengthen the SIP by requiring control of emissions during turnarounds
during a time period consistent with the ozone season in Oklahoma.
Thus, we find that the Oklahoma SIP that the requirements of section
110(l) of the Act have been satisfied. Therefore, we are proposing to
approve the submitted revision to Subchapter 39, Section 16.
    OAC 252:100, Subchapter 39, Section 40 revisions are to amend rules
regulating the use of cutback asphalt to correct the dates of
Oklahoma's non-oxidant season, which should be December 1 through the
last day of February. This purpose of this proposed

rule is to ensure that cutback asphalt cannot be used during Oklahoma's
ozone season. This revision is consistent with 40 CFR part 58, Appendix
D, Table D-3 titled ``Ozone Monitoring Season by State''. ODEQ provided
notice of the proposed change, announced the comment period from
September 4, 2018 through October 5, 2018, and notice of a public
hearing in Volume 35, Number 24, page 705 of the Oklahoma Register on
September 4, 2018. The public hearing was held on October 10, 2018, and
no comments were received. The environment will benefit by restricting
the time of year cutback asphalt can be used. Examination of the record
indicates that the submitted revision to Subchapter 39, Section 40 is
proper, the revisions will strengthen the SIP preventing emissions from
the application of cutback asphalt during the time of year when ozone
formation is most likely. Thus, we find that the Oklahoma SIP that the
requirements of section 110(l) of the Act have been satisfied.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted revision to
Subchapter 39, Section 40.
    Several changes were made to OAC 252:100, Subchapter 39, Section
41. A typographical error was corrected in subsection 41(c)(5). In
subsection 41(d)(3), reference was made to a test method in an EPA
Control Technique Guideline (CTG) from 1978. This reference was changed
to reference the EPA Test Method 27 contained in 40 CFR part 60 as the
applicable procedure for the testing requirement for tank leak
tightness. Several modifications were made to subsection 41(e).
Subsection 41(e) applies to Tulsa County only. Subsections 41(e)(2)(B)
and (E) were modified by removing a thirty-year-old effective date that
is no longer necessary. Also, an alternative work practice for
monitoring equipment for leaks that is consistent with 40 CFR 60.18(g)
through 60.18(i) was added. The revision also states that leaks
detected by EPA Test Method 21 or by an alternative work practice shall
be repaired within 15 days. Revisions to subsection 41(e)(4)(A)(iv)
update the reference to the portion of the rule that specifies the
proper pressure testing which changed as a result of reorganizing the
section. As part of reorganizing the section, subsection
41(e)(4)(A)(vi) was moved to subsection 41(e)(4)(B)(i), and other
references in subsection 41(e)(4) were changed to align the references
with the reorganization. Subsection 41(e)(4)(B)(ii) was updated to
state that the vapor tightness test must be consistent with EPA Test
Method 27 and updated what is considered a passing test as defined by
EPA Test Method 27.
    ODEQ provided notice of the proposed changes, announced the comment
period from September 4, 2018 through October 5, 2018, and hearing
schedule in Volume 35, Number 24, page 705 of the Oklahoma Register on
September 4, 2018. The public hearing was held on October 10, 2018, and
no comments were received. The revisions are ministerial in nature,
update references consistent with federal regulations or adopt use of
EPA Test Methods. Examination of the record indicates that the
submitted revision to Subchapter 39, Section 41 is proper and do not
relax the SIP. Thus, we find that the requirements of section 110(l) of
the Act have been satisfied. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the
submitted revision to Subchapter 39, Section 41.

III. Impact on Areas of Indian Country

    Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma,
140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the Governor of the State of Oklahoma requested
approval under Section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users, Public
Law 109-59, 109 Stat. 1144, 1937 (August 10, 2005) (``SAFETEA''), to
administer in certain areas of Indian country (as defined at 18 U.S.C.
1151) the State's environmental regulatory programs that were
previously approved by the EPA for areas outside of Indian country. The
State's request excluded certain areas of Indian country further
described below. In addition, the State only sought approval to the
extent that such approval is necessary for the State to administer a
program in light of Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality v. EPA, 740
F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2014).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In ODEQ v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit held that under the CAA, a
state has the authority to implement a SIP in non-reservation areas
of Indian country in the state, where there has been no
demonstration of tribal jurisdiction. Under the D.C. Circuit's
decision, the CAA does not provide authority to states to implement
SIPs in Indian reservations. ODEQ did not, however, substantively
address the separate authority in Indian country provided
specifically to Oklahoma under SAFETEA. That separate authority was
not invoked until the State submitted its request under SAFETEA, and
was not approved until EPA's decision, described in this section, on
October 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 1, 2020, the EPA approved Oklahoma's SAFETEA request to
administer all the State's EPA-approved environmental regulatory
programs, including the Oklahoma SIP, in the requested areas of Indian
country. As requested by Oklahoma, the EPA's approval under SAFETEA
does not include Indian country lands, including rights-of-way running
through the same, that: (1) Qualify as Indian allotments, the Indian
titles to which have not been extinguished, under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c);
(2) are held in trust by the United States on behalf of an individual
Indian or Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a Tribe, if the Tribe (a)
acquired that fee title to such land, or an area that included such
land, in accordance with a treaty with the United States to which such
Tribe was a party, and (b) never allotted the land to a member or
citizen of the Tribe (collectively ``excluded Indian country lands'').
    EPA's approval under SAFETEA expressly provided that to the extent
EPA's prior approvals of Oklahoma's environmental programs excluded
Indian country, any such exclusions are superseded for the geographic
areas of Indian country covered by the EPA's approval of Oklahoma's
SAFETEA request.\2\ The approval also provided that future revisions or
amendments to Oklahoma's approved environmental regulatory programs
would extend to the covered areas of Indian country (without any
further need for additional requests under SAFETEA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA's prior approvals relating to Oklahoma's SIP frequently
noted that the SIP was not approved to apply in areas of Indian
country (consistent with the D.C. Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA)
located in the state. See, e.g., 85 FR 20178, 20180 (April 10,
2020). Such prior expressed limitations are superseded by the EPA's
approval of Oklahoma's SAFETEA request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, the EPA is proposing to approve revisions to
the Oklahoma SIP that include revisions to OAC Title 252 Chapter 100
Subchapter 39 (OAC 252:100-39) Sections 4, 16, 40, and 41, which will
apply in Tulsa and Oklahoma Counties. Consistent with the D.C.
Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA and with EPA's October 1, 2020
SAFETEA approval, if this approval is finalized as proposed, these SIP
revisions will apply to all Indian country within Tulsa and Oklahoma
Counties, other than the excluded Indian country lands, as described
above. Because--per the State's request under SAFETEA--EPA's October 1,
2020 approval does not displace any SIP authority previously exercised
by the State under the CAA as interpreted in ODEQ v. EPA, the SIP will
also apply to any Indian allotments or dependent Indian communities
located outside of an Indian reservation over which there has been no
demonstration of tribal authority.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In accordance with Executive Order 13990, EPA is currently
reviewing our October 1, 2020 SAFETEA approval and is engaging in
further consultation with tribal governments and discussions with
the state of Oklahoma as part of this review. EPA also notes that
the October 1, 2020 approval is the subject of a pending challenge
in federal court. (Pawnee v. Regan, No. 20-9635 (10th Cir.)).
Pending completion of EPA's review, EPA is proceeding with this
proposed action in accordance with the October 1, 2020 approval.
EPA's final action on the approved revisions to the Oklahoma SIP
that include revisions to OAC Title 252 Chapter 100 Subchapter 39
(OAC 252:100-39) Sections 4, 16, 40, and 41 will address the scope
of the state's program with respect to Indian country, and may make
any appropriate adjustments, based on the status of our review at
that time. If EPA's final action on Oklahoma's SIP is taken before
our review of the SAFETEA approval is complete, EPA may make further
changes to the approval of Oklahoma's program to reflect the outcome
of the SAFETEA review.

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

IV. Proposed Action

    In this action, we are proposing to approve revisions to OAC
252:100-39, Emission of VOCs in Nonattainment Areas and Former
Nonattainment Areas, in Section 4 (Exemptions), Section 16 (Petroleum
refinery process unit turnaround), Section 40 (Cutback asphalt), and
Section 41 (Storage, loading and transport/delivery of VOCs) as
submitted to us by a letter dated May 20, 2020 (Submittal). The
submittal covers Oklahoma's 2019 regulatory update. We are proposing to
approve these revisions in accordance with section 110 of the Act.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to the Oklahoma regulations, as described in the
Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    This proposal to approve revisions to the Oklahoma SIP that include
amendments to OAC Title 252 Chapter 100 Subchapter 39 (OAC 252:100-39)
Sections 4, 16, 40, and 41 will apply, if finalized as proposed, to
certain areas of Indian country in Tulsa and Oklahoma counties as
discussed in the preamble, and therefore has tribal implications as
specified in E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, this
action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on
federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. This
action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally
recognized tribal governments because no actions will be required of
tribal governments. This action will also not preempt tribal law as no
Oklahoma tribe implements a regulatory program under the CAA, and thus
does not have applicable or related tribal laws. Consistent with the
EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4,
2011), the EPA has offered consultation to tribal governments that may
be affected by this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 15, 2021.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2021-15396 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 5)]
[Notices]
[Page 1337-1338]
[DOCID:fr08ja08-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER03-768-000; ER03-768-001]

Susquehanna Energy Products LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

January 2, 2008.
    Susquehanna Energy Products LLLP (now Susquehanna Energy Products
LLC) (Susquehanna Energy) filed an application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed market-based rate
tariff provides for the sales of capacity and energy at market-based
rates. Susquehanna Energy also requested waivers of various Commission
regulations. In particular, Susquehanna Energy requested that the
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Susquehanna
Energy.
    On June 16, 2003, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development-South, granted the requests
for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by Susquehanna Energy, should file a protest with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
January 9, 2008.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Susquehanna Energy is authorized to
issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Susquehanna Energy, compatible
with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate
for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued

approvals of Susquehanna Energy's issuance of securities or assumptions
of liability.

Docket Nos. ER03-768-000 and ER03-768-001

    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order 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
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Jr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-41 Filed 1-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA BIOPESTICIDES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division contact:
Jeannine Kausch<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUBMISSION: Email the completed template to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
TEMPLATE:
AFS32321 Crop Protection, Inc.
Petition number: 9F8816

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (9F8816) from AFS32321 Crop Protection, Inc. 104 T.W. Alexander Dr. Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for microbial pesticide Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 (NRRL B-67089). Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA, as amended, AFS32321 Crop Protection, Inc. has submitted the following summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was prepared by AFS32321 Crop Protection, Inc. and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner.

I. AFS32321 Crop Protection, Inc. Petition Summary

	9F8816

A. Product Name and Proposed Use Practices

AFS032321 Technical
Theia[TM] Fungicide

AFS032321Technical is a technical grade active ingredient (TGAI)/manufacturing use product (MUP) proposed for use in one end use product: THEIA(TM) Fungicide.

The end use product is broad spectrum fungicidal and bactericidal biological products for the control or suppression of many important foliar and soil borne plant diseases.

B. Product Identity/Chemistry

1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues. Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 (CAS No. Not applicable): Bacillus subtilis is ubiquitous in the environment, occurs naturally in soils, and has been identified in association with plant roots, organic material and inorganic material in soil samples.

2. Magnitude of residues at the time of harvest and method used to determine the residue. It is expected that, when used as proposed, Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 would not result in residues that are of toxicological concern.

3. A statement of why an analytical method of detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. An analytical method for residues is not applicable. It is expected that, when used as proposed, Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 would not result in residues that are of toxicological concern

C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile	Studies to evaluate the safety to mammals were conducted on the technical grade active ingredient (TGAI) and are summarized below.

 Acute Oral Toxicity/Pathogenicity (OCSPP 885.3050): An acute oral toxicity/pathogenicity study was conducted in Sprague-Dawley CDR rats to determine the toxicity and pathogenicity of AFS032321 TGAI. Thirty-two (32) healthy rats (16 males and 16 females) were selected for the test and distributed into three main study groups (one treatment group and two controls). Control animals were left untreated.

Fecal samples from the treatment group animals contained an average of 8.5 x 10[7] (males) and 5.1 x 10[7] (females) CFU/g viable AFS032321 TGAI colonies on Day 2. The samples fell below the limit of detection by Day 7 (males) and Day 14 (females).

Concentrations in blood, brain, kidney, liver, mandibular and mesenteric lymph node and spleen samples were below established limits of detection throughout the study in treated males. In treated females, AFS032321 TGAI colonies were detected, on Day 3, in kidney, lymph nodes and blood samples. Subsequent samples collected on and after Day 7 showed concentrations below the limit of detection.

Under the conditions of this study, the acute oral administration of AFS032321 TGAI, at a dose level of 5.4 x 10[8] viable CFU by oral gavage produced no evidence of acute toxicity or pathogenicity in Sprague-Dawley rats. (MRID No. 509861-04)

 Acute Pulmonary Toxicity/Pathogenicity (OCSPP 885.3150): An acute pulmonary toxicity/pathogenicity study was conducted in Sprague-Dawley CDR rats to determine the toxicity and pathogenicity of AFS032321 TGAI.  Thirty-eight (38) healthy rats (19 males and 19 females) were selected for the test and distributed into two main study groups.  Control animals were left untreated.

At study termination, complete clearance was achieved for blood, brain, kidney and cecum contents. Partial clearance was achieved for liver, spleen, lung and lymph nodes.  Liver and spleen counts were close to limit of detection. Lung and lymph nodes had a twofold and a threefold decrease indicating a start of clearance of the organism.

Under the conditions of the study, the acute pulmonary administration of AFS032321 TGAI, at a dose level of 5.89 x 108 viable CFU produced no evidence of acute toxicity in Sprague-Dawley rats. The trend of decrease in counts was not sufficient to establish a pattern of clearance but it is possible that given more time such a pattern may have emerged. Although not fully cleared from lung and lymph node, overall there was 12-fold decrease for lung and a 52-fold for lymph nodes indicating a pattern of clearance of the organism. Given a longer observation period, it is possible that full clearance could be achieved in these tissues, although this was not demonstrated in this particular study. This trend of decrease in counts along with the absence of any toxicological or pathological findings suggests that AFS032321 TGAI administered to rats in a single intra-tracheal dose containing 5.89x108 CFU is not toxic or pathogenic. (MRID No. 509861-05)

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Eye Irritation (OCSPP 870.2400): One hour after test substance instillation, minimal conjunctivitis was noted for all three treated eyes. There was no corneal opacity or iritis observed in any treated eye during this study. The overall incidence and severity of irritation decreased with time. All animals were free of ocular irritation by 48 hours. The Maximum Mean Total Score of AFS032321-WP also known as AFS032321 Technical is 6.7. Under the conditions of this study, AFS032321-WP is classified as minimally irritating to the eye. (MRID No. 509861-06)

 Primary Dermal Irritation (OCSPP 870.2500): Within 30-60 minutes of patch removal, all three treated sites exhibited very slight to well-defined erythema and very slight to slight edema. The overall incidence and severity of irritation decreased gradually with time. All animals were free of dermal irritation by Day 7 (study termination). The Primary Dermal Irritation Index for AFS032321-WP also known as AFS032321 Technical is 2.6. Under the conditions of this study, AFS032321-WP is classified as moderately irritating to the skin. (MRID No. 509861-07)

 Hypersensitivity Incidents (OCSPP 885.3400): The registrant has noted that no incidents of hypersensitivity or any other adverse effects have occurred through the research, development or testing of the active ingredient and its related end-use product. Should any incidents occur, they will be reported per FIFRA Section 6(a)(2).

The results of toxicity testing show there is no risk to human health from the active ingredient. Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 is not toxic, pathogenic, infective or irritating to mammals.

D. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure.

i. Food. Dietary exposure from use of Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321, as proposed, is expected to at low levels. The risk posed to adults, infants and children is minimal because of the low acute oral toxicity/pathogenicity potential of the microbial pesticide. In addition, standard practices of washing, peeling, cooking or processing fruits and vegetables reduces residues of Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 and further minimizes dietary exposure.

The results of toxicity testing indicate there is no risk to human health or the environment from Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321. There are no reports of ecological or human health hazards caused Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321. It does not produce recognized toxins, enzymes, or virulence factors normally associated with mammalian invasiveness or toxicity. The absence of acute toxicity or pathogenicity in laboratory animals demonstrates the benign nature of this strain.

ii. Drinking water. Similarly, exposure to humans from residues of Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 in consumed drinking water would be unlikely. Potential exposure to surface water would be negligible and exposure to drinking water (well or groundwater) would be impossible to measure. Bacillus subtilis is ubiquitous in the environment and has been identified in soils and waters worldwide.

The intended use of Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 is for the purposes of disease control. The risk of the microorganism passing through the soil to groundwater is minimal. Bacillus subtilis is ubiquitous in the environment, occurs naturally in soils, and has been identified in association with plant roots, organic material and inorganic material in soil samples. Additionally, the bacterium would not tolerate the conditions water is subjected to in a drinking -water facility (including: chlorination, pH adjustments, high temperatures and/or anaerobic conditions).

The results of toxicity testing indicate there is no risk to human health or the environment from Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321. There are no reports of ecological or human health hazards caused by this microorganism. It does not produce recognized toxins, enzymes, or virulence factors normally associated with mammalian invasiveness or toxicity. The absence of acute toxicity or pathogenicity in laboratory animals demonstrates the benign nature of this strain.

2. Non-dietary exposure. The potential for non-dietary exposure to the general population, including infants and children, is unlikely as the proposed use sites are agricultural. The intended use of Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 is for the purposes of disease control. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) mitigates the potential for exposure to applicators and handlers of the proposed products, when used in agricultural settings.

The lack of acute oral toxicity, infectivity, and pathogenicity support an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321. There are no reports of ecological or human health hazards caused by Bacillus subtilis. It is not known to produce recognized toxins, enzymes, or virulence factors normally associated with mammalian invasiveness or toxicity. The absence of acute toxicity or pathogenicity in laboratory animals demonstrates the benign nature of this strain. Non-dietary exposures would not be expected to pose any quantifiable risk due to a lack of residues of toxicological concern.

E. Cumulative Effects

It is not expected that, when used as proposed, Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 would result in residues that are of toxicological concern. The intended use of Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 is for the purposes of disease control. The results of toxicity testing indicate there is no risk to human health or the environment from Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321. There are no reports of ecological or human health hazards caused by this microorganism It does not produce recognized toxins, enzymes, or virulence factors normally associated with mammalian invasiveness or toxicity. The absence of acute toxicity or pathogenicity in laboratory animals demonstrates the benign nature of this strain.

F. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. It is not expected that, when used as proposed, Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 would result in residues that are of toxicological concern. The intended use of Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 for the purpose of disease control. The results of toxicity testing indicate there is no risk to human health or the environment from Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321. There are no reports of ecological or human health hazards caused by this microorganism It is not known to produce recognized toxins, enzymes, or virulence factors normally associated with mammalian invasiveness or toxicity. The absence of acute toxicity or pathogenicity in laboratory animals demonstrates the benign nature of this strain. There is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the general US population from exposure to this ingredient.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Infants and children. As mentioned above, it is not expected that, when used as proposed, Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 would result in residues that are of toxicological concern. There is a reasonable certainty of no harm for infants and children from exposure to Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 from the proposed uses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems

To date there is no evidence to suggest that Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 functions in a manner similar to any known hormone, or that it acts as an endocrine disruptor.

H. Existing Tolerances

There is no US EPA tolerance or tolerance exemption for Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321.

I. International Tolerances

A Codex Alimentarium Commission Maximum Residue Level (MRL) is not established for Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321.