  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                                                                                OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

DATE:  	March 25, 2009

SUBJECT:	Cyazofamid: Acute and Chronic Aggregate Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk Assessments for an IR-4 Proposed Section 3 Registration Amendment to Add Uses in/on Fruiting Vegetables, Okra, and Grapes.

PC Code:  085651

DP Barcode:  357043

Decision No.:  399610

Registration No.:  71512-3

Petition No.:  8E7427

Regulatory Action:  Sec. 3 Registration

Risk Assessment Type:  NA

Case No.:  NA

TXR No.:  NA

CAS No.:  120116-88-3

MRID No.:  47528401, 47528402

40 CFR:  180.601

REVIEWER:	Amelia M. Acierto, Chemist

Risk Assessment Branch 3

Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	William Cutchin, Chemist

Sheila Piper, Chemist

Dietary Exposure Science Advisory Council (DESAC)

Health Effects Division (7509P)

and

Leung Cheng, Senior Chemist

Risk Assessment Branch 3

Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		Nancy Tsaur, Risk Assessor

Risk Assessment Branch 3

Health Effects Division (7509P)

and

		Barbara Madden, RM #5

		Risk Integration, Minor Use, and Emergency Response Branch

Registration Division (7505P)

Executive Summary

Acute (females 13-49 years old only) and chronic dietary risk assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID™), Version 2.03, which uses food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) from 1994-1996 and 1998.  The analyses were performed to support the proposed amendment of a FIFRA §3 registration of the fungicide, cyazofamid, to add uses in/on the rest of the fruiting vegetables and grapes.

Acute and chronic dietary risk assessments have been conducted previously for turf and ornamentals (D332427, Susan L. Stanton, 9/14/06) and for carrot root (D343442, Amelia M. Acierto, 3/5/08).  For the purpose of the new use pattern, HED has concluded that it would not be necessary to amend the dietary risk assessment for carrots except for amending the tolerance for tomato from 0.2 ppm to 0.4 ppm and adding the rest of the fruiting vegetables, crop group 8 and okra into the residue file.  This decision is based on the determination by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) that the maximum estimated Drinking Water Concentration (EDWCs) for parent cyazofamid and degradates CCIM, CCIM-AM and CTCA for the fruiting vegetables, okra, and grapes use pattern in comparison to turf and ornamental use pattern, are much lower as values are 11% for the surface water acute, 2.6% for the surface water non-cancer chronic, and 3.5% for the cancer chronic. (D356836, Jose L. Melendez, 3/24/2009).

Therefore, the dietary risk assessment on fruiting vegetables and grapes will be conducted using the same information and parameters used for the dietary risk assessment on carrot root.

The unrefined, Tier 1 acute and chronic analyses assumed that cyazofamid residues are present in all registered food commodities at tolerance levels and that 100% of all commodities are assumed treated.  All processing factors were set to 1, based on the results of processing studies demonstrating that residues of cyazofamid in processed commodities would not exceed the raw agricultural commodity (RAC) tolerances.

Drinking water was incorporated directly into the dietary assessment using the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC) for the terminal degradate (CTCA) in surface water.  EDWCs were generated using the PRZM-EXAMS models.  For the acute assessment, the 1-in-10 year annual peak concentration of 136 ppb was used; for the chronic assessment, the 1-in-10 year annual mean value of 133 ppb was used.

Acute Dietary Exposure Results

The Tier 1 acute dietary exposure assessment was performed for females 13-49 years old only, since an acute endpoint of concern was not identified for the general U.S. population.  Based on the assumptions described above, acute dietary exposure of females 13-49 years old is well below HED’s level of concern at the 95th percentile of exposure.  Combined dietary exposure from food and drinking water is estimated at 0.009409 mg/kg/day, equivalent to <1% of the acute Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD).

Chronic Dietary Exposure Results

Chronic dietary exposure estimates for food and drinking water combined are also well below HED’s level of concern.  Using the DEEM-FCID software, dietary exposure is estimated at 0.003984 mg/kg/day for the general U.S. population (<1% of the chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD) and 0.010761 mg/kg/day (1.1% of the cPAD) for infants <1 year old, the population subgroup with the highest estimated chronic dietary exposure to cyazofamid.

I.	Introduction

Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a given pesticide.  For acute and chronic assessments, the risk is expressed as a percentage of a maximum acceptable dose (i.e., the dose which HED has concluded will result in no unreasonable adverse health effects).  This dose is referred to as the population adjusted dose (PAD).  The PAD is equivalent to the reference dose (RfD) divided by the special Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor.

For acute and non-cancer chronic exposures, HED is concerned when estimated dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.  References which discuss the acute and chronic risk assessments in more detail are available on the EPA/pesticides web site:  “Available Information on Assessing Exposure from Pesticides, A User’s Guide,” 6/21/2000, web link:      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf"  http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf  ; or see SOP 99.6 (8/20/99).

The most recent HED dietary risk assessment for cyazofamid (D343442, Amelia M. Acierto, 3/5/08) was conducted to support the FIFRA §3 registration on carrot, roots.  As in the assessment for carrot, root, this current assessment incorporates drinking water directly into the

dietary analyses.

II.	Food Residue Information

Residues of Concern:  The HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC) concluded in a meeting on 2/18/04 that for the risk assessment and tolerance expression, parent and the metabolite designated as CCIM are the residues of concern for plant commodities.  The MARC also concluded that cyazofamid and the metabolites designated as CCIM, CCIM-AM and CTCA are considered to be the major residues in water and should be included in the drinking water risk assessment.  The current uses of cyazofamid fall under 40 CFR §180.6(a)(3) (i.e., there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues in livestock commodities).

Tolerances:  Tolerances have been established under 40 CFR §180.601 for the combined residues of  cyazofamid and its metabolite CCIM [4-chloro-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-2-carbonitrile] in or on cucurbit vegetables, Group 9 (0.1 ppm), imported wine grapes (1.5 ppm), potato (0.02 ppm) and tomato (0.2 ppm).  Turf and ornamentals (non-food use sites) did not require establishment of additional tolerances.

Residue Data used for the Acute and Chronic Assessments:  The unrefined, Tier 1 acute and chronic analyses assumed that cyazofamid residues are present in/on all registered food commodities at tolerance levels and assumed 100% of all commodities are treated.  Adequate processing data are available for grapes (MRID 45409028), potatoes (MRID 45409033) and tomatoes (MRID 45409031).  The results of these studies indicate that residues in processed commodities will not exceed the raw agricultural commodity (RAC) tolerances (A. Acierto,

D285680, 2/20/04).  Therefore, all processing factors were set to 1x.   There were no processing data for carrot. The food residue data used in the acute and chronic analyses are summarized below in Table 1.

Table 1.  Residue Data used in the Acute and Chronic Dietary Analyses for Cyazofamid

Commodity	Tolerance (ppm)	Percent Crop Treated	Processing Factors

Fruiting vegetables, crop group 8	0.4 	100	1

Okra	0.4	100	1

Grape	1.5	100	1

 Drinking Water Data

Reference: Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations of Parent Cyazofamid and its Degradates CCIM, CCIM-AM and CTCA for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment (Use on Fruiting Vegetables, Crop Group 8 + Okra, and Grapes, East of the Rocky Mountains); Jose L. Melendez, D356836, 3/24/09.

The Environmental Effects Division (EFED) determined that the maximum estimated Drinking Water Concentration (EDWCs) for parent cyazofamid and degradates CCIM, CCIM-AM and CTCA for the fruiting vegetables, Crop Group 8 + okra, and grapes use pattern in comparison to turf and ornamental use pattern, are much lower as values are 11% for the surface water acute, 2.3% for the surface water non-cancer chronic, and 3.5% for the cancer chronic (DP Number 356836, Jose L. Melendez, 3/24/09.).  Therefore the EDWCs from EFED’s previous drinking water assessment for turf and ornamentals, which was used for carrots, were used in this dietary assessment as described below.

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) calculated screening level surface water and ground water estimates for cyazofamid and its degradates using linked PRZM/EXAMS models and the SCI-GROW model, respectively. The drinking water models and their descriptions are available at the EPA internet site:   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/"  http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/ .  Estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) are presented in Table 2 for three scenarios as follows:

(1) 1st scenario (parent) assuming application of the maximum rate as parent;

(2) 2nd scenario (each of the degradates CCIM, CCIM-AM, and CTCA) assuming application of the molar equivalent of the parent for each of the degradate by apportioning the rate between the degradates based on molecular ratios and adjusted maximums found in fate studies; and

(3) 3rd scenario (the terminal degradate CTCA) assuming application of 100% molar conversions of the parent into this terminal degradate CTCA.

Table 2.  Resulting Maximum Surface/Ground water EDWCs for cyazofamid and each of its Major Degradates

Scenario	Chemical	Surface water EDWCs (ppb)	Ground water EDWC (ppb)

Acute

(1-in-10 yr. peak)	Chronic

 (1-in-10 yr. mean)

	1st  Scenario	Parent	14.362	0.377	0.01180

2nd  Scenario 	CCIM	17.106	12.094	0.00061

	CCIM-AM	6.699	6.312	0.00270

	CTCA	16.716	11.993	0.52300

3rd  Scenario 	CTCA	136.242	133.458	2.18000

The highest acute (peak) and chronic (mean) EDWCs were estimated for surface water using the PRZM/EXAMS model.  For the purpose of this Tier 1 dietary assessment, HED used the highest calculated screening EDWCs for surface water based on the 3rd modeling scenario: 136 ppb for the acute analysis and 133 ppb for the chronic analysis.  This approach may significantly overestimate dietary exposure to cyazofamid from drinking water; however, since estimated aggregate food and drinking water exposures using this approach are well below the acute and chronic levels of concern, additional refinements were not deemed necessary.  For both the acute and chronic analyses, the drinking water EDWC was incorporated directly as a point estimate in the DEEM analysis to assess exposure to cyazofamid from drinking water.

IV.	DEEM-FCID™ Program and Consumption Information

Cyazofamid acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID™, Version 2.03), which incorporates consumption data from USDA’s Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), 1994-1996 and 1998.  The 1994-96, 98 data are based on the reported consumption of more than 20,000 individuals over two non-consecutive survey days.  Foods “as consumed” (e.g., apple pie) are linked to EPA-defined food commodities (e.g. apples, peeled fruit - cooked; fresh or N/S; baked; or wheat flour - cooked; fresh or N/S, baked) using publicly available recipe translation files developed jointly by USDA/ARS and EPA.  For chronic exposure assessment, consumption data are averaged for the entire U.S. population and within population subgroups, but for acute exposure assessment are retained as individual consumption events.  Based on analysis of the 1994-96, 98 CSFII consumption data, which took into account dietary patterns and survey respondents, HED concluded that it is most appropriate to report risk for the following population subgroups: the general U.S. population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2, children 3-5, children 6-12, youth 13-19, adults 20-49, females 13-49, and adults 50+ years old.

For chronic dietary exposure assessments, an estimate of the residue level in each food or food-form (e.g., orange or orange juice) on the food commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily consumption estimate for that food/food form to produce a residue intake estimate.  The resulting residue intake estimate for each food/food form is summed with the residue intake estimates for all other food/food forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total average estimated exposure.  Exposure is expressed in mg/kg body weight/day and as a percent of the cPAD.  This procedure is performed for each population subgroup.

For acute exposure assessments, individual one-day food consumption data are used on an individual-by-individual basis.  The reported consumption amounts of each food item can be multiplied by a residue point estimate and summed to obtain a total daily pesticide exposure for a deterministic exposure assessment, or “matched” in multiple random pairings with residue values and then summed in a probabilistic assessment.  The resulting distribution of exposures is expressed as a percentage of the aPAD on both a user (i.e., only those who reported eating relevant commodities/food forms) and a per-capita (i.e., those who reported eating the relevant commodities as well as those who did not) basis.  In accordance with HED policy, per capita exposure and risk are reported for all tiers of analysis.  However, for Tiers 1 and 2, any significant differences in user vs. per capita exposure and risk are specifically identified and noted in the risk assessment.

V.	Toxicological Information

On February 10, 2004, the HIARC evaluated the toxicology database for cyazofamid with regard to the acute and chronic reference doses (RfDs).  The doses and toxicological endpoints selected for dietary exposure scenarios are summarized in Table 3.

.

Table 3.  Summary of Cyazofamid Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Dietary Risk Assessment.

Exposure

Scenario

Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF

FQPA SF and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment

Study and Toxicological Effects

Acute Dietary

(Females 13-49 years of age)

NOAEL = 100 mg/kg

UF = 100

Acute RfD = 1.0 mg/kg

FQPA SF = 1X

aPAD = acute RfD

              FQPA SF

= 1.0 mg/kg

Rat Prenatal Developmental Toxicity (MRID 45408933)

LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg based on developmental toxicity findings of increased incidence of bent ribs.

Acute Dietary

(General population including infants and children)

NOAEL = NA

UF = NA

Acute RfD = NA

FQPA SF =  NA

aPAD = acute RfD

              FQPA SF

= NA

No adverse effects were observed which could be attributed to a single-dose exposure.

Chronic Dietary

(All populations)

NOAEL= 94.8 mg/kg/day

UF = 100

Chronic RfD = 0.95

 mg/kg/day

FQPA SF = 1X

cPAD = chronic RfD

               FQPA SF

= 0.95 mg/kg/day

18-Month Mouse Oral Carcinogenicity (MRID 45408932)

LOAEL = 985 mg/kg/day based on increased skin lesions.

UF = uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = Special FQPA safety factor, NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level, LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level, PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic) RfD = reference dose, NA = Not Applicable

VI.	Results/Discussion

PAD.  The DEEM-FCID™ analyses estimate the dietary exposure of the U.S. population and various population subgroups.  The acute exposure results are reported in Tables 4 for females 13-49 only.  The chronic results reported in Table 5 are for the general U.S. Population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2, children 3-5, children 6-12, youth 13-19, females 13-49, adults 20-49, and adults 50+ years.

Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis

The Tier 1 acute dietary (food + drinking water) exposure assessment was performed for females 13-49 years old only, since an acute endpoint of concern was not identified for the general population.  Based on the assumptions described above in sections II and III, acute dietary exposure of females 13-49 years old is well below HED’s level of concern (i.e., <100% of the aPAD of 1.0 mg/kg).  The combined dietary exposure from food and drinking water is estimated at 0.009409 mg/kg/day (equivalent to <1% of the aPAD), at the 95th percentile of exposure, the appropriate regulatory statistic for Tier 1 dietary assessments as shown in Table 4.

Table 4.  Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis for Food and Drinking Water at the 95th Percentile of Exposure using DEEM FCID

Population Subgroup	aPAD (mg/kg/day)	95th Percentile	99th Percentile 99.9th Percentile

Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% aPAD	Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% aPAD	Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% aPAD

Females 13-49 years old 	1.0	0.009409	<1	0.015596	1.56	0.022290	2.23

Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis

™ software are well below HED’s level of concern for the general U.S. population and each of the population subgroups.  Dietary exposure was estimated at 0.003984 mg/kg/day for the U.S. population (<1% of the cPAD) and 0.010761 mg/kg/day (1.1% of the cPAD) for the most highly exposed population subgroup (infants <1 year old).  The estimated exposures/risks for food and drinking water are summarized in Table 5 for all populations.

Table 5.  Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis for Food and Drinking Water

Population Subgroup	    Exposure

(mg/kg/day)	% cPAD

General U.S. Population	0.003984	<1

All Infants (< 1 year old)1	0.010761	1

Children 1-2 years old	0.009260	1

Children 3-5 years old	0.007258	<1

Children 6-12 years old	0.004219	<1

Youth 13-19 years old	0.002741	<1

Adults 20-49 years old	0.003461	<1

Adults 50+ years old	0.003659	<1

Females 13-49 years old	0.003472	<1

 1The population subgroup with the highest estimated chronic dietary (food + drinking water)

  exposure and  risk is indicated by bold text.

     .

VII.	Characterization of Inputs/Outputs

These acute and chronic dietary exposure and risk estimates are conservative since they assume that 100% of crops are treated with cyazofamid and that residues are present at tolerance levels.  In addition, drinking water exposure estimates were based on screening level estimates generated by the PRZM-EXAMS model.  Dietary exposure estimates could be refined through the use of anticipated residues and percent crop treated data, as well as refined estimated drinking water concentrations.  However, since estimated exposures and risks using conservative assumptions are well below HED’s level of concern, such refinement is not warranted.

VIII.	Conclusions

These unrefined, Tier 1 dietary exposure analyses using DEEM-FCID™ indicate that acute and chronic dietary exposures to cyazofamid from food and drinking water are well below HED’s level of concern for this pesticide.  The estimated acute exposure of females 13-49 years old, the only population subgroup of concern for acute exposure, represents <1% of the aPAD at the 95th percentile of exposure.  Estimated chronic dietary exposures are less than or equal to 1.1% of the cPAD for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups.

IX.		List of Attachments

	Acute Food + Drinking Water Input File

	Acute Food + Drinking Water Results File

	Chronic Food + Drinking Water Input File

	Chronic Food + Drinking Water Results File

ACUTE FOOD + DRINKING WATER INPUT FILE

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                                 Ver. 2.02

DEEM-FCID Acute analysis for CYAZOFAMID

Residue file name: C:\DEEMFCID\DEEMFCIDAACIERTO\cyazofamid\D357043 acute cyazofamid food + water.R98 Analysis Date 03-26-2009

Residue file dated: 03-26-2009/15:14:19/8

Reference dose: aRfD = 1 mg/kg bw/day  NOEL = 100 mg/kg bw/day

Comment: Acute Food + Drinking Water using CTCA Drinking Water estimate (scenario #3): Females 13-49 only.

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

  EPA    Crop                                   Def Res     Adj.Factors   Comment

  Code    Grp  Food Name                         (ppm)       #1    #2

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

09020210 9B   Balsam pear                        0.100000   1.000  1.000

09010750 9A   Cantaloupe                         0.100000   1.000  1.000

01010780 1AB  Carrot                             0.090000   1.000  1.000

01010781 1AB  Carrot-babyfood                    0.090000   1.000  1.000

09010800 9A   Casaba                             0.100000   1.000  1.000

09020880 9B   Chayote, fruit                     0.100000   1.000  1.000

09021020 9B   Chinese waxgourd                   0.100000   1.000  1.000

09021350 9B   Cucumber                           0.100000   1.000  1.000

08001480 8    Eggplant                           0.400000   1.000  1.000

95001750 O    Grape                              1.500000   1.000  1.000

95001760 O    Grape, juice                       1.500000   1.000  1.000

95001761 O    Grape, juice-babyfood              1.500000   1.000  1.000

95001770 O    Grape, leaves                      1.500000   1.000  1.000

95001780 O    Grape, raisin                      1.500000   1.000  1.000

95001790 O    Grape, wine and sherry             1.500000   1.000  1.000

09011870 9A   Honeydew melon                     0.100000   1.000  1.000

08002340 8    Okra                               0.400000   1.000  1.000

08002700 8    Pepper, bell                       0.400000   1.000  1.000

08002701 8    Pepper, bell-babyfood              0.400000   1.000  1.000

08002710 8    Pepper, bell, dried                0.400000   1.000  1.000

08002711 8    Pepper, bell, dried-babyfood       0.400000   1.000  1.000

08002720 8    Pepper, nonbell                    0.400000   1.000  1.000

08002721 8    Pepper, nonbell-babyfood           0.400000   1.000  1.000

08002730 8    Pepper, nonbell, dried             0.400000   1.000  1.000

01032960 1C   Potato, chips                      0.020000   1.000  1.000

01032970 1C   Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)     0.020000   1.000  1.000

01032971 1C   Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)-b   0.020000   1.000  1.000

01032980 1C   Potato, flour                      0.020000   1.000  1.000

01032981 1C   Potato, flour-babyfood             0.020000   1.000  1.000

01032990 1C   Potato, tuber, w/peel              0.020000   1.000  1.000

01032991 1C   Potato, tuber, w/peel-babyfood     0.020000   1.000  1.000

01033000 1C   Potato, tuber, w/o peel            0.020000   1.000  1.000

01033001 1C   Potato, tuber, w/o peel-babyfood   0.020000   1.000  1.000

09023080 9B   Pumpkin                            0.100000   1.000  1.000

09023090 9B   Pumpkin, seed                      0.100000   1.000  1.000

09023560 9B   Squash, summer                     0.100000   1.000  1.000

09023561 9B   Squash, summer-babyfood            0.100000   1.000  1.000

09023570 9B   Squash, winter                     0.100000   1.000  1.000

09023571 9B   Squash, winter-babyfood            0.100000   1.000  1.000

08003740 8    Tomatillo                          0.400000   1.000  1.000

08003750 8    Tomato                             0.400000   1.000  1.000

08003751 8    Tomato-babyfood                    0.400000   1.000  1.000

08003760 8    Tomato, paste                      0.400000   1.000  1.000

08003761 8    Tomato, paste-babyfood             0.400000   1.000  1.000

08003770 8    Tomato, puree                      0.400000   1.000  1.000

08003771 8    Tomato, puree-babyfood             0.400000   1.000  1.000

08003780 8    Tomato, dried                      0.400000   1.000  1.000

08003781 8    Tomato, dried-babyfood             0.400000   1.000  1.000

08003790 8    Tomato, juice                      0.400000   1.000  1.000

95003800 O    Tomato, Tree                       0.200000   1.000  1.000

86010000 O    Water, direct, all sources         0.136000   1.000  1.000

86020000 O    Water, indirect, all sources       0.136000   1.000  1.000

09013990 9A   Watermelon                         0.100000   1.000  1.000

09014000 9A   Watermelon, juice                  0.100000   1.000  1.000

ACUTE FOOD + DRINKING WATER  RESULT FILE

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                             Ver. 2.02

DEEM-FCID ACUTE Analysis for CYAZOFAMID                       (1994-98 data)

Residue file: D357043 acute cyazofamid food + water.R98

Adjustment factor #2 NOT used.

Analysis Date: 03-26-2009/16:58:40  Residue file dated: 03-26-2009/15:14:19/8

NOEL (Acute) = 100.000000 mg/kg body-wt/day

Daily totals for food and foodform consumption used.

Run Comment: "Acute Food + Drinking Water using CTCA Drinking Water estimate (scenario #3): Females 13-49 only."

======================================================================== =====

Summary calculations (per capita):

      95th Percentile           99th Percentile             99.9th Percentile

 Exposure  % aRfD    MOE    Exposure  % aRfD   MOE    Exposure  % aRfD   MOE

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

Females 13-49 yrs:

  0.009409   0.94   10627   0.015596    1.56   6411  0.022290    2.23    4486

CHRONIC FOOD + DRINKING WATER INPUT FILE

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                                Ver. 2.00

DEEM-FCID Chronic analysis for CYAZOFAMID                        1994-98 data

Residue file: C:\Documents and Settings\aacierto\Desktop\CYAZOFAMID.09\

chronic cyazofamid food + water.R98                       Adjust. #2 NOT used   Analysis Date 03-26-2009  Residue file dated: 03-26-2009/16:43:49/8

Reference dose (RfD) = 0.95  (NOEL) = 94.8 mg/kg bw/day

Comment:Chronic Food + Drinking Water using CTCA Drinking Water estimate (scenario #3)

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

Food Crop                                       Residue       Adj.Factors      Comment

EPA Code  Grp  Food Name                          (ppm)

                                                             #1         #2

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

09020210 9B   Balsam pear                        0.100000   1.000      1.000

09010750 9A   Cantaloupe                         0.100000   1.000      1.000

01010780 1AB  Carrot                             0.090000   1.000      1.000

01010781 1AB  Carrot-babyfood                    0.090000   1.000      1.000

09010800 9A   Casaba                             0.100000   1.000      1.000

09020880 9B   Chayote, fruit                     0.100000   1.000      1.000

09021020 9B   Chinese waxgourd                   0.100000   1.000      1.000

09021350 9B   Cucumber                           0.100000   1.000      1.000

08001480 8    Eggplant                           0.400000   1.000      1.000

95001750 O    Grape                              1.500000   1.000      1.000

95001760 O    Grape, juice                       1.500000   1.000      1.000

95001761 O    Grape, juice-babyfood              1.500000   1.000      1.000

95001770 O    Grape, leaves                      1.500000   1.000      1.000

95001780 O    Grape, raisin                      1.500000   1.000      1.000

95001790 O    Grape, wine and sherry             1.500000   1.000      1.000

09011870 9A   Honeydew melon                     0.100000   1.000      1.000

08002340 8    Okra                               0.400000   1.000      1.000

08002700 8    Pepper, bell                       0.400000   1.000      1.000

08002701 8    Pepper, bell-babyfood              0.400000   1.000      1.000

08002710 8    Pepper, bell, dried                0.400000   1.000      1.000

08002711 8    Pepper, bell, dried-babyfood       0.400000   1.000      1.000

08002720 8    Pepper, nonbell                    0.400000   1.000      1.000

08002721 8    Pepper, nonbell-babyfood           0.400000   1.000      1.000

08002730 8    Pepper, nonbell, dried             0.400000   1.000      1.000

01032960 1C   Potato, chips                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

01032970 1C   Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)     0.020000   1.000      1.000

01032971 1C   Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)-b   0.020000   1.000      1.000

01032980 1C   Potato, flour                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

01032981 1C   Potato, flour-babyfood             0.020000   1.000      1.000

01032990 1C   Potato, tuber, w/peel              0.020000   1.000      1.000

01032991 1C   Potato, tuber, w/peel-babyfood     0.020000   1.000      1.000

01033000 1C   Potato, tuber, w/o peel            0.020000   1.000      1.000

01033001 1C   Potato, tuber, w/o peel-babyfood   0.020000   1.000      1.000

09023080 9B   Pumpkin                            0.100000   1.000      1.000

09023090 9B   Pumpkin, seed                      0.100000   1.000      1.000

09023560 9B   Squash, summer                     0.100000   1.000      1.000

09023561 9B   Squash, summer-babyfood            0.100000   1.000      1.000

09023570 9B   Squash, winter                     0.100000   1.000      1.000

09023571 9B   Squash, winter-babyfood            0.100000   1.000      1.000

08003740 8    Tomatillo                          0.400000   1.000      1.000

08003750 8    Tomato                             0.400000   1.000      1.000

08003751 8    Tomato-babyfood                    0.400000   1.000      1.000

08003760 8    Tomato, paste                      0.400000   1.000      1.000

08003761 8    Tomato, paste-babyfood             0.400000   1.000      1.000

08003770 8    Tomato, puree                      0.400000   1.000      1.000

08003771 8    Tomato, puree-babyfood             0.400000   1.000      1.000

08003780 8    Tomato, dried                      0.400000   1.000      1.000

08003781 8    Tomato, dried-babyfood             0.400000   1.000      1.000

08003790 8    Tomato, juice                      0.400000   1.000      1.000

95003800 O    Tomato, Tree                       0.200000   1.000      1.000

86010000 O    Water, direct, all sources         0.133000   1.000      1.000

86020000 O    Water, indirect, all sources       0.133000   1.000      1.000

09013990 9A   Watermelon                         0.100000   1.000      1.000

09014000 9A   Watermelon, juice                  0.100000   1.000      1.000

CHRONIC FOOD + DRINKING WATER RESULT FILE

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                              Ver. 2.00

DEEM-FCID Chronic analysis for CYAZOFAMID                     (1994-98 data)

Residue file name: C:\Documents and Settings\aacierto\Desktop\CYAZOFAMID.09\chronic cyazofamid food + water.R98

                                              Adjustment factor #2 NOT used.

Analysis Date 03-26-2009/16:51:02   Residue file dated: 03-26-2009/16:43:49/8

Reference dose (RfD, Chronic)= .95 mg/kg bw/day NOEL (Chronic) = 94.8 mg/kg bw/day

COMMENT 1: Chronic Food + Drinking Water using CTCA Drinking Water estimate (scenario #3)

======================================================================== =====

                    Total exposure by population subgroup

------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----                                                    									Total Exposure

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

          Population                         mg/kg       Margin of   Percent

           Subgroup                       body wt/day   Exposure 1/  of RfD

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

U.S. Population (total)                     0.003984       23,796        0.4%

U.S. Population (spring season)             0.003902       24,296        0.4%

U.S. Population (summer season)             0.004324       21,924        0.5%

U.S. Population (autumn season)             0.003841       24,680        0.4%

U.S. Population (winter season)             0.003863       24,539        0.4%

Northeast region                            0.003905       24,279        0.4%

Midwest region                              0.003998       23,709        0.4%

Southern region                             0.003701       25,612        0.4%

Western region                              0.004489       21,120        0.5%

Hispanics                                   0.004324       21,926        0.5%

Non-hispanic whites                         0.003958       23,949        0.4%

Non-hispanic blacks                         0.003672       25,814        0.4%

Non-hisp/non-white/non-black                0.004488       21,124        0.5%

All infants (< 1 year)                      0.010761        8,809        1.1%

Nursing infants                             0.004073       23,276        0.4%

Non-nursing infants                         0.013299        7,128        1.4%

Children 1-6  yrs                           0.007625       12,433        0.8%

Children 7-12 yrs                           0.003998       23,712        0.4%

Females 13-19 (not preg or nursing)         0.002740       34,599        0.3%

-

)

hg

-

-

2

3

I

d

䬀ĤԀ)

*

0

1

2

3

@

I

Y

Z

c

d

e

r

z

{

¢

£

¤

¹

½

¾

Ç

Ë

Ì

Í

Î

Õ

Ù

Ú

â

ð

ñ

ú

ü

-d

e

{

£

ਁ氃愀϶،瑹㟎'̀£

¤

¾

Ì

ਁ氃愀϶،瑹㟎'̀Ì

Í

Ú

ð

ਁ氃愀϶،瑹㟎'̀ð

ñ

!

2

K

k

l

Œ

¥

Å

Æ

Ê

萏֠萑褐葞֠葠褐᐀!

#

1

2

3

B

K

k

q

|

‹

Œ

œ

¥

Ã

Ë

Í

Ê

Ë

ã

@

„@

„Àô^„@

@

@

@

@

h

h

h

h

@

@

î欀彤

ô

ô

ô

@

@

@

摧࿆Ã

摧࿆Ã

摧࿆Ã

摧࿆Ã

摧࿆Ã

G

G

h

h

G

&

@

Œ

h

@

&

@

&

@

h

@

@

gd

 h©

% h©

h

 h

 h©

 h©

 h©

 h©

 h©

 h©

Females 20+ (not preg or nursing)           0.003711       25,545        0.4%

Females 13-50 yrs                           0.003634       26,090        0.4%

Females 13+ (preg/not nursing)              0.003386       27,994        0.4%

Females 13+ (nursing)                       0.004717       20,099        0.5%

Males 13-19 yrs                             0.002726       34,772        0.3%

Males 20+ yrs                               0.003333       28,444        0.4%

Seniors 55+                                 0.003672       25,815        0.4%

Children 1-2 yrs                            0.009260       10,237        1.0%

Children 3-5 yrs                            0.007258       13,061        0.8%

Children 6-12 yrs                           0.004219       22,469        0.4%

Youth 13-19 yrs                             0.002741       34,584        0.3%

Adults 20-49 yrs                            0.003461       27,391        0.4%

Adults 50+ yrs                              0.003659       25,907        0.4%

Females 13-49 yrs                           0.003472       27,305        0.4%

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

Cyazofamid Dietary Exposure Assessment		DP Number: 34344लउ䍐䌠摯㩥〠㔸㔶റ彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟 彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟 彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟彟ൟ


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30080-30081]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12612]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0355; FRL-9304-1]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer
County Air Pollution Control District and Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Placer County Air
Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District (VCAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from surface coatings of metal parts and
products. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by June 23, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0355, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adrianne Borgia, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3576<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local
rules: PCAPCD Rule 245, ``Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products''
and VCAPCD Rule 74.12, ``Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products,''
In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are
approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior
proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial.
If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in
subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we
receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: April 25, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-12612 Filed 5-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67406-67408]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26900]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602; FRL-9919-07-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR33

Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary
Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; additional information regarding the translation of
emission rate-based CO2 goals to mass-based equivalents.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing this
notice in support of the proposed rule, ``Carbon Pollution Emission
Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating
Units,'' published on June 18, 2014 and the supplemental proposal,
``Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines: Existing Stationary Sources in
Indian Country and U.S. Territories; Multi-jurisdictional
Partnerships,'' issued on October 28, 2014, to provide further
discussion of potential approaches for translating the emission rate-
based carbon dioxide (CO2) goals that the EPA has proposed
for each affected jurisdiction to an equivalent mass-based metric.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule published on June 18, 2014, along
with the additional information presented in this notice, must be
received on or before December 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602, by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
    Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0602 in the subject line of the message.
    Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0602 on the cover page.
    Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Mail code 28221T, Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West
Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attn:
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. Such deliveries are accepted only
during the Docket Center's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays), and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
Docket ID No. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602). The EPA's policy is to include
all comments received without change, including any personal
information provided, in the public docket, available online at http://www.regulations.gov, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver information identified as
CBI only to the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk
or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or
CD-ROM the specific information you claim as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, you must submit a copy of the comment that does not contain the
information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    The EPA requests that you also submit a separate copy of your
comments to the contact person identified below (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). If the comment includes information you consider
to be CBI or otherwise protected, you should send a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information claimed as CBI or otherwise
protected.
    The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption and be free of any
defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public

Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for additional information about
the EPA's public docket.
    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this notice will be available on the World Wide Web (WWW). Following
signature, a copy of this notice will be posted at the following
address: http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Vasu, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D205-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number (919) 541-
4991; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Ms. Lisa Conner, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (D205-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number (919)
541-4991; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Organization of This Document. The
information presented in this notice is organized as follows:

    I. Background
    A. Proposed Rule
    B. Purpose of the Notice
    II. Additional Information on the Translation of Emission Rate-
Based CO2 Goals to Mass-Based Equivalents

I. Background

A. Proposed Rule

    On June 18, 2014, under the authority of Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 111(d), the EPA proposed emission guidelines for states to
follow in developing plans to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs)(79 FR
34830). On October 28, 2014, the EPA also issued a supplemental
proposal, ``Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines: Existing Stationary
Sources in Indian Country and U.S. Territories; Multi-jurisdictional
Partnerships'' (79 FR 65481).
    One of the main elements of the proposals is the establishment of
emission rate-based CO2 goals. To set these goals, the EPA
analyzed practical and affordable strategies that states and utilities
are already using to lower carbon pollution from the power sector.
These strategies are incorporated into what the proposal describes as
building blocks that comprise the best system of emission reduction
(BSER).\1\ These strategies, which are already being deployed by states
and companies across the country, include improvements in efficiency at
carbon-intensive power plants; programs that enhance generation from,
and spur private investments in, low emitting and renewable power
sources; as well as programs that help homes and businesses use
electricity more efficiently. The EPA has proposed goals for each
state, area of Indian country and U.S. territory with affected EGUs, as
a carbon intensity rate, in terms of CO2 per megawatt-hour
generated. In calculating the emission rate-based goal, the EPA also
took into consideration the area's fuel mix, electricity market and
numerous other factors. Thus, each goal reflects the unique conditions
of each state, area of Indian country and U.S. territory. The proposed
rule also provides flexibility by authorizing each implementing
authority to demonstrate achievement of the goal using a mass-based
metric that is equivalent to its emission rate-based CO2
goal. With the proposed rule issued on June 18, 2014, the EPA issued a
TSD that demonstrates one potential way to translate the rate-based
goal to a mass-based equivalent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAA sections 111(d)(1) and (a)(1) direct the EPA to define
BSER as the basis for state plans to reduce CO2 from the
affected sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Purpose of the Notice

    Upon issuance of the proposed rule, the EPA continued the extensive
outreach effort to stakeholders and members of the public that the EPA
had engaged in for many months preceding the proposal. This outreach
has provided opportunities for all jurisdictions with affected
entities--both individually and in regional groups--as well as numerous
industry groups and non-governmental organizations, to meet with the
EPA and ask clarifying questions about, and give initial reactions to,
the proposed components, requirements and timing of the rulemaking.
This outreach has included individual meetings; attendance at
conferences; webinars; conference calls; and other communications,
during which the EPA has responded to hundreds of clarifying questions
about the proposal and received numerous initial reactions in both oral
and written form. This engagement has been designed to facilitate a
better understanding of the rule by stakeholders so that they could
provide more informed substantive comments for the EPA to consider for
the final rule, as well as allow the EPA to consider stakeholders'
initial reactions.
    During these discussions, many of the states, in particular,
emphasized the importance of having more information and clarity on how
the proposed rate-based goals could potentially be translated to a
mass-based equivalent metric. Some states requested additional
information about how they might calculate a mass-based equivalent
metric, while other states requested that the EPA calculate and provide
presumptive mass-based equivalent metrics.
    The purpose of this notice is to share additional information
regarding potential methods for determining the mass that is equivalent
to the emission rate-based CO2 goal that the EPA has
proposed. With this notice, the EPA is also making available a TSD that
provides detailed information to further inform and assist implementing
authorities and stakeholders in understanding the proposal. This notice
is consistent with the methodologies used to define BSER in the June
18, 2014, proposal and October 28, 2014 supplemental proposal and does
not reflect any type of response to the comments that we have received
to date. Readers should also note that the TSD, and the illustrative
numbers presented therein, are based on the emission rate-based goals
as proposed; any calculations of mass equivalents would naturally yield
different results if the emission rate-based goals themselves were to
change in the course of developing the final rule.

II. Additional Information on the Translation of Emission Rate-Based
CO2 Goals to Mass-Based Equivalents

    In the proposed rule published on June 18, 2014, the EPA proposed a
set of state-specific emission rate-based CO2 goals (in
pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity generated).
In addition, the EPA issued emission rate-based CO2 goals
for areas of Indian country and U.S. territories with affected EGUs in
a supplemental proposal on October 28, 2014. The proposals authorized
each implementing authority to translate the form of the emission rate-
based goal to a mass-based form (i.e., goals expressed in terms of
total tons of CO2 per year from affected sources), as long
as the translated goal achieves the equivalent in stringency. Today's
notice provides additional detail, and describes two potential
methodologies for this translation. Today's notice is accompanied by a
TSD titled ``Translation of the Clean Power Plan Emission Rate-Based
CO2 Goals to Mass-Based Equivalents,'' which has been placed
in the docket for the rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602). For
purposes of illustrating two methodologies for potential use in making
rate-to-mass translations,

today's notice and accompanying TSD identify two sets of mass-based
values for each state, area of Indian country and U.S. territory with
affected EGUs that could be considered equivalent to the proposed rate-
based goals, as discussed below: One that is based on historical
emissions from existing sources, and a second that is based on
historical emissions from existing sources and projected emissions that
would result from demand growth that is reflected in generation at both
existing and new sources in the event that an implementing authority
may want to include new sources of generation in its compliance
approach. Illustrative values for each state, area of Indian country
and U.S. territory with affected EGUs (along with the underlying data)
for each method are also presented in the TSD.
    In the proposed rule, the EPA intended to afford a considerable
amount of flexibility in choosing the types of programs and measures
needed to meet the goals established by the rulemaking. An important
proposed element of this flexibility is allowing each implementing
authority to demonstrate compliance with its interim and final rate-
based goals established in the proposal, or to establish equivalent
mass-based metrics for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the
provisions of the rule. The agency recognizes that implementing
authorities can use a mix of measures and programs to meet their goals
regardless of which form of the standard they choose to use to
demonstrate compliance in the state plan, including both programs that
use mass-based metrics, as well as measures that use rate-based
measures. State plans submitted to the EPA will be required either to
(i) demonstrate that their programs and measures meet the rate-based
goals established by the rulemaking, or (ii) if they choose to
translate the rate-based goals into mass-based equivalents, demonstrate
achievement of the goals using the mass-based metrics.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Note that the metric for compliance is independent from the
approaches that implementing authorities may adopt to achieve them.
For example, a state could potentially adopt a mass-based program
that achieves a rate-based goal, or adopt rate-based standards and/
or other measures and demonstrate that they have met the goal using
a mass-based metric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In section VII of the preamble to the June 18, 2014 proposed rule,
the EPA provides basic considerations necessary to translate the
emission rate-based CO2 goals into mass-based equivalents,
for state plan purposes (79 FR 34897). The EPA also included in the
docket for the rule a TSD titled ``Projecting EGU CO2
Emission Performance in State Plans,'' that discusses the
considerations, data and technical approaches that can be considered
when converting the emission rate-based CO2 goals into a
mass-based equivalent metric, and focuses on one potential approach
that implementing authorities could employ. The basic methodology
presented in these documents is for the implementing authority to
project for a given period the amount of generation by affected
entities; to determine the amount of tons of CO2 that would
be emitted by affected EGUS; and to assure that the ratio of affected
EGU emissions to affected entity generation is equivalent to the
emissions performance of the rate-based goal.
    The data, assumptions and methodological choices used for the
estimation of generation by affected entities are of central importance
for translation to a mass-based metric.\3\ For instance, uncertainties
about future demand, the future inventory of EGUs and the relative
amounts of generation among EGUs in light of, for example, fuel costs
can influence the translation to a mass-based equivalent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Some stakeholders have observed that addressing potential
translation to a mass equivalent could incorporate generation from
``affected entities'' that include generators beyond ``affected
EGUs.'' The proposal invited comment on how generation across
``affected entities'' (including at ``affected EGUs'') should be
considered when calculating mass equivalents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to requests by states, we are issuing this notice and
the TSD, ``Translation of the Clean Power Plan Emission Rate-Based
CO2 Goals to Mass-Based Equivalents,'' to present
information about potential methods for translating the rate-based
goals to mass-based equivalents. The TSD presents two additional
possible methods for calculating mass-based equivalent metrics, the
underlying data and shows the mass-based equivalent metric. The first
method, based on historical data, produces mass-based equivalent
metrics that apply to existing affected EGUs only. The second method,
based on a combination of historical data and a projection of future
electric demand, produces mass-based equivalent metrics that are
inclusive of new fossil fuel-fired sources, in light of the fact that
the rule takes comment on the inclusion of new, fossil fuel-fired
sources as a component of state plans. As the starting point for these
calculations, we use the proposed emission rate-based CO2
goals set forth in the rulemaking. Also, to maintain consistency with
the proposed rule, the calculations contain the same generation data
used in setting the rate-based goals (i.e., 2012 eGRID data for
historical generation, and Annual Energy Outlook 2013 for regional
growth estimates) to project future levels of generation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Agency has received comments from some states about the
accuracy of the 2012 data, as well as whether we should use more
than a single year of data to determine the rate-based goals. We are
reviewing all comments, information, and requests for data
corrections received to date and will continue reviewing stakeholder
input submitted to the docket by the close of the public comment
period. Any changes to the emission rate-based goals and underlying
data will be reflected in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is providing this additional information to states, U.S.
territories, tribes, and other stakeholders to provide a better
understanding of the proposed rule. It should be reiterated that the
mass-based equivalent metrics presented in the TSD are not required
mass-based emission limits that implementing authorities must meet;
rather, they are illustrations of two potential options that
implementing authorities may choose to adopt if they choose to use a
mass-based form of the emission rate-based goal. The EPA presents them
to provide stakeholders a better understanding of the methodology and
mass outcomes associated with two possible ways of calculating mass-
based equivalent metrics.

    Dated: November 6, 2014.
Janet G. McCabe,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2014-26900 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 183 (Monday, September 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 59365]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20710]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-148, OMB Control No. 3235-0133]

Proposed Collection; 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 17a-19 and Form X-17A-19

    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'') is soliciting comments on the
existing collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-19 (17 CFR
240.17a-19) and Form X-17A-19 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 17a-19 requires every national securities exchange and
registered national securities association to file a Form X-17A-19 with
the Commission and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation
(``SIPC'') within 5 business days of the initiation, suspension, or
termination of any member and, when terminating the membership interest
of any member, to notify that member of its obligation to file
financial reports as required by Exchange Act Rule 17a-5(b) (17 CFR
240.17a-5(b)). There are currently a total of 10 national securities
exchanges and registered national securities associations that are
potential respondents under the rule.
    Commission staff anticipates that the national securities exchanges
and registered national securities associations collectively will make
408 total filings annually pursuant to Rule 17a-19 and that each filing
will take approximately 15 minutes. The total reporting burden is
estimated to be approximately 102 total annual hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    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.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 15, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20710 Filed 9-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From: Melissa Payne/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Dave Darling"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Date: 08/07/2009 11:23 AM

Subject: RE: Reconstruction

Dave,

I just looked at the Chemical Manufacturing Area Source rule and we can
most likely do something like what they have, i.e.

(1)  An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source before (add date).

(2)  An affected source is new if you commenced construction or

reconstruction of the affected source on or after (add same date).

I'll check with General Council on the dates and language.

I hope this is helpful,

Melissa

Melissa Payne

Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

919.541.3609

From: "Dave Darling"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

To: Melissa Payne/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
                                                                 Date:
08/07/2009 11:05 AM

Subject: RE: Reconstruction

Melissa  - any word on the reconstruction question?

thanks

David

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 2:06 PM

To: Dave Darling

Subject: Re: Reconstruction

David,

There is no reconstruction definition in the proposal; let me look into
this and get back to you in a couple of days.

Thanks,

Melissa

Melissa Payne

Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

919.541.3609

to: Melissa Payne 07/29/2009 01:59 PM

Melissa - question - a facility is considering adding a couple tanks and
worried about the compliance date since as proposed - new and
reconstructed sources would have to comply by the date of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register or upon startup of the facility,
whichever is later as opposed to 2 years for existing.

Is there a definition for reconstruction? The MACT standards had a
modification definition having to do with capital expenditures, etc.?

I'm hoping that over the next two years or so facilities can make minor
modifications with falling into the new source trap suggestions?

David


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22414-22417]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10211]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0410; Product Identifier 2018-NM-030-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an
inspection on the production line that revealed evidence of paint
peeling on the forward and aft cargo frame forks around the hook bolt
hole. This proposed AD would require a detailed visual inspection for
any deficiency of the frame forks around the hook bolt hole on certain
forward and aft cargo doors and applicable corrective actions. We are
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45
80; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0410; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace
Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0410;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-030-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2018-0031, dated January 31, 2018 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes.
The MCAI states:

    Following an inspection on the production line, paint peeling
was found on forward and aft cargo door frame forks around the hook
bolt hole. Subsequent investigations determined this had been caused
by incorrect masking method during application of primer, top coat
and Tartaric Sulfuric Anodizing (TSA) layer. As the cargo doors are
located in an area with high corrosion sensitivity, where a surface
protection with primer, top coat and TSA is specified, in case of
paint peeling off, galvanic corrosion could develop.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
cargo door failure, possibly resulting in decompression of the
aeroplane and injury to occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus identified
the affected parts and issued the SB [Airbus Service Bulletin (SB)
A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017] to provide inspection
instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time detailed [visual] inspection (DET) of the affected parts [for
discrepancies] and, depending on findings, accomplishment of
applicable corrective action(s) [i.e., restoration of the anti-
corrosion protection of frame forks of affected parts].

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0410.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P011, dated May
12, 2017. This service information describes procedures for a one-time
detailed visual inspection of the frame forks around the hook bolt hole
on the forward and aft cargo door, and applicable corrective actions.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Action                Labor cost       Parts cost        Cost per product     Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...................  Up to 9 work-                 $0  Up to $765.............  Up to $6,885.
                                hours x $85 per
                                hour = $765.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition
actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed
inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need this action:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoration...................................  9 work-hours x $85 per hour =                $50            $815
                                                 $765.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0410; Product Identifier 2018-NM-030-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 29, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes certificated
in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an inspection on the production line
that revealed evidence of paint peeling on the forward and aft cargo
frame forks around the hook bolt hole. We are issuing this AD to
address paint peeling on the forward and aft cargo doors that could
develop into galvanic corrosion, which could lead to cargo door
failure and possibly result in decompression of the airplane and
injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

 (g) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, the affected parts are forward
cargo doors, part number (P/N) WG102AGAAAAF and P/N WG102AKAAAAF,
serial number (S/N) UH10007 through UH10022 inclusive, except S/N
UH10009; and aft cargo doors P/N WH102AHAAAAC and P/N WH102ALAAAAC,
S/N UH10008 through UH10022 inclusive.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable forward cargo door
or a serviceable aft cargo door is a part that is not identified as
an affected part, or is a part identified as an affected part on
which a detailed visual inspection specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017, has been done and there
were no findings.

(h) Inspection

    Within 36 months since the date of issuance of the original
standard airworthiness certificate or date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness, or within 90 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
accomplish a detailed visual inspection of each affected part for
any deficiency (e.g., any paint peel-off of the hook bolt hole of
the frame fork), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017.

(i) Corrective Actions

    If, during any detailed visual inspection required by paragraph
(h) of this AD, any deficiency is found, before next flight, restore
the anti-corrosion protection of frame forks of the affected part,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017, except as required by
paragraph (j) of this AD.

(j) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    Where Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017,
specifies contacting Airbus, and specifies that action as RC: This
AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD.

(k) Parts Installation Limitation

    From the effective date of this AD, it is allowed to install on
an airplane a forward cargo door or an aft cargo door, provided the
part is a serviceable forward cargo door or serviceable aft cargo
door as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j) of this AD: If any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0031, dated January 31, 2018, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0410.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen
Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 7, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-10211 Filed 5-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11850-11852]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05912]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 85399]

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

March 22, 2019.
    In the Matter of: The BOX Exchange LLC; Regarding a Suspension
of and Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine Whether to Approve
or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change to Amend the Fee Schedule on
the BOX Market LLC Options Facility to Establish BOX Connectivity
Fees for Participants and Non-Participants Who Connect to the BOX
Network (File No. SR-BOX-2019-04); Order Granting BOX Exchange LLC's
Petition for Review of Division of Trading and Markets Order by
Delegated Authority Temporarily Suspending and Instituting
Proceedings on SR-BOX-2019-04; Affirming the Division's Order; and
Lifting the Automatic Stay.

I. Background

    On February 13, 2019, BOX Exchange LLC (``BOX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed
rule change (SR-BOX-2019-04) (``BOX 3'') to amend the fee schedule on
the BOX Market LLC options facility to establish certain connectivity
fees and reclassify its high speed vendor feed connection as a port
fee. On February 26, 2019, the Division of Trading and Markets
(``Division''), acting pursuant to delegated authority,\3\ issued a
notice of the proposed rule change and order temporarily suspending the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act and
simultaneously instituting proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the
Act to determine whether to approve or

disapprove the proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission received one
comment letter on the proposal supporting the suspension and
institution of proceedings.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (57) and (58).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85201, 84 FR 7146
(March 1, 2019) (``Order Instituting Proceedings'').
    \5\ See letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, to Vanessa Countryman, Acting Secretary, Commission,
dated March 12, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 26, 2019, pursuant to Rule 430 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice,\6\ the Exchange filed a notice of intention to
petition for review of the Order Instituting Proceedings. Pursuant to
Rule 431(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice,\7\ a notice of
intention to petition for review results in an automatic stay of the
action by delegated authority. On March 5, 2019, the Exchange filed a
petition for review of the Order Instituting Proceedings.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 201.430.
    \7\ 17 CFR 201.431(e).
    \8\ Petition for Review of Order Temporarily Suspending BOX
Exchange LLC's Proposal to Amend the Fee Schedule on BOX Market LLC,
dated March 5, 2019 (``Petition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fees in the proposed rule change are identical to
those proposed in two prior BOX proposed rule changes, both of which
were similarly suspended by delegated authority.\9\ The Forms 19b-4 for
all three filings are substantively identical, except SR-BOX-2018-37
(``BOX 2'') and BOX 3 identify the broad categories of the Exchange's
costs to offer connectivity services and state that the proposed fees
would ``offset'' the Exchange's costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 84168 (September
17, 2018), 83 FR 47947 (September 21, 2018) (SR-BOX-2018-24) (``BOX
1'') and 84823 (December 14, 2018), 83 FR 65381 (December 20, 2018)
(SR-BOX-2018-37) (``BOX 2'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the instant proposal, the Exchange challenged the
Division's delegated authority to suspend and institute proceedings on
BOX 1.\10\ On November 16, 2018, the Commission granted the Exchange's
petition to review BOX 1 and discontinued the automatic stay of the
delegated action.\11\ On February 25, 2019, the Commission issued an
order affirming the action by delegated authority in BOX 1.\12\ The
Order Affirming the BOX 1 OIP also re-opened the comment and rebuttal
periods for BOX 1 to March 8, 2019 and March 15, 2019, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See letter from Amir C. Tayrani, Partner, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated
September 19, 2018; Petition for Review of Order Temporarily
Suspending BOX Exchange LLC's Proposal to Amend the Fee Schedule on
BOX Market LLC, dated September 26, 2018. The Commission notes that
the Exchange did not challenge the Division's action by delegated
authority to suspend and institute proceedings on BOX 2.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84614 (November 16,
2018), 83 FR 59432 (November 23, 2018).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85184, 84 FR 6842
(February 28, 2019) (``Order Affirming SR-BOX-2018-24 OIP'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    Pursuant to Rule 431 of the Commission Rules of Practice,\13\ the
Exchange's Petition is granted. The Commission is not providing for a
time period during which any party to the action or other person may
file a written statement in support of or in opposition to the Order
Instituting Proceedings.\14\ The Commission believes that the issues
raised by the Exchange's Petition were presented during the course of
the Commission's review of the Exchange's petition to review the
delegated action in BOX 1 temporarily suspending and instituting
proceedings, in which two statements were received and considered by
the Commission in its order affirming the delegated action.\15\ The
Commission therefore does not believe the Petition presents any new
issues that would benefit from an additional period for written
statement and believes that no time period for the filing of statements
is necessary for this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 201.431.
    \14\ 17 CFR 201.100(c).
    \15\ See Order Affirming SR-BOX-2018-24 OIP, supra note 12. See
also letters to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from Lisa J.
Fall, President, BOX, dated December 7, 2018 and Amir C. Tayrani,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, dated December 10, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's Rules of Practice set forth procedures for the
review of actions made pursuant to delegated authority. Rule 431(a)
provides that the Commission may affirm, reverse, modify, set aside, or
remand for further proceedings, in whole or in part, any action made
pursuant to authority delegated in 17 CFR 200.30-1 through 200.30-
18.\16\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission affirms the
temporary suspension of the proposed rule change and the institution of
proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 17 CFR 201.431(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instituting proceedings and keeping in place the temporary
suspension provides a process for the Commission to further consider
whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the statutory
requirements applicable to a national securities exchange under the
Act. In particular, this approach will allow the Commission to consider
whether the proposed rule change satisfies the standards under the Act
and the rules thereunder requiring, among other things, that (i) an
exchange's rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
fees among members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities;
(ii) do not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers; and (iii) do not impose any burden on competition
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act.\17\ Accordingly, the Order Instituting Proceedings properly
concluded that it was appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, and otherwise in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act to temporarily suspend the proposed rule change and to
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be approved or disapproved in view of the significant legal and
policy issues raised by the proposal.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Order Instituting Proceedings, supra note 4, at 7150.
    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, suspending the filing and instituting proceedings
constitutes an interim step in the Commission's consideration of the
substantive issues raised by the filing, and does not constitute a
final disposition of the proposed rule change. As reflected in the
Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission has not reached any
conclusions with respect to the issues involved.\19\ To the contrary,
the Commission sought additional comment with respect to the concerns
raised by the filing,\20\ and noted that the institution of proceedings
provides the Commission the opportunity to more fully assess the issues
raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, during the proceedings the Commission will consider
whether the proposal satisfies the standards under the Act and the
rules thereunder requiring, among other things, that an exchange's
rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among
members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities; not permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers;
and do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    Further, the Commission finds that it is in the public interest to
lift the stay during the pendency of the Commission's review. The
Commission believes the continued suspension of the proposed rule
change while the Commission conducts proceedings to consider the
Exchange's proposal will allow the Commission to further

consider the proposed fees' consistency with the Exchange Act without
the risk of allowing a fee that is potentially inconsistent with the
Exchange Act to remain in effect. The Commission also does not believe
that lifting the stay precludes meaningful review of the Order
Instituting Proceedings.
    For the reasons stated above, it is hereby:
    Ordered that the Exchange's petition for review of the Division's
action, by delegated authority, temporarily suspending the proposed
rule change and simultaneously instituting proceedings to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change be granted;
and
    It is further ordered that the Division's Order Instituting
Proceedings by delegated authority is hereby affirmed; and
    It is further ordered that the automatic stay of delegated action
pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice 431(e) \21\ is hereby
discontinued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 201.431(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The order temporarily suspending such proposed rule change and
instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
such proposed rule change shall remain in effect.

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05912 Filed 3-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P