[Federal Register: August 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 153)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45395-45400]
[DOCID:fr09au06-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0529; FRL-8083-8]

Lepidopteran Pheromones; Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends the existing exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of the biochemicals classified
as lepidopteran pheromones, which are naturally occurring compounds, or
identical or substantially similar synthetic compounds to include use
as a ``post-harvest treatment'' on all stored food commodities.
Bedoukian Research, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of biochemicals
classified as lepidopteran pheromones.

DATES: This regulation is effective August 9, 2006. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 10, 2006,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0529. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Bryceland, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this ``Federal Register'' document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
 To access OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines

referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm
.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or
request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by
EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0529 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be
in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or
before October 10, 2006.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0529, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of April 12, 2006 (71 FR 18735-18736) (FRL-
7773-8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of the
FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide
tolerance petition (PP 6F7044) by Bedoukian Research, Inc., 21 Finance
Drive, Danbury, CT 06810-4192. The petition requested that 40 CFR part
180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of biochemicals classified as lepidopteran
pheromones, which are naturally occurring compounds, or identical or
substantially similar synthetic compounds, designated by an unbranched
aliphatic chain (between 9 and 18 carbons) ending in an alcohol,
aldehyde, or acetate functional group and containing up to 3 double
bonds in the aliphatic backbone. This notice included a summary of the
petition prepared by the petitioner Bedoukian Research, Inc.. There
were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA
defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other
exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This includes
exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does
not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration
to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue
in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.... ''
Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA requires that the
Agency consider ``available information concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues '' and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed
the available scientific data and other relevant information in support
of this action and considered its validity,

completeness, and reliability and the relationship of this information
to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning
the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of
consumers, including infants and children.
    A pheromone (including identical or substantially similar synthetic
compounds) as defined by the Agency is a compound produced by an
arthropod which, alone or in combination with other compounds, modifies
the behavior of other individuals of the same species. Straight Chain
Lepidopteran Pheromones (SCLPs) are those produced by a member of the
order Lepidoptera, which includes butterflies and moths.
    The toxicity profile of SCLPs has already been assessed for their
pesticidal use by the Agency and published in support of the tolerance
exemption in or on all raw agricultural commodities for all straight
chain lepidopteran pheromones (SCLPs) that are naturally occurring
compounds, or identical or substantially similar synthetic compounds,
designated by an unbranched aliphatic chain (between 9 and 18 carbons)
ending in an alcohol, aldehyde or acetate functional group and
containing up to 3 double bonds in the aliphatic backbone, when the
pheromone is applied to growing crops at a rate not to exceed 150 grams
active ingredient/acre/year in accordance with good agricultural
practices. (See Sec.  180.1153, 60 FR 45060, August 30, 1995). This
final rule is amending the current Lepidopteran pheromone tolerance
exemption, 40 CFR 180.1153, to include indoor post-harvest treatment in
or on all stored food commodities at a rate not to exceed 3.5 grams
active ingredient/1,000 square feet/year (3.5 g a.i./1,000/
ft2/year) (equivalent to 150 grams active ingredient/acre/
year) in accordance with good agricultural practices. The toxicity
profile and use pattern of SCLPs, as mentioned above, have been fully
characterized by the Agency. SCLPs are lowly toxic, are released in
very small quantities in the environment, and act on a select group of
insects. They are biodegradable by enzyme systems present in most
living organisms and therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from their use as pesticides on food. For the purposes
of this tolerance exemption amendment, the Agency has relied on the
data and/or information previously submitted, in addition to
comprehensive reviews and risk assessments already conducted by the
Agency, and has reassessed that data in order to evaluate the request
to add post harvest uses to the tolerance exemption. The Agency
believes that in combination, the data and other information relied
upon for this tolerance exemption supports its conclusion that there is
reasonable certainty of no harm from the use of SCLPs as a post-harvest
treatment in or on all stored food commodities at a rate not to exceed
3.5 grams active ingredient (a.i.)/1,000 ft2/year
(equivalent of 150 grams a.i./acre/year in accordance with good
agricultural practices.
    The registrant did not submit any toxicity data testing the
technical grade of the active ingredient. Data waivers were requested
by the registrant and granted by the Agency based on the body of
extensive knowledge from the public literature and comprehensive
reviews and risk assessments conducted by the Agency on SCLPs. The
toxicity of the SCLPs via the oral, dermal, inhalation, eye, skin, and
genotoxicity routes of exposure have been assessed by the Agency (Refs.
1 and 5) and reassessed in light of the request to add indoor post
harvest treatment. The toxicity profile of SCLPs when used as a post-
harvest treatment in or on all stored food commodities does not change,
and SCLPs when used in this manner are lowly toxic. EPA therefore
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm resulting
from the use of SCLPs as indoor post-harvest treatment in or on all
stored food commodities. The data waivers that were granted are as
follows:
    1. OPPTS 870.1100 Acute oral toxicity (rat) (Ref 2)--LD50
 5,000 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg). The test material is
classified as a Toxicity Category IV for acute oral toxicity and
demonstrates that there is little potential of the active ingredient to
cause acute toxic effects. There were no adverse effects reported at
5,000 mg/kg.
    2. OPPTS 870.1200 Acute dermal toxicity (rat) (Ref 2)--LD50
 2,000 mg/kg. The test material is classified as a Toxicity
Category III for acute dermal toxicity and demonstrates that there is
little potential for toxic effects. There were no adverse effects
reported at 2,000 mg/kg.
    3. OPPTS 870.5100, 870.5300, and 870.5375 Genotoxicity (Ref. 2). No
evidence of mutageniticity.
    4. OPPTS 870.3700 Teratogenicity (Ref. 7). A developmental toxicity
study (rats), involving inhalation exposure to unbranched, primary
alcohols with chain length C8 to C10, indicated
no detectable developmental toxicity (Ref. 7).
    Published mammalian toxicity data on SCLPs indicate no significant
acute toxicity to humans (Ref. 6). A 90-day feeding study (870.3100)
(rats) was conducted at doses up to 1 g/kg, of a commercial blend of
branched acetates with an aliphatic chain length between C10
to C14. The results indicated no significant signs of
toxicity other than those expected with longer term exposure to high
doses of a hydrocarbon, namely, histopathologic evidence of nephropathy
in males and increased liver and kidney weights in both sexes (Ref. 8).

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of the FFDCA directs
EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

    The Agency calculated an estimate of total dietary exposure, for
adults and children, to pheromones used in agricultural and food
commodity storage areas. This estimate was calculated assuming an
application rate of 3.5 g a.i./1,000 ft2/year (the maximum
application rate for SCLPs), assuming 100% of commodities (fruits,
vegetables, and grains) are treated, and assuming that stored
commodities absorb 100% of the pheromone and that 100% of the
population eats all three commodity types each day. This scenario
produces a dietary exposure of 0.1 to 1 mg/kg/day. This calculation
demonstrates that there is an unlikely potential for significant
dietary exposure to SCLPs. As a result of the risk assessment the
Agency concludes that the use of SCLPs as a indoor post-harvest
treatment in or on all stored food commodities at the maximum use rate
of 3.5 g a.i./1,000 ft2/year will not add any new exposures
or risks and is considered safe.
    1. Food. The Agency has determined that post harvest treatment of
SCLPs to stored food commodities at the maximum application rate of 3.5
g a.i./1,000 ft2/year may reduce any new anticipated
exposure of SCLPs due to their indoor use. However, even if dietary
exposure to SCLPs are not reduced due to their use as pesticides, the
acute toxicity information demonstrating relatively low mammalian
toxicity (Refs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8) and biodegradability of SCLPs
(Refs 1 and 5) indicate that any possible risk associated with acute
exposures by the oral route would be low to non-existent.

    2. Drinking water exposure. No significant drinking water exposure
is expected to result from the use of SCLPs when applied as a post-
harvest treatment in or on all stored food commodities because they are
applied in storage facilities, biodegradable, and are lowly toxic.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    There are no residential, school or day care uses proposed for this
product. Since this use pattern is for agricultural food crops and
indoor post-harvest treatment in or on all stored food commodities, the
potential for non-occupational, non-dietary exposures to SCLPs by the
general population, including infants and children, is highly unlikely.
    1. Dermal exposure. Non-occupational dermal exposures to SCLP when
used as a post-harvest treatment to stored food commodities are
expected to be negligible because it is limited to agricultural use.
    2. Inhalation exposure. Non-occupational inhalation exposures to
SCLPs silicate when used as a post-harvest treatment to stored food
commodities are expected to be negligible because they are limited to
agricultural use.

V. Cumulative Effects

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider available information concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide's residues and other substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity. The information available at this time indicates
that SCLPs, when applied at a rate not greater than 3.5 g a.i./1,000
ft2/year, do not have a toxic effect. Therefore accumulative
effects form residues of SCLPs are not anticipated.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    1. U.S. population. The Agency has determined that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population
from aggregate exposure to residues of SCLPs when used for post harvest
treatment in or on all stored food commodities at a rate not to exceed
3.5 g a.i./1,000 ft2/year. This includes all anticipated
dietary exposures and other non-occupational exposures for which there
is reliable information. The Agency arrived at this conclusion based on
the low acute and subchronic toxicity of these pheromones, the
metabolic pathways for long-chain fatty acids derived from straight
chain alcohols, aldehydes and acetates are well understood, the low
exposure to these pheromones subsequent to application from aging,
volatilization, and the new use will be indoors, found that there is a
reasonable certainty of no harm that will result form the use of SCLP
and as a post-harvest treatment in or on all stored food commodities.
    2. Infants and children. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall
apply an additional tenfold margin of exposure for infants and children
in the case of threshold effects. Margins of exposure are often
referred to as uncertainty or safety factors, and are used to account
for potential prenatal and postnatal toxicity and any lack of
completeness of the data base. Based on available data and other
information, EPA may determine that a different margin of exposure will
define a level of concern for infants and children or that a margin of
exposure approach is not appropriate. Based on all the available
information the Agency reviewed on SCLPs, including a lack of threshold
effects, the Agency concluded that SCLPs are practically non-toxic to
mammals, including infants and children. Since there are no effects of
concern, the provision requiring an additional margin of safety does
not apply

VII. Other Considerations

A. Endocrine Disruptors

    EPA is required under section 408(p) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA,
to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances
(including all pesticide active and other ingredients) ``may have an
effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally
occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the
Administrator may designate.'' Following the recommendations of its
Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC),
EPA determined that there were scientific bases for including, as part
of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone systems, in addition
to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's
recommendation that the Program include evaluations of potential
effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and, to the extent
that effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may
have an effect in humans, FFDCA has authority to require the wildlife
evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of
additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor
Screening Program (EDSP).
    At this time, the Agency is not requiring information on the
endocrine effects of SCLPs. Based on the weight of the evidence of the
available data and the absence of any reports to the Agency of
sensitivity or other adverse effects, no endocrine system related
effects are identified for SCLPs and none are expected because of their
use. To date there is no evidence that SCLPs affect the immune system,
functions in a manner similar to any known hormones, or that they act
as endocrine disruptors. Thus, there is no impact via endocrine-related
effects on the Agency's safety finding set forth in this final rule
amending the SCLPs exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

B. Analytical Method(s)

    An enforcement analytical method (OPPTS Harmonized Guideline
830.1800) was provided by the petitioner. The method is gas
chromatography with flame ionization detection. The method may be
requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Sciece Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Mead, MD 20755-5350; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
C. Codex Maximum Residue Level

    There are no CODEX maximum residue levels for residues for any
SCLPs for indoor post-harvest treatment in or on all stored food
commodities.

VIII. Conclusions

    The Agency concludes that if products containing SCLPs as active
ingredients are applied for post harvest treatment in or on all stored
food commodities at a rate not to exceed 3.5 g a.i./1,000
ft2/year, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to
the U.S. population, including infants and children, will result from
aggregate exposure to residue of SCLPs, when used in or on all stored
food commodities.

IX. References

    1. Toughey, J.G. (ca 1990). ``White Paper - A review of the current
bases for the United States Environmental Protection Agency's policies
for the regulation of pheromones and other semiochemicals, together
with the review of the available relevant data which may impact the
assessment of risk for these classes of chemicals. Part No.1, Straight
Chain Alcohols, Acetate Esters, and Aldehydes.'' (unpublished report,
474 pp.)

    2. Federal Register. 59 FR 3687-3684, Jan. 26, 1994. EPA Notice:
Arthropod pheromones in solid matrix dispensers; Experimental Use
Permits.
    3. Federal Register. 59 FR 34812-34814, Jul. 7, 1994. EPA Notice:
Arthropod pheromones; Experimental Use Permits.
    4. Federal Register. 60 FR 45060-45062, Aug. 30,1995. EPA Rule:
Lepidopteran pheromones; Tolerance Exemption.
    5. EPA Final Rule: Lepidopteran Pheromones: Tolerance
Exemption.Environmental Directorate, 26 February, 2002, OECD Series on
Pesticides No. 12. Guidance for Registration Requirements for
Pheromones and Other Semiochemicals Used for Arthropod Pest Control.
ENV/JM/MONO(2001)12, Organization of Economic Co-operation and
Development. Paris, France. (http://www.epa.gov/ pesticides/

biopesticides/ regtools/ index.htm).
    6. Inscoe & Ridgway. 1992.
    7. Nelson et al. 1990.
    8. Daughtrey et al. 1990.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under section 408(d) of the FFDCA in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive
Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor
does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994);
or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not
involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration
of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA),
Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a
petition under section 408(d) of the FFDCA, such as the exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance in this final rule, do not require the
issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. In addition,
the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial
direct effect on 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, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects 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.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency
has determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications''
as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule

X. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: July 26, 2006.
Phil Hutton,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.1153 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1153  Lepidopteran pheromones; exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance.

    Lepidopteran pheromones that are naturally occurring compounds, or
identical or substantially similar synthetic compounds, designated by
an unbranched aliphatic chain (between 9 and 18 carbons) ending in an
alcohol, aldehyde or acetate functional group and containing up to 3
double bonds in the aliphatic backbone, are exempt from the requirement
of a tolerance in or on

all raw agricultural commodities. This exemption only pertains to those
situations when the pheromone is: Applied to growing crops at a rate
not to exceed 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year in accordance with
good agricultural practices; and applied as a post-harvest treatment to
stored food commodities at a rate not to exceed 3.5 grams active
ingredient/1,000 ft2/year (equivalent to 150 grams active
ingredient/acre/year) in accordance with good agricultural practices.
[FR Doc. E6-12971 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 235 (Monday, December 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78888-78889]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26783]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90541; File No. SR-LCH SA-2020-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Order Approving Proposed
Rule Change Relating to the Amendments to LCH SA's Liquidity Risk
Modelling Framework

December 1, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On October 20, 2020, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which
conducts business under the name LCH SA (``LCH SA''), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its
Liquidity Risk Modelling Framework (the ``Framework'') \3\ with respect
to the assignment and exercise of equity American options.\4\ The
Proposed Rule Change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on October 30, 2020.\5\ The Commission did not receive comments on the
proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission
is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the LCH SA CDS Clearing Rule Book, Supplement,
Procedures, or the Framework as applicable.
    \4\ See Notice infra note 5, 85 FR at 68935.
    \5\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Amendments of LCH SA Risk
Liquidity Modeling Framework, Exchange Act Release No. 90270
(October 26, 2020), 85 FR 68935 (October 30, 2020) (SR-LCH SA-2020-
006) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    LCH SA is proposing to amend the Framework in order to address more
accurately its liquidity requirements arising from the physical
settlement of equity American options involving a defaulting clearing
member during any liquidation of such clearing member. The current
Framework accounts for liquidity provision related to the risk of
assignment and exercise of equity American options and equity European
options at expiration.\6\ Given that equity American options can be
exercised before their expiration dates (referred to below as
``expiry''), LCH SA represented that there is a resulting funding risk
with respect to the exercise of equity American options prior to expiry
during the liquidation period of a defaulting clearing member that
needs to be modelled and accounted for in its daily liquidity coverage
ratio (``LCR'') calculation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice, 85 FR at 68936.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LCR is the ratio of available assets over the liabilities of
LCH SA under the stressed scenario of the default of the two largest
clearing members (``Cover 2 scenario''), based on their liquidity
needs.\8\ On a daily basis, the LCR calculation identifies all of the
potential option positions that are in the money or at the money on
that day and the next business day.\9\ Given the potential option
exercise, the LCR calculation generates a liquidity need.\10\ LCH SA
represented that the proposed rule change would be an enhancement to
the current Framework to address the funding risk posed by the
potential exercise of an equity American option at any time before
expiry when the two largest clearing members in terms of liquidity
needs may face liquidity issues.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address this risk, LCH SA is proposing specific modifications to
the Framework that would enable its LCR calculation to generate an
enhanced liquidity need in a Cover 2 scenario involving the physical
settlement of equity American options. The proposed rule change would
replace the term ``expiry'' with the term ``exercise'' in both section
<IP_ADDRESS> (Cash Equity) and section 5.3.4 (Cover 2 selection, Cash Equity
Settlement Liquidity Requirement) to account for equity settlements
arising from the options' exercise, rather than their expiry. The
proposed rule change would also revise the assumption about when equity
American options are considered to be exercised, which is set forth in
the ``Options Expiry'' paragraph of section <IP_ADDRESS> of the Framework.
In that paragraph, the proposed rule change would replace the term ``at
expiry'' with the phrase ``any time by defaulting members in order to
raise liquidity.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In practice, LCH SA represents that the process under the amended
Framework will work as follows on a daily basis:
     The liquidity needs arising from the equity American
options that are in the money or at the money will be computed, without
applying a stress scenario to the equities.
     The liquidity needs from the equity American options that
are in the money or at the money will be computed, by applying a stress
scenario to the equities.
     LCH SA will select the positions consistent with the two
largest clearing members in terms of liquidity needs for both modes
described above and will retain the most punitive one.
     This liquidity amount that LCH SA will potentially need
for the settlement of equity American options (i.e., the most punitive
amount identified in the previous bullet) will then be added to the
current cash equity settlement amount in the LCR.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
organization.\14\ For the reasons given below, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \15\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of LCH SA be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of LCH SA or for which it is responsible.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the proposed rule change would amend the
Framework with specific changes in order to address more accurately LCH
SA's

liquidity requirements arising from the physical settlement of equity
American options involving a defaulting clearing member during any
liquidation of such clearing member. Such changes should enhance LCH
SA's daily LCR calculations to determine more accurate liquidity levels
in the event of the assignment and exercise of equity American options
involving a defaulting clearing member prior to expiry. The Commission
believes the proposed rule change should help LCH SA anticipate
increased liquidity needs and maintain appropriate levels of liquidity
in a Cover 2 scenario in which LCH SA would be required, pursuant to
the Framework, to step in and meet a defaulter's obligation in the
event of the assignment or exercise of equity American options. The
Commission also believes that, by anticipating and ensuring that LCH SA
meets its liquidity needs in this manner, the proposed rule change
should facilitate LCH SA's ability to meet its obligations as a central
counterparty in stressed situations, which, in turn, should allow LCH
SA to continue to meet its obligation to promptly and accurately clear
and settle securities transactions in such situations.
    In addition, the proposed rule change should help mitigate the
funding risk that may arise when equity American options are exercised
before expiry and settled during the liquidation period of a defaulting
clearing member, which in turn should help LCH SA safeguard securities
and funds for which it is responsible.
    For the reasons stated above, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) requires that, among other things, LCH SA
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, effectively measure,
monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by
the covered clearing agency, including measuring, monitoring, and
managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely
basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by maintaining sufficient
liquid resources at the minimum in all relevant currencies to effect
same-day, and, where appropriate, intraday and multiday settlement of
payment obligations with a high degree of confidence under a wide range
of foreseeable stress scenarios, that includes, but is not limited to,
the default of the participant family that would generate the largest
aggregate payment obligation for LCH SA in extreme but plausible market
conditions.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, LCH SA is proposing specific modifications to
the Framework that would enable its daily LCR calculation to generate
an enhanced liquidity need in a Cover 2 scenario involving the physical
settlement of equity American options. By using the daily LCR
calculation process to determine in advance LCH SA's liquidity needs in
the event of the assignment and exercise of equity American options
arising in a Cover 2 scenario, the Commission believes the amended
Framework should enhance LCH SA's ability to determine whether it has
sufficient resources to meet its liquidity needs should such a default
occur, thus requiring LCH SA to step in and meet a defaulter's payment
obligation. The Commission believes that this should, in turn, enable
LCH SA to avoid any potential disruptions to its operations caused by
the liquidity needs arising from such a default.
    By applying both stressed and non-stressed scenarios to the
underlying equities, and then selecting the option positions that are
consistent with the two largest clearing members in terms of liquidity
needs under both scenarios to determine the largest liquidity need, LCH
SA's daily LCR calculation process under the amended Framework should
help LCH SA determine a more accurate amount to add to the current cash
equity settlement amount in the LCR to cover a potential increase in
liquidity needs arising from the physical settlement of equity American
options that are exercised prior to expiry under stressed liquidity
conditions. The Commission therefore believes that the amended
Framework should enable LCH SA to maintain sufficient liquid resources
to effect settlement of its payment obligations under a wide range of
foreseeable stress scenarios, including the default of the participant
family that would generate the largest aggregate payment obligation for
LCH SA in extreme but plausible market conditions.
    For the above reasons, the Commission therefore finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \21\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) thereunder.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\23\ that the proposed rule change (SR-LCH SA-2020-006) be, and hereby
is, approved.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \24\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26783 Filed 12-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12293-12295]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4860]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0847; FRL-9641-2]

PCBs Bulk Product v. Remediation Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is seeking comment on a proposed reinterpretation of its
position regarding the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) disposal
regulations regarding PCB bulk product and PCB remediation waste. The
proposed reinterpretation is

in response to questions EPA received about the application of
particular disposal and cleanup regulatory requirements regarding PCB-
contaminated building materials designated for disposal. Please see the
epa.gov/pcb web page for further information and for instruction
regarding how to submit comments.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2011-0847, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-RCRA-2011-0847.
     Fax: Comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0847.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20460, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0847. Please include two
copies of your submission.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver two copies of your submission to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0847, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2011-0847. EPA's policy is that all submissions received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the submission 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 www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comments. If you
send an email directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the submission that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
document, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your submission and with any disk or CD-ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your submission due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the RCRA
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Molly Finn, Cleanup Programs Branch,
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Mail Code 5303P, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    This notice is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders, including private citizens,
federal, tribal, state and local governments, environmental consulting
firms, industry representatives, environmental organizations and other
public interest groups. Since others may also be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may have
interest in this notice. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the EPA
personnel listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    The EPA is inviting the public to provide comments on a proposed
reinterpretation of its position regarding PCB bulk product and PCB
remediation waste under regulations promulgated at 40 CFR part 761. The
EPA has opened the docket for public comment for 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Details on how to provide comments
to the docket are provided under ADDRESSES.

II. Background

    EPA has received several questions from the regulated community
regarding the disposal and cleanup requirements for PCB-contaminated
building materials. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations
at 40 CFR 761 provide disposal and cleanup requirements for PCBs. The
disposal and cleanup requirements for PCB-contaminated building
material depend on whether the material is classified as PCB bulk
product waste or PCB remediation waste.
    Waste derived from caulk or paint containing PCBs at >= 50 parts
per million (ppm) is defined as PCB bulk product waste in 40 CFR 761.3.
The definition of PCB bulk product waste includes ``non-liquid bulk
wastes or debris from the demolition of buildings and other man-made
structures manufactured, coated, or serviced with PCBs.'' Other PCB
bulk product wastes may include, but are not limited to, mastics,
sealants, or adhesives containing PCBs at >= 50 ppm.
    PCB remediation waste is defined as ``waste containing PCBs as a
result of a spill, release, or other unauthorized disposal * * *'', and
leaching may be considered a release of PCBs.
    The Agency proposes to reinterpret its position regarding the
status of PCB-contaminated building materials under the definition of
PCB bulk product waste and is seeking comment on this proposal. In
association with this reinterpretation, EPA has identified several
guidance documents that would be changed with this proposed
reinterpretation if the Agency finalizes this proposal.
    EPA believes that this proposed reinterpretation would allow for
accelerated cleanups of PCB-contaminated building material by providing
a more straightforward path for disposal pursuant to the regulations.
Speeding up removal and disposal of the PCB-contaminated material is
critical for reducing exposure potential, such as in schools or other
locations where such PCB-contaminated building materials are currently
in place. The current interpretation of these regulations applies
different requirements to PCB-contaminated building materials than to
the products

that were originally manufactured with PCBs (e.g., paint or caulk).
Labeling the building materials a different type of PCB waste than PCB
bulk product waste (e.g., paint or caulk) can result in slower and more
costly removal and disposal. This proposed reinterpretation maintains
existing environmental and human health protections and removes
unnecessary burdens to allow for more expedient cleanups, thus reducing
potential exposures, for example, in schools and commercial buildings.
    In particular, protecting children's health from environmental
risks is fundamental to EPA's mission. Caulks and paints containing
PCBs were used in building some schools from 1950 to 1978. The proposed
reinterpretation will help to promote healthy school environments by
reducing exposure to PCBs in schools.

III. Summary of Proposed Reinterpretation

    Current EPA guidance states that building material contaminated by
the migration of PCBs from PCB bulk product waste, such as caulk or
paint, is considered a PCB remediation waste. The proposed
reinterpretation would modify this guidance to specify that only PCB-
contaminated building material from which the PCB bulk product has been
removed from the substrate is a PCB remediation waste. That is, the
distinction lies in whether or not the PCB bulk product is still
attached to the building materials.
    The reinterpretation being proposed in this notice would allow
building material (i.e., substrate) ``coated or serviced'' with PCB
bulk product waste (e.g., caulk, paint, mastics, sealants) at the time
of disposal to be managed as a PCB bulk product waste, even if the PCBs
have migrated from the overlying bulk product waste into the substrate,
provided there is no other source of PCB contamination on or in the
substrate. However, if the substrate is not ``coated or serviced''
(i.e., the PCB bulk product waste, such as caulk or paint has been
removed from the building material) at the time of disposal and the
substrate is contaminated with PCBs that have migrated from the bulk
product waste (or from another unauthorized disposal), the substrate
would be considered a PCB remediation waste. EPA is seeking comment on
this proposed reinterpretation in its position.
    Finally, we would note that there may be instances where additional
hazardous constituents are present and should be considered in making
cleanup decisions. In addition, site-specific factors may influence how
to manage these PCB wastes. Consideration of these constituents and
site-specific factors, and coordination with appropriate regulators is
important to ensure safe practices. Therefore, in such situations, we
believe that the appropriate EPA regional office and regional PCB
coordinator should be consulted as necessary for assistance with making
these decisions. For instance, property owners have identified
instances where PCB caulk contained high levels of other hazardous
constituents, such as asbestos. Similarly, there are cases where PCB
paint has been found to contain high levels of leachable metals. In
such situations, care must be taken to determine the appropriate
disposal option.
    Please see the epa.gov/pcb Web page for further information and for
instruction regarding how to submit comments. EPA will accept comments
for 30 days from the date published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: February 15, 2012.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2012-4860 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P