have had at least one measured fluoride value of greater than 2 mg/L,
at least one measured value of greater than 3 mg/L, and at least one
measured value of greater than 4 mg/L. These groupings of water systems
were used because of the significant population groups served by these
systems--from well over 1 million to roughly 10 million. OPP believes
it is reasonable to use average monitoring values from these groups of
water systems because of the relative stability of fluoride levels in
water. Importantly, these average values bracket OPP's prior assumption
of 2 mg/L with the average values ranging from 1.76 mg/L to 2.58 mg/L.
    Given the unusual circumstances of fluoride--not only are there
multiple sources in addition to pesticidal sources but several sources
are the result of intentional actions designed to result in wide-spread
national exposure--OPP believes that OW's approach to assessing
fluoride exposure in its Relative Source Analysis under SDWA has
relevance to its aggregate exposure analysis under FFDCA section 408.
OW's Relative Source Analysis focuses on high-end water consumers who
are exposed to average exposures calculated on a national basis.
Because the population concerned here is so large, roughly 300 million
people, even looking at high-end consumers (OW's traditional approach
is to use the 90th percentile) represents consideration of a large
population subgroup.
    Table 3 provides exposure estimates for fluoride in drinking water
from both OPP and OW approaches.

                    Table 3--Fluoride Exposure Estimates (mg/kg/day) From Municipal Water \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Fluoride concentration in drinking water (mg/L); consumption percentile
           Age range, years            -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            0.87 90th       1.76 Average       2.28 Average       2.59 Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5-<1................................             0.093             0.077              0.10               0.11
1-<4..................................             0.045             0.040              0.052              0.059
4-<7..................................             0.039             0.033              0.043              0.049
7-<11.................................             0.027             0.024              0.031              0.035
11-<14................................             0.024             0.018              0.024              0.027
14+...................................             0.025             0.026              0.033              0.038
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes drinking water as well as water for in-home preparation of foods and beverages. Estimates are based
  on 90th percentile consumer only or average per capita consumption, as indicated, and do not include fluoride
  from toothpaste, from soil, or from sulfuryl fluoride.

(Ref. 23 at 11, Table 3; 14, Table 5).
    e. Fluoride from toothpaste. OW has comprehensively reanalyzed the
data on fluoride exposure from toothpaste taking into consideration all
available studies. The results of that analysis are presented in Table
4.

      Table 4--Summary of Estimated Fluoride Exposures From Incidental Ingestion of Fluoridated Toothpaste
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Estimated fluoride exposure    Estimated fluoride exposure  (mg/
                                                         (mg/day)                          kg/day*)
              Age range, years               -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                1 brushing      2 brushings    1 brushing  per  2 brushings  per
                                                  per day         per day            day               day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5-<1......................................            0.07            0.14            0.0078            0.016
1-<4........................................            0.34            0.68            0.024             0.049
4-<7........................................            0.22            0.44            0.010             0.021
7-<11.......................................            0.18            0.36            0.0056            0.011
11-<14......................................            0.2             0.4             0.0039            0.0078
14+*........................................            0.1             0.2             0.0014            0.0029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No data were available for this age group. The exposure estimate is one half that of the 11 to 14 year group.

(Ref. 23 at 16, Table 7).
    OW was also able to identify limited data on the frequency of teeth
brushing by children. Those data are presented in Table 5.

         Table 5--Number of Toothbrushings per Day Reported for Children (Six Months to Five Years Old)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percentages *
                    Study                           N =       Age (years) --------------------------------------
                                                                            1 time/day  2 times/day  3 times/day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simard et al., 1989..........................         23        2 to 5             4.8         71.4         23.8
Simard et al., 1991..........................         15        1 to 2            60           32            8
Levy et al., 1997............................        899             0.5          41.2         16.9          6.3
                                                     665             0.75         33.2         17            3.1
                                                     508             1            37           14.7          3.5
Franzman et al., 2006........................         90             1.3          48           14            4
                                                     100             2            51           23            2
                                                     100             3            51           24            1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Some studies also reported those brushing their teeth less than once per day and more than three times per
  day. In these cases the percentages do not add up to 100%.

(Ref. 22 at 81, Table 4-10). Based on the fact that a substantial
portion of children brush two or more times per day and that brushing
twice per day is consistent with health care recommendations, OPP is
assuming two brushings per day in its assessment.
    f. Fluoride from soil. Young children are exposed to fluoride from
inadvertent consumption of soil. OPP estimated fluoride exposure from
soil using standard EPA estimates on soil consumption and assuming
average fluoride residues in soil. These estimates are presented in
Table 6.

    Table 6--Summary of Estimated Fluoride Exposures From Incidental
                   Ingestion of Soil and Outdoor Dust
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Estimated       Estimated
                                             fluoride        fluoride
            Age range, years              exposure * (mg/ exposure * (mg/
                                               day)           kg/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5-<1..................................            0.02         0.0022
1-<4....................................            0.04         0.0029
4-<7....................................            0.04         0.0019
7-<11...................................            0.04         0.0013
11-<14..................................            0.04         0.00078
14+.....................................            0.02         0.00029
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Assumes soil and dust contains 400 ppm fluoride.

(Ref. 23 at 17, Table 8).
    g. Other sources of fluoride exposure. Although people are also
potentially exposed to fluoride from fluoride in ambient air, fluoride
dental treatments, and pharmaceuticals, among other things, OW
concluded that these sources of exposure are insignificant compared to
other sources of fluoride exposure. Accordingly, OPP is not including
such exposures in its aggregate assessment. (Ref. 23 at 16).
    3. Children's safety factor. In choosing a revised RfD for
fluoride, OW did not apply any uncertainty or safety factors to the
BMDL for severe dental fluorosis. OW reasoned that uncertainty factors
were not warranted due to the extensive human epidemiological data on
the effects of fluoride, including extensive data on children, the
population of greatest concern. Decisions on pesticide tolerances,
however, require OPP to apply special provisions for protection of
children. Specifically, 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. In
making determinations on this children's safety factor, OPP has focused
on the statutory factors of data completeness with regard to toxicity
and exposure and evidence bearing on pre- and post-natal toxicity.
    As with so many other aspects of the fluoride risk assessment,
application of

the children's safety factor provision to fluoride presents unique
issues. OPP considered the following factors in determining whether
reliable data show that an additional safety factor other than the
default 10X value would be safe:
    a. Toxicity data. As a result of the decades-long water
fluoridation program in the United States as well as the substantial
areas with high natural levels of fluoride in drinking water, OPP has
an epidemiological dataset for fluoride that is far more extensive than
for any other pesticide. EPA also has an extensive set of animal data
on sulfuryl fluoride and to the extent that sulfuryl fluoride breaks
down to the fluoride anion during testing, these studies capture the
effects of fluoride (dental fluorosis was observed in a number of
studies). On the other hand, OPP has recently requested additional
studies on sulfuryl fluoride, a developmental neurotoxicity study and
an immunotoxicity study, and the NRC Report identified several areas,
notably brain and endocrine effects, where further study would be
useful. On the whole, however, OPP concludes that the completeness of
the database with regard to fluoride exceeds what is generally
available even on the most well-studied pesticides.
    b. Exposure data. OPP has an extremely extensive database on
fluoride levels in drinking water due to the water monitoring data OW
has collected. OPP also has reliable data on fluoride exposure from
sulfuryl fluoride and on background levels of fluoride in food. To the
extent sulfuryl fluoride has not replaced methyl bromide as a fumigant
the fluoride estimate from sulfuryl fluoride overstates exposure. There
is some uncertainty as to the amount of fluoride exposure from
toothpaste. There are several factors here: Data on fluoride exposure
from toothpaste are less extensive and are highly variable; the data
may not reflect the latest recommendations on the amount of toothpaste
children should use; label directions for adults and children 2 years
old and above state that teeth should be brushed ``thoroughly,
preferably after each meal or at least twice a day;'' and label
directions for children below 2 years of age state that a dentist or
doctor should be consulted. However, by assuming two brushings per day
and relying on studies that may have used greater amounts of toothpaste
than is used today as well as focusing on high-end exposure groups for
drinking water, OPP believes it has addressed any uncertainties
regarding fluoride exposure from toothpaste.
    c. Pre- and post-natal toxicity. Not only does OPP have extensive
data identifying fluoride's effects in humans and the dose at which
those effects occur, but fluoride, unlike most pesticides or their
metabolites, is considered a human nutrient. Fluoride's classification
as a nutrient--especially its role at certain doses in protecting
teeth--cannot be ignored in the safety factor calculation. OPP is
averse to choosing a safety factor that would result in the choice of a
PAD that indicates that fluoride is harmful at levels below the
adequate intake level for beneficial effects. The Objectors have raised
concerns about potential other effects of fluoride--for example, brain,
endocrine, kidney, and reproductive effects. Nonetheless, data on these
effects generally either shows effects only at considerably higher
levels than the levels causing severe dental fluorosis or are very
equivocal.
    On balance, the extensiveness of the data on toxicity of fluoride
and human exposure to it, the clear data defining the safe level for
the effect of concern on children, and fluoride's status as a human
nutrient at levels only slightly below the level that is protective
against severe dental fluorosis lead OPP to conclude that reliable data
show that an additional safety factor for the protection of children is
not necessary. Accordingly, OPP has not used an additional safety
factor in its fluoride risk assessment. Hence, the PAD for fluoride is
equivalent to the RfD (0.08 mg/kg/day). (Ref. 23 at 9).
    4. Risk characterization. To characterize the risk of fluoride, OPP
has aggregated exposure to fluoride from sulfuryl fluoride, background
levels in food (including from cryolite), beverages, drinking water,
toothpaste, and soil, and compared that aggregated exposure to the PAD.
In evaluating exposure to major identifiable subgroups of consumers,
OPP believes that for fluoride it is appropriate to consider the
aggregate exposure of at least four different subgroups:
    a. Communities served by a water system with at least one sample
showing fluoride levels greater than 2 mg/L (2 mg/L communities);
    b. Communities served by a water system with at least one sample
showing fluoride levels greater than 3 mg/L (3 mg/L communities);
    c. Communities served by a water system with at least one sample
showing fluoride levels greater than 4 mg/L (4 mg/L communities); and
    d. High-end water consumers generally.
    The aggregate exposure of these subgroups relative to the RfD/PAD
is shown in Table 7:

                                          Table 7--Aggregate Exposure Compared to RfD by Age Groups (mg/kg/day)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                High-end water
                        Age groups                               RfD/PAD          consumers       2 mg/L community   3 mg/L community   4 mg/L community
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5-<1....................................................              0.08              0.13               0.13               0.15               0.16
1-<4......................................................              0.08              0.11               0.13               0.14               0.15
4-<7......................................................              0.08              0.097              0.10               0.11               0.12
7-<11.....................................................              0.08              0.068              0.070              0.077              0.081
11-<14....................................................              0.08              0.047              0.045              0.051              0.054
14+.......................................................              0.08              0.042              0.044              0.051              0.056
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 (Ref. 23 at 21, Table 9).
    This risk assessment shows that aggregate fluoride exposure to
young children exceeds the RfD/PAD under various different methods of
identifying major population subgroups. In evaluating this assessment
at least two other factors are relevant. First, the assessment of the
2-4 mg/L communities deviates from OPP's traditional approach to
assessing exposure in drinking water in that it averages exposures from
systems that are surface water-based and systems that are groundwater-
based. EPA generally assesses drinking water exposure on the higher
value from surface water or groundwater because people get the majority
of their drinking water exposure from one location. For fluoride,
focusing only on groundwater-based systems would modestly increase the
exposure estimate. Second, this assessment does not take into account
those people that depend on private drinking water wells and not public
drinking water systems. Drinking water

wells in certain portions of the United States can have fluoride levels
exceeding those used in the assessments discussed previously.
    Based on these assessments, EPA cannot conclude that there is a
reasonable certainty of no harm for certain major identifiable groups
of consumers from aggregate exposure to fluoride. Therefore, EPA cannot
make the required finding that the sulfuryl fluoride and fluoride
tolerances are ``safe'' and is proposing to grant the Objectors'
objections to the establishment of the sulfuryl fluoride and fluoride
tolerances promulgated on January 23, 2004, and July 15, 2005.

C. Comments From Dow AgroSciences

    As noted previously, Dow AgroSciences has filed comments contesting
the Objectors' claims regarding the safety of fluoride. First, Dow
AgroSciences argues that the Objectors have only potentially shown that
small, localized groups of people are exposed to unsafe levels of
fluoride and such small groups do not constitute a ``major
identifiable'' subgroup under FFDCA. EPA disagrees with Dow
AgroSciences that the groups of people exposed at levels that exceed
the RfD are not major identifiable subgroups of consumers. As noted
previously, the subgroups OPP relies upon include at least 1 million,
and in some cases, many millions of people. Although the individuals
within these subgroups facing unacceptable risks from aggregate
fluoride exposure are limited to infants and children up to the age of
7, the persons at risk remain substantial.
    Second, Dow AgroSciences challenges whether the NRC Report showed
that there is a more sensitive endpoint than crippling skeletal
fluorosis. Dow AgroSciences' comments on this issue focused on the
endpoints of bone fracture, stage II skeletal fluorosis, and severe
dental fluorosis.
    1. Bone fracture. Dow AgroSciences argued that the NRC Report did
not place sufficient weight on a 2005 observational study from the
University of Michigan (Sowers) and placed too much weight on two other
studies (Alarcon and Li) that were judged unreliable by OPP. OW
undertook a comprehensive review of all of the available data. Like
NRC, it found certain weaknesses in the 2005 Sowers study but overall
considered it along with the Li study and several other studies to be
one of the key studies for assessing the risk of bone fractures. The
Alarcon study was given less weight. Also similar to the NRC Report, OW
concluded that ``the available data indicate that exposure to
concentrations of fluoride in drinking water of 4 mg/L and above is
suggestive of and appears to be positively associated with increased
relative risk of bone fractures in susceptible populations when
compared to populations exposed to 1 mg mg/L.'' (Ref. 21 at 86). OW
also noted, however, that ``there are insufficient data to conclude
that this increase in relative risk would also apply if comparisons
were made to groups exposed to negligible fluoride concentrations or if
comparisons were made based on total fluoride intake rather than on the
basis of drinking water concentrations.'' (Id.). Ultimately, OW
concluded that the fluoride RfD should be based on severe dental
fluorosis and that this endpoint was protective of any risk of bone
fractures and thus a more definite resolution of this issue is
unnecessary.
    2. Stage II skeletal fluorosis. Dow AgroSciences emphasized that
the NRC Report's finding on fluoride's link to stage II skeletal
fluorosis were equivocal. OW's conclusions on stage II skeletal
fluorosis were similar to those of NRC. OW found that ``[t]he results
of the limited epidemiological studies and case histories suggest that
a daily fluoride dose in excess of 10 mg may be required to produce
signs of stage II skeletal fluorosis (except possibly in the case of
individuals with renal disease).'' (Ref. 21 at 83). But OW concluded
that ``the currently available data are not sufficiently robust to
support a dose-response analysis of the effects of fluoride in drinking
water on skeletal fluorosis.'' (Id.). As with risk of bone fractures,
because OW determined that the fluoride RfD should be based on severe
dental fluorosis and that this endpoint was protective of any risk of
stage II skeletal fluorosis, a more definite resolution of this issue
is unnecessary.
    3. Severe dental flurosis. Dow AgroSciences challenged the
competency of NRC to make the legal conclusion that severe dental
fluorosis is an adverse health effect and also argued that there is
dispute within the scientific community regarding the adversity of
severe dental fluorosis. Without question, it is EPA that is charged
with interpreting SDWA and making legal findings in implementation of
that Act. Nonetheless, EPA does not view NRC as stepping beyond its
scientific advisory role in its report. OW has previously defined
adverse health effects as involving functional impairment and NRC
focused on whether the data showed functional impairment in reaching a
conclusion on whether severe dental fluorosis is an adverse health
effect. For example, the NRC Report states:

    One of the functions of tooth enamel is to protect the dentin
and, ultimately, the pulp from decay and infection. Severe enamel
fluorosis compromises this health-protective function by causing
structural damage to the tooth. The damage to teeth caused by severe
enamel fluorosis is a toxic effect that the majority of the
committee judged to be consistent with prevailing risk assessment
definitions of adverse health effects.

(Ref. 17 at 127) (emphasis added).
    Finally, while there may be a dispute within the scientific
community about how to characterize the adversity of severe dental
fluorosis, there does not appear to be any significant dispute over the
science question of whether severe dental fluorosis results in the
pitting of dental enamel. As Dow AgroSciences has pointed out, it is
EPA's responsibility to make the legal determination of whether this
effect should be categorized as an adverse health effect.
    Third, Dow AgroSciences argues that EPA is not authorized to
aggregate fluoride added to drinking water for therapeutic purposes
with fluoride from sulfuryl fluoride because fluoride from water
fluoridation is neither a ``pesticide chemical'' under FFDCA nor an
``other related substance.'' Dow AgroSciences claims that FFDCA's
reference to ``other related substances'' means other related
``pesticidal'' substances. EPA disagrees with Dow AgroSciences'
interpretation of FFDCA section 408 for several reasons. First, there
is no exclusion from the aggregate exposure requirements for substances
that have a therapeutic effect at certain levels. Second, there is no
serious dispute that at certain levels exposure to fluoride is not
therapeutic but harmful, and Dow AgroSciences cannot be contending that
exposure to fluoride for water fluoridation does not aggregate within
the body with fluoride from other exposures. Third, a significant
portion of the U.S. population is exposed to fluoride in water that is
naturally-occurring rather than added for therapeutic purposes.
Finally, EPA has previously rejected attempts to limit the plain
meaning of ``other related substances'' and does not believe that Dow
AgroSciences has offered any compelling legal, policy, or scientific
reasoning for adopting an interpretation that would bar EPA from
considering the full effects of aggregate exposure to a substance. (See
69 FR 30042, 30073, May 26, 2004)(FRL-7355-7).
    Dow AgroSciences also claims that EPA overestimated exposure to
fluoride from use of sulfuryl fluoride. EPA agrees with this comment
and, as described

previously, EPA has incorporated information from Dow AgroSciences on
sulfuryl fluoride usage in its sulfuryl fluoride/fluoride exposure
assessment.

VI. EPA's Proposed Response to Requests for Hearing

    Because EPA is agreeing with the Objectors that the sulfuryl
fluoride tolerances do not meet the safety standard and is proposing to
grant their objections to the establishment of those tolerances, no
further action is needed with regard to the Objectors' hearing
requests. At this point, there is no material dispute of fact with
regard to the Objectors' claims that warrants a hearing.

VII. EPA's Proposed Response to Request for a Stay and EPA's Proposed
Expiration Date for Tolerances

    Following release of the NRC Report, the Objectors filed a motion
with EPA requesting a stay of the sulfuryl fluoride tolerances. (Ref.
2). In arguing for a stay, the Objectors relied on the four factors
contained in Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921 (DC
Cir. 1958):
    (1) Has the petitioner made a strong showing that it is likely to
prevail on the merits;
    (2) Has the petitioner shown that without such relief it will be
irreparably harmed;
    (3) Would issuance of the stay substantially harm other parties
interested in the proceedings;
    (4) Wherein lies the public interest.
    In prior tolerance proceedings EPA has indicated it would consider
the criteria in FDA's regulations pertaining to stay requests. (See,
e.g., 61 FR 39528, 39540, July 29, 1996). Those regulations provide
that a stay shall be granted if a petitioner can show all of the
following:
    (1) The petitioner will otherwise suffer irreparable injury.
    (2) The petitioner's case is not frivolous and is being pursued in
good faith.
    (3) The petitioner has demonstrated sound public policy grounds
supporting the stay.
    (4) The delay resulting from the stay is not outweighed by public
health or other public interests.

(21 CFR 10.35).
    The criteria under either approach are quite similar. Thus, in
evaluating the stay request EPA will concentrate on an amalgam of the
four factors:
     What are the merits of the Objectors' claims;
     Have the Objectors' shown that irreparable harm will occur
in the absence of a stay;
     Would a stay substantially harm other parties or cause
other effects on the public health; and
     Wherein lies the public interest.
    EPA also believes that these factors are relevant in choosing an
effective date for its proposed grant of the objections.

A. Merits of the Objectors' Claims

    As indicated, EPA agrees with the Objectors that the sulfuryl
fluoride tolerances do not meet the safety standard when aggregate
fluoride exposure is considered and thus this factor supports granting
the stay and making EPA's proposed grant of the objections effective
relatively quickly.

B. Irreparable Harm to Objectors

    The Objectors argue that the public is irreparably harmed by the
sulfuryl fluoride tolerances because aggregate exposure to fluoride
poses a long litany of threats to health. According to the Objectors,
the NRC Report linked fluoride not just to adverse effects on bones and
teeth but also other effects ranging from neurological impacts to
cancer. (Ref. 2 at 11, 13-15). The weight of this argument, however, is
undermined by two factors.
    First, it is beyond dispute that NRC, after a comprehensive
evaluation of all of the possible adverse effects of fluoride,
recommended that OW lower the fluoride MCLG due to only three very
specific health risks: severe dental fluorosis; stage II skeletal
fluorosis; and bone fractures. (Ref. 17 at 345-346, 352). Although the
NAS recommended further research on some of the other health risks
cited by the Objectors, the NAS did not find sufficient evidence on any
of them to support a lowering of the MCLG.
    Second, and more importantly, the threat that fluoride poses to
teeth and bones is due to aggregate exposure to fluoride not the
fluoride in food resulting from use of sulfuryl fluoride when viewed in
isolation. Use of sulfuryl fluoride is responsible for a tiny fraction
of aggregate fluoride exposure. For example, for the most highly-
exposed age groups in the populations examined in the revised risk
assessment, fluoride from sulfuryl fluoride accounts for about 2 to 3%
of aggregate fluoride exposure. Given the aggregate level of fluoride
exposure, termination of the use of sulfuryl fluoride would not change
the fact that aggregate fluoride levels would still exceed the safe
level for highly-exposed subpopulations.

C. Harm to Others/Other Public Health Harms

    1. Overview. Immediate termination of sulfuryl fluoride tolerances
will lead to some combination of the following negative consequences
depending how food processors and distributors for the various affected
commodities respond: an increase in the use of inventories of the
stratospheric ozone-depleting pesticide, methyl bromide; a disruption
in the amount and availability of certain commodities; an increase in
contamination of commodities with insect parts and waste posing
potential health risks; and/or increased short-term and long-term costs
for food processors, distributors, and consumers. To the extent that
methyl bromide cannot be obtained in sufficient quantities to fill the
void left by the absence of sulfuryl fluoride, the other potential
negative impacts will be heightened.
    In the following discussion, EPA first describes the likely effects
that would occur in individual food markets if sulfuryl fluoride use is
terminated. Then EPA presents more general information on the
availability of methyl bromide, the potential disruption that can occur
when food is contaminated with insect parts and waste, and potential
health effects from such contamination.
    2. Likely effects in specific markets. OPP analyzed three uses of
sulfuryl fluoride that provide a representative view of how the food
industries relying on sulfuryl fluoride may respond to a loss of that
pesticide and the impacts of that response:
     Use of sulfuryl fluoride as a structural treatment in
flour mills;
     Use of sulfuryl fluoride as a food fumigant for cocoa
beans; and
     Use of sulfuryl fluoride as a food fumigant for walnuts.

Each of these uses is discussed in more detail in the next section.
(Refs. 25 and 26).
    a. Flour mills. Generally, flour mills and other food processing
facilities are fumigated two to three times per year to control insect
populations (the primary pests are the red flour beetle and the
confused flour beetle). In the absence of sulfuryl fluoride, there are
potentially three possible alternative options whose costs and efficacy
differ from sulfuryl fluoride: (1) Use of another chemical pesticide;
(2) use of non-chemical controls; or (3) complete removal of all food
from the facility during fumigation with sulfuryl fluoride.
    i. Chemical control. The only chemical alternative for use
throughout food processing facilities is methyl bromide. As explained
later in this document, mills and food processing

structures that do not have approved critical uses for a given year may
not obtain methyl bromide produced under a critical use exemption. To
the extent facilities have an approved critical use or can obtain
methyl bromide from pre-phase-out inventories, mills will likely switch
to methyl bromide if sulfuryl fluoride uses are immediately eliminated.
Costs for use of methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride appear to be
fairly similar at this time. No other chemical pesticides are a viable
alternative. Phosphine is a commonly-used food fumigant that could be
used in some portions of a flour mill; however, phosphine is highly
corrosive to silver and copper metals and their alloys and thus cannot
be used in the production areas of mills that contain electronic and
electrical equipment which heavily rely on these metals. In terms of
total area, the portion of a mill devoted to production is substantial
and a failure to effectively dis-infest the production area would
quickly result in re-infestation of the entire facility. Thus,
phosphine is not an alternative to the use of sulfuryl fluoride. (Ref.
25 at 6-7).
    ii. Non-chemical control. The leading non-chemical control option
for use in flour mills is temperature manipulation. Either heat or cold
can be used to destroy insect pests. Use of cooling to control pests in
flour mills, however, is unlikely because cold temperatures can damage
electronic equipment in production areas. Use of heat is a more likely
option. Temperatures of 120-130 degrees Fahrenheit will kill most
stored-product insect pests. Heat, however, would not be appropriate
for mills principally constructed of wood because heat at these levels
will shrink, crack, and warp wood. This can result in structural damage
to the facility and may also render the heat treatment ineffective due
to leakage of heat from the facility. Approximately 25% of the total
number of flour mills in the United States fall in this category. These
tend to be the older and smaller mills and thus probably represent less
than 25% of mill capacity. Newer mills are generally constructed
primarily of concrete or similar materials which would be appropriate
for use with heat disinfestation techniques. Initially, use of heat
will involve higher costs due to capital investment in heaters and
plant modifications. However, in the long run, use of heat may be less
costly than chemical pesticides. Switching to heat will also require
transition time for the industry. Not only will mills have to purchase
(or rent) heaters but modifications may be necessary to the mill to
insure that heat is evenly distributed. Individual mills will have to
go through a trial and error process to determine how the heating
technique can be effective in each unique facility. Because
disinfestations are commonly needed only two to three times per year,
mills are likely to need an extended transition time to implement the
technology effectively. If chemical alternatives are not available
during that timeframe, processed food contaminated with insect parts
and waste due to failure of initial attempts at heat disinfestation
will have to be destroyed. (Ref. 25 at 6).
    iii. Product removal. A third option that combines chemical and
non-chemical control would be complete removal of all food from a
facility before fumigation with sulfuryl fluoride. Currently, the
sulfuryl fluoride label requires that food in facilities be minimized
prior to fumigation. Only food that is not practical to remove may
remain during the fumigation. Removal of food is also essential to the
efficacy of sulfuryl fluoride. However, if all food is removed such
that use of sulfuryl fluoride would not result in fluoride residues in
food, no pesticide tolerance would be needed for this use and aggregate
exposure to fluoride would not be increased. Currently, Canada has
imposed restrictions on the use of sulfuryl fluoride for the fumigation
of food processing facilities that are designed to insure that no
residues result in food. Two obstacles remain, however, to adoption of
this alternative. First, OPP's analysis of this alternative indicates
there may be substantial costs. Second, at this time, sulfuryl
fluoride's FIFRA label does not contain application instructions
sufficient to eliminate residues on food. Thus, if the objections are
granted as is proposed, EPA will pursue cancellation of all uses
associated with the tolerances which are removed. Unless Dow
AgroSciences, the registrant for sulfuryl fluoride, were to seek an
amendment of its registration that imposes label restrictions insuring
no residues in food, and OPP can determine that the proposed
registration changes would achieve that result, this use would not be
available to flour mills in the United States. (Ref. 25 at 10).
    b. Fumigation of cocoa and walnuts. Any food that is stored,
processed, or packaged is subject to attack by insects, generally
beetles or moths. Phosphine is the dominant fumigant in the commodity
market for use against such pests because it is efficacious, cost-
effective, and easy to apply. However, phosphine fumigation takes 4 to
7 days to be effective. A fumigant that can work much more quickly,
such as sulfuryl fluoride, is used when rapid fumigation is necessary.
    Fumigation of harvested walnuts to destroy pests is primarily used
for in-shell walnuts. Fumigation can kill pests in in-shell walnuts
that are otherwise eliminated from shelled walnuts by shelling and
processing of the nutmeat. The available data indicate that a high
percentage of in-shell walnuts are fumigated one or more times.
Fumigation is primarily not conducted with phosphine because, at peak
harvest time, existing fumigation chambers do not have sufficient
capacity to allow timely fumigation. Although historically most of this
rapid fumigation was done with methyl bromide under a CUE, more recent
information suggests that the industry is using sulfuryl fluoride
almost entirely. (Ref. 26 at 4).
    For cocoa beans, rapid fumigation is necessary due to the
circumstances where fumigation is conducted. Cocoa beans are imported
to the United States from Africa and South America. Upon arrival, they
are taken to a warehouse at the port and fumigated under tarpaulins. To
minimize risk to port employees, fumigations typically occur over
weekends when the ports and warehouses are closed. One hundred percent
of cocoa beans are fumigated with sulfuryl fluoride. (Id. at 5). In
2009, approximately $1.2 billion worth of cocoa beans were imported to
the United States.
    The primary chemical alternative to sulfuryl fluoride for walnuts
and cocoa is phosphine. However, as indicated, there are insufficient
fumigation chambers for walnuts at peak harvest time. For cocoa,
existing facilities do not allow for use of phosphine because they are
part of an ongoing port operation and cannot be shut down for more than
2 days at a time and often contain other articles that may be affected
by phosphine's corrosive properties. Non-chemical alternatives either
take too long (cold, modified atmosphere), may damage the stored
commodity (heat), lack market acceptability (irradiation), or are
largely untested for the commodities and pests in question (heat).
Construction of fumigation chambers for walnuts and cocoa may take
several years. (Id. at 5).
    EPA requests information on whether other commodities treated in
the United States or other imported commodities would be affected by
elimination of sulfuryl fluoride.
    3. Availability of methyl bromide. Due to the constraints of CAA
and the Montreal Protocol, pesticide users would have very limited
ability to use methyl bromide in lieu of sulfuryl fluoride if the
sulfuryl fluoride

tolerances were abruptly withdrawn. Methyl bromide is an ozone
depleting substance whose production has been banned under the Clean
Air Act for domestic use since 2005. Along with other developed
countries, the United States is also subject to the methyl bromide
production phase-out under the Montreal Protocol. Production of methyl
bromide for U.S. use other than for quarantine and preshipment purposes
is not allowed under the Montreal Protocol and EPA's Clean Air Act
implementing regulations unless the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
agree to authorize additional new production for uses that have been
demonstrated to be critical under the criteria adopted by the Parties.
    The criteria for critical use exemptions (CUEs) are demanding and
not easily met. Under Decision IX/6 of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol ``a use of methyl bromide should qualify as `critical' only if
the nominating Party determines that: (i) The specific use is critical
because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would
result in a significant market disruption; and (ii) there are no
technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes
available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of
environment and public health and are suitable to the crops and
circumstances of the nomination.'' Decision IX/6 para. 1(a).
Additionally, Decision IX/6 specifies that:

    [P]roduction and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for
critical uses should be permitted only if:

    (i) All technically and economically feasible steps have been
taken to minimize the critical use and any associated emission of
methyl bromide;
    (ii) Methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and
quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide,
also bearing in mind the developing countries' need for methyl
bromide;
    (iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being
made to evaluate, commercialize and secure national regulatory
approval of alternatives and substitutes.* * *

    Decision IX/6 para. 1(b).
    EPA's stratospheric protection regulations contain essentially the
same criteria (40 CFR 82.3). Decisions on these criteria are made
following a careful review by both the United States and the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol.\1\ Importantly, because the CUE process is an
exception to the phase-out, it has been implemented in a manner that
recognizes the importance of the technical substantiation of critical
need relative to the criteria agreed upon by the Parties. Between the
2005 and 2011 CUE Nominations, the United States post harvest CUE
amount authorized by the Parties has declined by nearly 80% (784,936
kilograms (kg) to 161,394 kg). (Ref. 27). Given the potential
availability of alternatives in a few years, taking into consideration
the full suite of chemical and non-chemical pest control options for
post harvest uses, technical and economic substantiation for methyl
bromide would be limited under CUE criteria for uses that had
transitioned to sulfuryl fluoride.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Before U.S. production may legally occur, a specific use
must receive a CUE through the authorization of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol and then through EPA's regulations. The CUE
process takes three years to complete for one control period (one
calendar year). Methyl bromide users who wished to obtain a CUE to
allow production in 2011 submitted their applications to EPA in
2008. The U.S. Government reviewed those applications and submitted
a Critical Use Nomination to the United Nations Environment
Programme Ozone Secretariat in early 2009. During 2009, the Methyl
Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) and the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), which are independent advisory
bodies to the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, reviewed the
Critical Use Nomination and made recommendations to the Parties. In
the fall of 2009, the Parties met and approved CUEs for the
following post-harvest uses in the U.S.: mills and food processing
structures; country ham; dried fruit; and nuts. In 2010, EPA
initiated notice-and-comment rulemaking to exempt the approved uses
from its regulatory ban on methyl bromide production. The final rule
will address what uses qualify for the exemption in 2011 and what
amounts may be produced or imported for approved critical uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the ability of any given user group to use methyl bromide
will also be constrained in any given year by a number of other
factors. First, it is impermissible for any person to sell critical use
methyl bromide to an end user without receiving a certification that it
will be used for an approved critical use. (40 CFR 82.4(p)(1)(i)).
Second, although there is no legal restriction on a non-critical user
purchasing and using pre-phase-out stocks (the quantity of stored
methyl bromide produced prior to the U.S. phase-out in 2005), (75 FR
23167, 23181, May 3, 2010) (FRL-9144-5), whether or not such stocks
could be commercially obtained quickly given long-term contracting for
stocks is another question. In any event, pre-phase-out inventory has
declined substantially and it is unclear at this time how much of it
could be purchased for use in the post-harvest market.
    Thus, in the short-term, production and import of methyl bromide is
restricted with no opportunities for immediate change. In the longer
term, given the historical trajectory of the critical use exemption
under the Montreal Protocol, there likely will be less, not more,
methyl bromide available. Current users of sulfuryl fluoride may
attempt to purchase methyl bromide from pre-phase-out inventories if
sulfuryl fluoride becomes unavailable; however, the feasibility of
obtaining significant quantities from this source is uncertain.
    4. Disruption of the marketplace. Food containing insect parts and
waste may be considered adulterated under FFDCA section 402(a)(4) and
subject to seizure by FDA. (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4); see 21 CFR 110.110
(Defect Action Levels)). As the recent recall of the infant formula
Similac shows, contamination with insect parts can result in extensive
disruption of the market for consumers and significant costs for the
food industry. (Ref. 28 (``Worried parents have bombarded the maker of
Similac with phone calls and peppered Facebook and Twitter pages over
fears about insects in the top-selling baby formula after millions of
cans were recalled.''); Refs. 29 and 30 (reporting that recall involved
``up to 5 million Similac-brand powder formulas'' and ``Abbot expects
to lose $100 million in connection with the recall.'')).
    5. Harm to health. There is a real potential for adverse human
health impacts if sulfuryl fluoride is not available for treatment of
food commodities, food mills, and other food processing facilities
where sulfuryl fluoride is used. Without sulfuryl fluoride, there would
be re-infestation of those commodities or facilities if facilities are
not able to find suitable alternatives and thus more contamination of
food products by the pests controlled by sulfuryl fluoride.
Contamination would include whole insects, insect body parts, and
insect waste, mainly from various flour beetles, moths, and
cockroaches. Some of these contaminants (e.g., from cockroaches) have
been identified as allergens. (Ref. 31). Other beetles have been
associated with gastrointestinal illness and discomfort. (Ref. 32 and
33). Contamination also could include food-borne pathogens that cause
disease, such as E. coli or Salmonella, introduced by flies that would
no longer be controlled by sulfuryl fluoride. (Id.)
    6. Conclusion. In the absence of sulfuryl fluoride tolerances,
current sulfuryl fluoride users will, in the first instance, turn to
methyl bromide if methyl bromide can be obtained. Users' ability to
obtain methyl bromide will depend on a complex mix of factors
including: when a final decision is made on the sulfuryl fluoride
tolerances; whether the use is an approved critical use for a given
year and, if so, the amount of methyl bromide available either from new

production or from pre-phase-out inventory under the CUE Rule for that
year; and whether users have access to pre-phase-out inventory sold for
non-critical exemption uses. To the extent that methyl bromide is used
as a sulfuryl fluoride replacement, such a reversion to a
stratospheric-ozone depleting chemical is a negative public health
impact because it will add to damage to the ozone layer and contribute
to additional health effects caused by exposure to ultraviolet
radiation, including skin cancers and cataracts.
    If both sulfuryl fluoride and methyl bromide are unavailable, or
supplies are limited, there is likely to be some disruption of the food
supply as to the affected commodities and/or there is a greater
likelihood of contaminated food being released for public consumption.
The extent of disruption and/or contamination varies based on the type
of processing facility and the commodities involved. For newer flour
mills and other food processing facilities (i.e., ones made principally
of concrete), use of heat should eventually be a successful alternative
to sulfuryl fluoride. In the interim, food may become contaminated with
insect parts and waste as facility owners use trial and error in
adapting heat technology to their individual facilities.
    Older processing facilities constructed mainly of wood may have no
options other than to cease production unless Dow AgroSciences seeks
and obtains a registration amendment for sulfuryl fluoride that insures
that sulfuryl fluoride is used in a manner not resulting in residues in
food. Even so, it is unknown whether use of sulfuryl fluoride under
such an approach is economically feasible. EPA expects similar impacts
on other food handling facilities that rely on sulfuryl fluoride or
methyl bromide fumigation to control pests.
    As to cocoa, impacts are likely to be very substantial. Currently,
100% of the imported cocoa in the United States is disinfested using
sulfuryl fluoride. The likelihood of switching to methyl bromide is
quite low. As of June 29, 2007 for the 2009 CUE control period, cocoa
bean users of methyl bromide ceased seeking CUEs. Cocoa is not
currently an approved critical use, and thus any methyl bromide
produced under a CUE cannot be used on cocoa. Cocoa importers' only
avenue for using methyl bromide would be to purchase methyl bromide
from the dwindling pre-phase-out inventories. Eventually, fumigation
chambers for phosphine could be constructed for cocoa but it may be a
matter of years before they are operational and phosphine use is not
feasible at existing sulfuryl fluoride fumigation sites. In the absence
of an alternative to sulfuryl fluoride for disinfestation of cocoa,
cocoa imports (which in 2009 were valued at approximately $1.2 billion)
would be lost due to either destruction or refusal of shipments by
warehouse operators to comply with FDA regulations. Walnuts may also
face significant impacts because of the need for rapid fumigation with
either methyl bromide or sulfuryl fluoride. Without sulfuryl fluoride
or methyl bromide, a significant portion of the crop may be lost simply
due to insufficient fumigation capacity given the relatively long time
needed for fumigation with phosphine. Other commodities facing a
similar situation to walnuts include dried fruits other than raisins.

D. The Public Interest

    Determining where the public interest lies in this matter involves
a complex weighing of inter-related environmental and health impacts
and cost effects upon commercial interests and consumers. OPP attempts
to capture each of these impacts in the following summary, some of
which have been described previously. Others are discussed for the
first time because they do not neatly fit under factors discussed
previously.
    1. Harm from fluoride exposure. Aggregate exposure to fluoride
exceeds the safe level for several major identifiable population
subgroups. Of principal concern here are children up to the age of 7.
    2. Sulfuryl fluoride's contribution to fluoride exposure. Use of
sulfuryl fluoride results in a minimal contribution to fluoride
exposure. Elimination of sulfuryl fluoride does not solve, or even
significantly decrease, the fluoride aggregate exposure problems
identified earlier.
    3. Increase in the use of methyl bromide inventories. There is a
worldwide consensus that the use of chemicals that deplete the
stratospheric ozone, such as methyl bromide, should be eliminated.
Termination of sulfuryl fluoride will increase demand for methyl
bromide and may result in an increase of use of methyl bromide
inventories.
    4. Impacts on the food supply. To the extent that neither methyl
bromide nor sulfuryl fluoride is available, there are likely to be
impacts on the food supply, either through disruption of food
availability or contamination of food with insect parts and waste,
because other feasible alternatives to sulfuryl fluoride and methyl
bromide will not be immediately available.
    5. Other atmospheric effects of sulfuryl fluoride. EPA acknowledges
that recent research has identified the potential for sulfuryl fluoride
to contribute to the greenhouse effect; however there does not appear
to be consensus yet in the scientific community on its global warming
potential.
    6. International consequences. As explained previously, the United
States agreed to end domestic production of methyl bromide in 2005,
along with other developed countries that are Parties to the Montreal
Protocol. Since 2005, the United States has--along with a handful of
other developed countries--been requesting limited continued amounts of
methyl bromide to satisfy needs that Parties agree to be `critical'.
Also since 2005, U.S. requests for continued uses have been large,
relative to those of other countries. At the beginning of the post-
phase-out period, in 2005, 17 developed countries requested and
obtained such exemptions; currently, the United States is one of only
four developed countries that have not yet eliminated methyl bromide
CUEs. (Ref. 27). The United States historically used a majority of the
world's methyl bromide; therefore, the challenge faced by U.S.
agriculture in this transition has been formidable. Still, enormous
progress has been made in adopting alternatives for all major uses,
allowing the United States to substantially reduce the size and number
of its CUE requests. Sulfuryl fluoride has been an important component
to this process. A sudden reversal by the United States in its efforts
to reduce the use of methyl bromide may have broad ramifications on the
success of the treaty. U.S. authorizations have been reduced further by
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, based on recommendations from the
relevant technical committees of the Montreal Protocol. Rapid
termination of sulfuryl fluoride tolerances would be at odds with the
careful, deliberate, and well-established CUE process. The process is
protracted and the relevant criteria demand technical justifications
that require time to develop and substantiate. In reality, the multi-
step CUE process is not designed with the expectation that it would
allow a Party to the Montreal Protocol requesting a CUE for a given
year to rapidly adjust either to the introduction of a new alternative
or to the withdrawal of an existing alternative. An additional
international consequence is that the lack of sulfuryl fluoride to
treat imported commodities

such as cocoa could lead to shipments of imported commodities being
rejected and trade with some economically vulnerable countries may be
negatively affected.

E. Conclusion

    Taking all of these factors into account involves weighing EPA's
proposed conclusion that Objectors' have meritorious objections and the
potential beneficial impacts on the public interest if a stay was
granted against the negative impacts on the public interest from a stay
approval. The beneficial impacts from granting a stay would be a slight
reduction in fluoride exposure and other potential atmospheric effects.
On the other hand, granting a stay would potentially cause the
following negative impacts:
    1. A possible increase in use of methyl bromide inventories, with
attendant negative known atmospheric effects;
    2. An undermining of the substantial progress made in reducing
methyl bromide critical use exemptions in the postharvest market and
potential disruption in implementation of an important international
treaty, and
    3. Significant impacts on several food industries and related
effects on the public, including potential health effects on the
public.

Despite the health risks posed by overall aggregate fluoride exposure
and the Objectors' likelihood of success on the merits, OPP believes
that each of the potential negative impacts on the public interest
outweigh the beneficial public effects from a stay. Viewed in this
light, EPA concludes that the public interest strongly, in fact
overwhelmingly, supports denial of the Objectors' stay request.

VIII. Proposed Effective Date of Order

    EPA proposes to make this order effective 60 days following
publication. However, EPA is also proposing a staggered implementation
for withdrawal of the affected tolerances in 40 CFR 180.145(c) and
180.575 taking into account the discussion in Unit VII. concerning the
Objectors' stay request. This staggered implementation is proposed to
be accomplished by including an expiration/revocation date in 40 CFR
180.145(c) and 180.575 for each of the tolerances not proposed for
withdrawal upon the effective date of the order. Given the potential
disruption or contamination of some commodities in the food supply,
severely limited availability of methyl bromide, and prospect of
difficulties in implementing an important international treaty, EPA is
proposing to withdraw tolerances under the following implementation or
phaseout schedule:
    1. Tolerances for canceled uses: immediately. For uses that have
been removed from the sulfuryl fluoride registration, there is no
reason the proposed order should not take effect upon the effective
date of the order. These tolerances are: Dried eggs; milk, powdered.
    2. Tolerances for commodities where there is little to no use of
sulfuryl fluoride: 90 days. EPA's analysis and information from Dow
AgroSciences indicate that sulfuryl fluoride is not currently used in
significant amounts, if at all, on numerous commodities for which
direct fumigation is allowed under the sulfuryl fluoride registration.
EPA is proposing a termination of tolerances associated with these uses
90 days from the effective date of the order. Ninety days should be
sufficient for all affected parties to come into compliance with the
revised situation. Tolerances in this category are: barley, bran,
postharvest; barley, flour, postharvest; barley, grain, postharvest;
barley, pearled barley, postharvest; cattle, meat, dried; cheese;
coconut, postharvest; coffee, bean, green, postharvest; corn, field,
flour, postharvest; corn, field, grain, postharvest; corn, field,
grits, postharvest; corn, field, meal, postharvest; corn, pop, grain,
postharvest; cotton, undelinted seed, postharvest; ginger, postharvest;
grain, aspirated fractions, postharvest; grape, raisin, postharvest;
herbs and spices group 19, postharvest; hog, meat; millet, grain,
postharvest; nut, pine, postharvest; nut, tree, Group 14, postharvest
(revised to cover only walnuts, postharvest); oat, flour, postharvest;
oat, grain, postharvest; oat, groat/rolled oats; peanut, postharvest;
pistachio, postharvest; sorghum, grain, postharvest; triticale, grain,
postharvest; vegetable, legume, group 6, postharvest; wheat, bran,
postharvest; wheat, flour, postharvest; wheat, germ, postharvest;
wheat, grain postharvest; wheat, milled byproducts, postharvest; wheat,
shorts, postharvest.
    3. Tolerances for commodities directly treated where there is
significant sulfuryl fluoride use and no readily-available alternative:
3 years. For several commodities, sulfuryl fluoride is used on all, or
a substantial portion, of the crop and there is no readily-available
alternative. These commodities are cocoa, walnuts, and dried fruits
other than raisins. Although there is a feasible alternative available
for sulfuryl fluoride in the long-term, phosphine, in the short-term
that alternative is not available due to the lack of fumigation
capacity. The situation for cocoa is perhaps the most dire in that 100%
of the crop is treated, the space used for sulfuryl fluoride fumigation
is not appropriate for phosphine use, and, given that cocoa is not
currently an approved critical use, methyl bromide produced under a CUE
may not be used on cocoa. While not facing quite such catastrophic
consequences, walnuts are nonetheless in essentially the same situation
because the only realistic treatment option in the near term (i.e.,
methyl bromide) can only be obtained, if at all, from pre-phase-out
inventories or from production under the sharply-limited postharvest
CUE, and another alternative will not be available until additional
fumigation capacity is created. The situation appears similar for dried
fruits other than raisins as well; however, EPA requests that
information be submitted during the comment period documenting the
amount of sulfuryl fluoride use on dried fruits and the availability of
alternatives including the availability of capacity for alternative
fumigations. EPA is proposing termination of tolerances associated with
these uses 3 years from the effective date of the order. Construction
of fumigation chambers may take several years.
    4. Tolerances for commodities receiving residues from incidental
treatment during structural fumigation--3 years. The situation for
foods requiring tolerances as a result of incidental treatment from
structural fumigations is more complicated. Different types of
facilities will face different hurdles in transitioning from sulfuryl
fluoride to other methods of pest control. For most facilities, use of
heat may prove an adequate pest control strategy. However,
implementation of heat technology is not expected to be seamless and
the availability of sulfuryl fluoride as a backup to avoid potential
disruption or contamination is important. OPP expects that, after the
first year, use of sulfuryl fluoride in these facilities will be the
exception rather than the rule as the technology comes online and
facility operators gain experience with it. In other words, sulfuryl
fluoride would only be used when difficulties arise in perfecting the
use of heat technology in individual facilities. Given the cost of
sulfuryl fluoride treatment, facility operators, having invested in
heat technology, will have a strong incentive to avoid use of sulfuryl
fluoride unless absolutely necessary. A relatively short transition
period may be appropriate for these facilities. For wooden structures,
however, where heat is not an option,

no chemical or non-chemical alternative is immediately available. These
facilities face an uncertain future with perhaps the best alternative
being pursuit by Dow AgroSciences of restrictions on the sulfuryl
fluoride registration that would eliminate the possibility of residues
in food and thus permit continued use of sulfuryl fluoride as a
structural fumigant in food handling facilities. Nonetheless, even this
approach is in question due to feasibility issues. Thus, to some
degree, owners of wooden food handling facilities face the most serious
consequences of any producer group and, due to their relatively large
share of the market, there could be similarly serious consequences for
the public. For that reason, EPA is proposing termination of tolerances
associated with these uses 3 years from the effective date of the
order. To insure that this extended transition period will not
encourage owners of concrete facilities to maintain the status quo, EPA
plans to pursue registration modifications for sulfuryl fluoride that
differentiate between sulfuryl fluoride use in concrete and wooden
structures. EPA's goal would be to allow sulfuryl fluoride use in
concrete facilities for a period no longer than necessary to accomplish
the transition to heat technology.
    EPA specifically requests comment on the potential impacts from the
loss of sulfuryl fluoride including any available and additional
information on pest control alternatives to sulfuryl fluoride. Such
information is important to EPA's decision on the proposed effective
dates for this order. Further, EPA recognizes that sulfuryl fluoride is
only one of many sources of exposure to fluoride. To the extent that
new information indicates that overall fluoride exposure has decreased,
including as a result of other government actions, EPA would consider
revisiting the determinations in this proposed order.

IX. Request for Public Comment

    EPA requests public comment on all aspects of this proposed order:
Its hazard, exposure, and risk assessments of fluoride; its evaluation
of the factors bearing on whether a stay should be granted; and its
proposed effective dates for the order.

X. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

    As indicated previously, this action announces the Agency's
proposed order regarding objections filed under section 408 of FFDCA.
As such, this action is an adjudication and not a rule. The regulatory
assessment requirements imposed on rulemaking do not, therefore, apply
to this action.

XI. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does
not apply to this order because this action is not a rule for purposes
of 5 U.S.C. 804(3).

XII. References

    As indicated under ADDRESSES, a docket has been established for
this rulemaking under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174. The
following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered, including documents that are referenced
within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the
referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    1. Fluoride Action Network and Beyond Pesticides/National
Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, Written Objections and
Request for Hearing in the matter of: Sulfuryl Fluoride; Pesticide
Tolerance; Final Rule. (March 23, 2004).
    2. Motion of Objectors for Stay of Final Rules Establishing
Tolerances For Residues of Sulfuryl Fluoride and Fluoride Anion;
(Docket Nos. OPP-2005-0174 and OPP-2003-0373) (June 1, 2006).
    3. Objectors' Consolidated Objections to Final Rules
Establishing Tolerances for Residues of Sulfuryl Fluoride and
Fluoride Anion (November 6, 2006).
    4. USEPA, A User's Guide to Available EPA Information on
Assessing Exposure to Pesticides in Food (June 21, 2000).
    5. USEPA. Office of Research and Development. 2000. Benchmark
Dose Technical Guidance Document. Draft report. Risk Assessment
Forum, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-00/001.
    6. FIFRA Science Advisory Panel. 2002. Methods Used to Conduct a
Preliminary Cumulative Risk Assessment for Organophosphate
Pesticides. Final Report from the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
Meeting of February 5-7, 2002 (Report dated March 19, 2002). FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel, Office of Science Coordination and
Policy, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. SAP Report 2002-01.
    7. FIFRA Science Advisory Panel. 2005b. Final report on
Preliminary N-Methyl Carbamate Cumulative Risk Assessment. Final
Report from the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting of August
23-25, 2005 (Report dated October 13, 2005). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2005/august/minutes.pdf.
    8. Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA, Office of Pesticide
Programs' Policy on the Determination of the Appropriate FQPA Safety
Factor(s) For Use in the Tolerance Setting Process (February 28,
2002).
    9. USEPA, Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines: OPPTS 860.1500 Crop
Field Trials (August 1996).
    10. Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA and Pest Regulatory
Management Agency, Health Canada, NAFTA Guidance Document for
Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data
(September 28, 2005).
    11. Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA, Choosing a Percentile
of Acute Dietary Exposure as a Threshold of Regulatory Concern
(March 16, 2000).
    12. Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA, Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments (Draft
December 19, 1997).
    13. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances,
USEPA, ``Response To Public Comments Concerning The Use Of Sulfuryl
Fluoride As A Post-Harvest Fumigant'' (January 16, 2004).
    14. Baetcke et al., Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA, ``A
Preliminary Evaluation of Articles Related to Fluoride Cited by the
Fluoride Action Network (FAN) as Objections to the Sulfuryl Fluoride
Pesticide Tolerance Rule'' (November 18, 2003).
    15. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances,
USEPA, Memorandum from Vicki L. Dellarco to Dennis McNeilly, Review
of Five Recent Papers on Fluoride Submitted by the Fluoride Action
Network (January 8, 2004).
    16. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances,
USEPA, ``Response to Public Comments Concerning the Use of Sulfuryl
Fluoride In Food Handling Facilities'' (July 14, 2005).
    17. National Research Council of the National Academies,
``Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's
Standards'' (March 2006).
    18. Objectors' Submission to Docket: 18 IQ Studies (posted
February 17, 2009).
    19. Dow AgroSciences LLC, ``Response to Request for Public
Comments; Sulfuryl Fluoride; Request for Stay of Tolerances; Public
Docket Identification Numbers: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174 and EPA-HQ-OPP-
2003-0373 (August 4, 2006).
    20. Dow AgroSciences LLC, Memorandum, ``Standard for Granting a
Hearing under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Concerning
Objections to Tolerances Established by EPA for Profume \TM\ Gas
Fumigant'' (October 31, 2006).
    21. Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Water,
USEPA, ``Fluoride: Dose-Response Analysis for Non-cancer Effects''
(December 2010).
    22. Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Water,
USEPA, ``Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution
Analysis'' (December 2010).
    23. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, US EPA,
Memorandum from Michael A. Doherty to Meredith Laws, ``Sulfuryl
Fluoride--Revised Human Health

Risk Assessment for Fluoride to Incorporate New Hazard and Exposure
Information'' (January 7, 2011).
    24. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, US
EPA, Memorandum from Colwell A. Cook, Jonathan Becker, and Elisa Rim
to Kable Davis/Venus Eagle and Michael Doherty/Christina Swartz,
``Revised Assessment of Percent Commodity Treated Values used in the
Registrant's Dietary Exposure Assessment for Fluoride (DP
361041)'' (May 1, 2009).
    25. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, US EPA,
Memorandum from Michelle Ranville and Colwell Cook to Meredith Laws,
``Assessment of Impacts on Flour Mills Operators of a Stay in
Sulfuryl Fluoride Food Tolerances'' (January 7, 2011).
    26. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, US EPA,
Memorandum from Colwell Cook and Michelle Ranville to Meredith Laws,
``Assessment of Impacts of a Stay of Food Tolerances for Sulfuryl
Fluoride on Selected Post-Harvest Commodities'' (January 7, 2011).
    27. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, US EPA,
Memorandum from Colwell Cook and Michelle Ranville to Jonathan
Fleuchaus, Post Harvest Methyl Bromide Grant to the United States by
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, 2005-2011 (December 16, 2010).
    28. Washington Post, ``Bugs in Baby Formula? Parents Worried
About Recall'' (September 24, 2010) (available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/24/AR2010092402044.html?waporef=obinsite).
    29. U.S. FDA Consumer Update, ``Abbott Recalls Some Similac
Formulas (September 23, 2010) (available at http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm226941.htm).
    30. Washington Post, ``Bug Contamination Sparks Baby Formula
Recall'' (September 23, 2010) (available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/22/AR2010092206070.html?waporef=obinsite).
    31. Olsen et al., Regulatory Action Criteria for Filth and Other
Extraneous Materials, V. Strategy for Evaluating Hazardous and
Nonhazardous Filth (Jan. 12, 2001).
    32. U.S. FDA Consumer Update, ``Abbott Recalls Some Similac
Formulas'' (September 23, 2010) (available at http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm226941.htm).
    33. Olsen, Alan, FDA Teamwork Uncovers Insect Infestation, FDA
Consumer, Vol. 25, Jul.-Aug. 1991).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: January 7, 2011.
Steve Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-917 Filed 1-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 44395]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16036]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 6a-3, SEC File No. 270-0015, OMB Control No. 3235-0021.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information provided for in Rule 6a-3 (17 CFR 240.6a-3)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.)
(``Act'').
    Section 6 of the Act sets out a framework for the registration and
regulation of national securities exchanges. Under Rule 6a-3, one of
the rules that implements Section 6, a national securities exchange (or
an exchange exempted from registration based on limited trading volume)
must provide certain supplemental information to the Commission,
including any material (including notices, circulars, bulletins, lists,
and periodicals) issued or made generally available to members of, or
participants or subscribers to, the exchange. Rule 6a-3 also requires
the exchanges to file monthly reports that set forth the volume and
aggregate dollar amount of certain securities sold on the exchange each
month. The information required to be filed with the Commission
pursuant to Rule 6a-3 is designed to enable the Commission to carry out
its statutorily mandated oversight functions and to ensure that
registered and exempt exchanges continue to be in compliance with the
Act.
    The Commission estimates that each respondent makes approximately
12 such filings on an annual basis at an average cost of approximately
$20 per response. Currently, 19 respondents (19 national securities
exchanges) are subject to the collection of information requirements of
Rule 6a-3. The Commission estimates that the total burden for all
respondents is 114 hours and $4,560 per year.
    Compliance with Rule 6a-3 is mandatory for registered and exempt
exchanges. Information received in response to Rule 6a-3 shall not be
kept confidential; the information collected is public information. As
set forth in Rule 17a-1 (17 CFR 240.17a-1) under the Act, a national
securities exchange is required to retain records of the collection of
information for at least five years.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: June 30, 2016.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16036 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 23853-23854]
[DOCID:fr21my09-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-52-000]

City of Riverside, CA; Notice of Filing

May 14, 2009.
    Take notice that on May 6, 2009, the City of Riverside, California
(Riverside) filed a petition for declaratory order requesting approval
of its revised Base Transmission Revenue Requirement, revised
Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment, revised High Voltage
Transmission Revenue Requirement and accompanying mechanism to adjust
the cost of its Riverside's Existing Transmission Contracts with
Southern California Edison Company, pursuant to Rule 205 of the
Commission's Rules and Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.205 and

section 26.1.1 of the California Independent System Operator
Corporation Tariff. Riverside also requests for waiver of the sixty-day
notice requirement provided for in Commission's regulations at 18 CFR
35.3(a) and waiver of the filing fee, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of 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: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 5, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11796 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 32383-32384]
[DOCID:fr12jn07-82]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55856; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Require Nasdaq-Listed Issuers To Submit Material News to Nasdaq Using
Nasdaq's Electronic Disclosure Submission System

June 4, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On March 27, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
require Nasdaq-listed issuers to submit material news to Nasdaq through
Nasdaq's electronic disclosure submission system, except in emergency
situations. Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal on April 25,
2007. The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment
in the Federal Register on May 2, 2007.\3\ The Commission received no
comments regarding the proposed rule change, as amended. This order
approves the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55672 (April 26,
2007), 72 FR 24349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Nasdaq Rules 4310(c)(16) and 4320(e)(14) require a Nasdaq-listed
issuer, except in unusual circumstances, to make prompt disclosure to
the public through any Regulation FD compliant method (or combination
of methods) of any material information that would reasonably be
expected to affect the value of its securities or to influence
investors' decisions. These rules also require the issuer to provide
notice of certain disclosures to Nasdaq's MarketWatch Department
(``Nasdaq MarketWatch'') prior to the release of the information.
Nasdaq reviews these disclosures to determine whether a trading halt is
appropriate. Issuers currently provide material news notifications to
Nasdaq MarketWatch electronically through Nasdaq's electronic
disclosure submission system, or via fax or telephone. Nasdaq does not
disseminate this information.
    Although Nasdaq introduced the electronic disclosure submission
system in 2004, most issuers continue to provide material news
notifications to Nasdaq MarketWatch by fax.\4\ According to Nasdaq, the
material information from fax-delivered documents and telephone
notifications must be retyped manually into Nasdaq MarketWatch's
database systems, a process that uses staff time, introduces error
risk, and results in a less robust audit trail. To reduce this
administrative burden, Nasdaq proposes to amend Nasdaq Rule 4120,
``Trading Halts,'' and IM-4120-1, ``Disclosure of Material
Information,'' to require issuers to submit material news notifications
to Nasdaq through Nasdaq's electronic disclosure submission system,
except in emergency situations.\5\ In an emergency, an issuer would
continue to be required to notify Nasdaq prior to disseminating
material news, but Nasdaq would accept notification by telephone or
fax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Nasdaq notes, for example, that of approximately 4,200
material news notifications submitted to Nasdaq MarketWatch in
January 2007, over 70% were submitted by fax.
    \5\ Nasdaq defines emergency situations to include: lack of
computer or internet access; a technical problem on either the
issuer or Nasdaq system, or an incompatibility between those
systems; and a material development such that no draft disclosure
document exists, but immediate notification to Nasdaq MarketWatch is
important based on the event. See Nasdaq IM-4120-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, Nasdaq may issue a Staff Determination that is
a public reprimand letter or, in extreme circumstances, a Staff
Determination to delist an issuer's securities, if an issuer repeatedly
fails to notify Nasdaq prior to the distribution of material news, or
repeatedly fails to use the electronic disclosure submission system in
the absence of an emergency.\6\ In determining whether to issue a
public reprimand letter, Nasdaq will consider whether the issuer has
demonstrated a pattern of failures, whether the issuer has been
contacted concerning previous violations, and whether the issuer has
taken steps to assure that future violations will not occur.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Nasdaq IM-4120-1.
    \7\ See Nasdaq IM-4120-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq proposes to implement the proposal approximately 90 days
after the proposal is approved.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with

the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\ Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\9\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By requiring issuers to submit material news notifications to
Nasdaq through Nasdaq's electronic disclosure submission system, except
in emergencies, the Commission believes that the proposal appears to be
reasonably designed to reduce the administrative burdens and error risk
associated with retyping material news information provided by
telephone or fax into Nasdaq's database systems. By reducing the error
risk associated with retyping this information into Nasdaq's database
systems, the Commission also believes that the proposal appears to be
reasonably designed to help to enhance the accuracy and integrity of
Nasdaq's audit trail.
    Under the proposal, Nasdaq may issue a Staff Determination that is
a public reprimand letter or, in extreme circumstances, a determination
to delist an issuer's securities, if an issuer fails repeatedly to
notify Nasdaq prior to the distribution of material news or fails
repeatedly to use the electronic disclosure submission system in the
absence of an emergency.\10\ The Commission notes that the procedures
in the Nasdaq Rule 4800 Series, ``Procedures for Review of Nasdaq
Listing Determinations,'' will apply to any such Staff Determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Nasdaq IM-4120-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2007-029), as
amended, is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-11189 Filed 6-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 26535]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1852-078; ER10-2641-045.
    Applicants: Oleander Power Project, Limited Partnership, Florida
Power & Light Company.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Florida Power & Light
Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/20/23.
    Accession Number: 20230420-5252.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2418-008.
    Applicants: Great River Hydro, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Great River
Hydro, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/24/23.
    Accession Number: 20230424-5282.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1277-000.
    Applicants: Aron Energy Prepay 23 LLC.
    Description: Supplement to Aron Energy Prepay 23 LLC submits tariff
filing per 35.12: Baseline new to be effective 5/9/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230328-5303.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1700-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Update Default Gross Cost of
New Entry & Default Gross Avoidable Cost Rate to be effective 6/23/
2023.
    Filed Date: 4/24/23.
    Accession Number: 20230424-5203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1701-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Tri-State Master
Installation, O&M Agmt for Metering (Rev 5) to be effective 6/25/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230425-5091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1702-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Alabama Power Company submits tariff
filing per 35.15: Columbiana PV II LGIA Termination Filing to be
effective 4/25/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230425-5144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1703-000.
    Applicants: Stanton Battery Energy Storage, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based
Rate Authority to be effective 6/5/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230425-5174.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1704-000.
    Applicants: WGP Redwood Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Updated Market Based Rate
Tariff to be effective 4/26/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230425-5176.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1705-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original NSA, Service
Agreement No. 6884; Queue No. AC1-074/AC2-075 to be effective 6/26/
2023.
    Filed Date: 4/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230425-5191.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1706-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original NSA, SA No. 6869;
Queue No. AE2-071/AF1-203 to be effective 4/26/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230425-5192.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1707-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA, Service
Agreement No. 6436; Queue No. AE2-224 to be effective 6/26/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230425-5197.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1708-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: FPL 2021 True-Up Revisions
to Appendix B of Rate Schedule No. 317 to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230425-5229.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1709-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: FPL 2021 True-Up Revisions
to Appendix B of Rate Schedule No. 322 to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230425-5231.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1710-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Concurrence of EPE to APS
Service Agreement No. 387, Sonoran Solar Energy to be effective 5/7/
2023.
    Filed Date: 4/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230425-5265.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 25, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09132 Filed 4-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 25011]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08941]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 77-298]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Authorization for
Continued Project Operation

    Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E) 9.959-megawatt Potter
Valley Project No. 77 is located on the Eel and East Fork Russian
Rivers in Lake and Mendocino Counties, California. The license for the
Potter Valley Project was issued to PG&E for a period ending April 14,
2022.
    Section 15(a)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C.
808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license
term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee
under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license
is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in
section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's
prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then,
based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such
project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee
may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for the Potter Valley Project is
issued to PG&E for a period effective April 15, 2022, through April 14,
2023 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other
disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new
license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before April
14, 2023, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an
annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed
automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless
the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that PG&E is authorized to continue operation of the
Potter Valley Project, until such time as the Commission orders
disposition of the project.

    Dated: April 21, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08941 Filed 4-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P