Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

06/18/2007 09:55 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
cc

Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, John
Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lea Anderson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen
Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Below are two inserts that I believe Bob discussed with Art.  The first
insert would go in the discussion of the legal framework.  The second
insert would go in the discussion of alternative views at the end of the
level section--I think it's page 237 in the passback we sent you.  We
can discuss this tomorrow if need be.

          Insert 1

            As Justice Breyer noted in Whitman v. American Trucking
Associations, the requirement to set standards that are requisite to
protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety, ?do not
describe a world that is free of all risk -- an impossible and
undesirable objective.?  531 U.S. at 495 (citation omitted)(Breyer, J.
concurring in part and concurring in judgment).  Rather,

?[t]he statute?s words, then, authorize the Administrator to consider
the severity of  a pollutant?s potential adverse health effects, the
number of those likely to be affected, the distribution of the adverse
effects, and the uncertainties surrounding each estimate. (citation
omitted)  They permit the Administrator to take account of comparative
health consequences. They allow her to take account of context when
determining the acceptability of small risks to health. And they give
her considerable discretion when she does so.

Id. at 495 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
Thus, for example, the Administrator may ?take account of comparative
health risks,?   that is, to consider whether a proposed rule promotes
safety overall.  ?A rule likely to cause more harm to health than it
prevents is not a rule that is ?requisite to protect the public
health.??  Id. (Breyer, J. noting that EPA has the authority to
determine to what extent possible health risks stemming from reductions
in tropospheric ozone should be taken into account in setting standards
for O3).

            Insert 2

            Some commenters have expressed concerns related to the
implementation of a more health-protective standard.  For example, the
Agency has heard from some Governors and mayors who, while mindful of
their own obligation to protect the public health of citizens in their
communities, are concerned about the difficulty and economic impacts of
meeting existing and revised National Ambient Air Quality standards.

            The view has also been expressed that the country has
important energy goals as well as the public health and environmental
mandates of the Clean Air Act, and that it is useful to understand the
impacts and interactions of programs designed to achieve these statutory
requirements and policy goals.  For example, the Agency recently
promulgated final regulations pursuant to section 211(o) of the Clean
Air Act, which was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
This provision requires the use of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel
by 2012, a level which will be greatly exceeded in practice.  In the
Regulatory Impact Analysis which accompanied the renewable fuel
regulations, the Agency reviewed the impact of this program on emissions
related to ozone, toxics, greenhouse gases, as well as impacts on energy
security.


[Federal Register: April 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 71)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17396]
[DOCID:fr15ap09-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2009-0234]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Intracoastal Waterway (ICW);
Albany Avenue, Atlantic City, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
US40-322 Albany Avenue Bridge, at ICW mile 70.0, across Inside
Thorofare at Atlantic City, NJ. This deviation is necessary to
facilitate traffic control during the Atlantic City Air Show. This
deviation will cause the bridge to be maintained in the closed-to-
navigation position for a brief period of time.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on August 19,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0234 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the Commander
(dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Sandra S. Elliott, Bridge
Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Greater Atlantic City Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the
bridge owner, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, has
requested a temporary deviation for the current operating regulation
set out in 33 CFR 117.733 (f) to close the US40-322 (Albany Avenue)
Bridge to navigation for the sole purpose of traffic control during the
Atlantic City Air Show scheduled for Wednesday, August 19, 2009, from
10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    The US40-322 (Albany Avenue Bridge) at ICW mile 70.0, across Inside
Thorofare at Atlantic City, NJ, is a lift drawbridge and has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 10 feet, above mean high water. The
current operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.733 (f) requires the
draw shall open on signal except that: Year-round from 11 p.m. to 7
a.m. and from November 1 through March 31 from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m., the
draw need only open if at least four hours notice is given, From June 1
through September 30: from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.,
the draw need only open on the hour and half hour; and from 4 p.m. to 6
p.m., the draw need not open.
    During the event, vessel operators with mast height lower than 10
feet will continue to be able to transit through the drawbridge. The
Atlantic Ocean is an alternate route for vessels with a mast height
greater than 10 feet. In the event of a maritime emergency, the
drawbridge will be available for vessel openings.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the closure period for the
bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits and to minimize any
impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 1, 2009.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E9-8618 Filed 4-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 6255]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01933]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2361-056]

Allete, Inc.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Assessment

    On December 20, 2021, Allete, Inc. filed a relicense application
for the 1.1-megawatt Prairie River Project No. 2361 (project). The
project is located On the Prairie River, near the Township of Arbo in
Itasca County, Minnesota. The project does not occupy Federal land.
    In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on October 28,
2022, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for
environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the
record, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an
Environmental Assessment (EA) on the application to relicense the
project.
    The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested
parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and
considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
    The application will be processed according to the following
schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission issues EA...................  August 2023.\1\
Comments on EA.........................  September 2023.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Laura
Washington at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations
under 40 CFR 1501.10(b)(1) require that EAs be completed within 1
year of the Federal action agency's decision to prepare an EA. This
notice establishes the Commission's intent to prepare an EA for the
Prairie River Project. Therefore, in accordance with CEQ's
regulations, the EA must be issued within 1 year of the issuance
date of this notice.

    Dated: January 25, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01933 Filed 1-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 243)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67823-67827]
[DOCID:fr21de09-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0691; FRL-8800-6]

2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene,
methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 2-propenoic acid; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer
with ethenylbenzene, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 2-propenoic acid
CAS Reg. No. 27306-39-4; when used as an inert ingredient in a
pesticide chemical formulation. BASF Corporation submitted a petition
to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with
ethenylbenzene, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 2-propenoic acid on
food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective December 21, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 19, 2010,
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-2009-0691. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. 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 Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket

Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Austin, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 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

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
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?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. 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-2009-0691 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 February 19, 2010.
    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-2009-0691, 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
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility'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 Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of October 7, 2009 (74 FR 51597) (FRL-8792-
7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP
9E7608) filed by BASF Corporation, 100 Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ
07932. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene,
methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 2-propenoic acid; CAS Reg. No. 27306-
39-4. That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the
petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The
Agency did not receive any comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of 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 tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of 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. . . . '' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of 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. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer
with ethenylbenzene,

methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 2-propenoic acid conforms to the
definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the
following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    7. The polymer's number average MW of 1,900 daltons is greater than
1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10%
oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material
below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive
functional groups.
    Thus, 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene,
methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 2-propenoic acid meets the criteria
for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on
its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is
anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to 2-propenoic
acid, butyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene, methyl 2-methyl-2-
propenoate and 2-propenoic acid.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer
with ethenylbenzene, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 2-propenoic acid
could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and
drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was
possible. The number average MW of 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester,
polymer with ethenylbenzene, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 2-
propenoic acid is 1,900 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size
would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or
through intact human skin. Since 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer
with ethenylbenzene, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 2-propenoic acid
conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no
concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios
that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a
tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects

    Section 408 (b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance or tolerance
exemption, the Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular chemical's residues and ``other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' For the purposes
of this tolerance action, EPA has not assumed that 2-propenoic acid,
butyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate
and 2-propenoic acid has a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances, based on the anticipated absence of mammalian toxicity. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and
procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a
common mechanism on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of 2-propenoic acid, butyl
ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 2-
propenoic acid, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the
risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is
unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester,
polymer with ethenylbenzene, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 2-
propenoic acid.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Endocrine Disruptors

    EPA is required under the 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 recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor and
Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was a
scientific basis 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 FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in
wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect in
humans, FFDCA 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).
    When additional appropriate screening and/or testing protocols
being considered under the Agency's EDSP have been developed, 2-
propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene, methyl 2-
methyl-2-propenoate and 2-propenoic acid may be subjected to further
screening and/or testing to better characterize effects related to
endocrine disruption.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. International Tolerances

    The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for 2-

propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene, methyl 2-
methyl-2-propenoate and 2-propenoic acid nor have any CODEX Maximum
Residue Levels (MRLs) been established for any food crops at this time.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 2-propenoic acid,
butyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate
and 2-propenoic acid from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This 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., nor does it 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 FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique
impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not 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).
    Although this action does not 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), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency
considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of
their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical
or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this
document, compared to the general population.

XI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report 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 rule in the Federal
Register. This 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: December 7, 2009.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration 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. In Sec. 180.960, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following polymer to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
2-propenoic acid, butyl ester,                                27306-39-4
 polymer with ethenylbenzene, methyl
 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 2-
 propenoic acid (in amu), 1900.
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-30190 Filed 12-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


     To: 	Project Files
     From: 	Susan Fairchild, US EPA
     Date: 	22 September 2014
     Re: 	Site Visit to Roxul Mineral Wool Production Facility, Byhalia, MS                                                             August 6-7, 2014
Purpose
In telephone conversations with Roxul, Inc. (a subsidiary of Rockwool International) representatives and contractors during the course of the first and supplemental proposals, the EPA learned that Rockwool International was constructing a new mineral wool production facility in Mississippi. This new facility would use a process which is different in certain respects from the other U.S. production facilities.  Rockwool International operated several such facilities in Europe.
The EPA's goal for this site visit is to understand Roxul's production processes, how they differ or are similar to other U.S. facilities' mineral wool production processes, the HAP emitted by the new processes, and to understand the regulatory issues arising from the advent of the new processes.
Attendees
Persons from the EPA, Roxul, ERM (a contractor to Roxul) and the State of Mississippi attended the site visit.
The following attended from EPA:
	Susan Fairchild, Sr. Environmental Scientist
	Keith Barnett, Group Leader, Minerals and Manufacturing Group
The following attended from Roxul:
      Bent S. Jorgensen, Vice President, Operations
      Ken Cammarato, Vice President General Counsel and General Manager, USA Operations
      Tony Borden, Health and Safety Manager
      Sharon Taylor, Environmental Manager
The following attended from ERM:
	Jeffrey H. Twaddle, P.E.
	Kasey Harrington
The following attended from Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ):
	Preston Bridges, EEIT
Background
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) outlines the statutory requirements for the EPA's stationary source air toxics program. Section 112 requires EPA to set maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for source categories listed for regulation of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The MACT standards for Mineral Wool Production (Part 63, Subpart DDD were promulgated in June 1999.
The Risk and Technology Review (RTR) is a combined effort to evaluate both risk and technology as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) after the application of the MACT standards. Section 112(f)(2) directs EPA to conduct risk assessments on each source category subject to MACT standards, and to determine if additional standards are needed to reduce residual risks. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise MACT standards, as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, processes and control technologies. The Agency is conducting both these reviews at once under the RTR review. In addition to the requirements of the RTR review, EPA is also reviewing the standards to determine whether any HAP or HAP-emitting processes exist which were not regulated by the 1999 MACTs and whether emission limits for surrogates in the rule should be corrected or replaced by the original listed HAP.
The EPA first proposed the RTR for Mineral Wool on November 25, 2011.  The first supplemental proposal was published on April 15, 2013, and announced several changes to the first proposal, including changes to the emission limits for combined collection and curing, and to startup and shutdown provisions.  The second supplemental proposal is expected to be signed by the Administrator on October 15, 2014, and published in the Federal Register shortly thereafter.
facility overview
Roxul, a Rockwool International Company headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, Canada sought permits and began site preparation for this new mineral wool production facility in 2012. The Roxul facility currently operates one production line consisting of raw material preparation, transfer and storage; melting; fiber formation, collection and curing; cutting, packaging and storage.  Roxul is permitted to begin construction on a second line.  Roxul is also permitted for fabrication processes for the manufacture of other products.
Products
Roxul is planned to be capable of manufacturing a variety of bonded and loose-fill (non-bonded) products, including insulation for both residential and non-residential applications, sound-proofing, ceiling tile and asphalt roofing.
  This facility is currently capable of manufacturing a variety of mineral wool products, including:
         > Residential insulation
         > Commercial/ Institutional insulation
         > Industrial insulation
         > Marine & Offshore

         > Soundproofing and Acoustical barriers
Roxul's products are manufactured in thicknesses from one to 8 inches on the single operating production line.
Roxul is planning to significantly expand the production capacity at the Byhalia plant.  A second production line is planned and permitted which will double capacity.
The new production line is planned as a mirror image of the current line, with additional capability for production of ceiling tile and asphalt roofing in addition to the additional capacity for mineral wool insulation products. When the second production line is completed, Roxul plans to simultaneously complete an industrial oxygen plant on site which will supply the compressed gas for both cupolas (melting furnaces).
Existing Production Processes
Raw Material Loading, Preparation, Transfer and Storage Processes
Fuels used for production at Roxul include compressed industrial oxygen, coal and natural gas.  Raw materials include basalt, slag (from iron and steel electric arc furnaces), mineral additives, internal recycled mineral wool and phenol/formaldehyde binder.
Compressed oxygen is currently transported in tanks and stored onsite. Basalt and slag are received from a quarry and steel plant, respectively, and are received as grain size, and sieved onsite to ensure proper sizing. Rod crushing is used for any materials out of size specification. All fuels and raw materials are stored onsite in silos (coal) and bins (other mineral products).
Startup
The cupola is started empty using only clean fuels (natural gas) for 2-5 minutes until it reaches temperatures sufficient to begin melting the mineral mixture, approximately 3200° F. At that point the coal burners start and feed material is introduced. This phase of startup lasts 10-15 minutes. At this point (12  -  20 minutes) the melting furnace is capable of producing usable melt. Steady state production is reached in less than 90 minutes.
Melting Process
The Roxul process differs from other US mineral wool production facilities in the melting process. The Roxul process uses a melting furnace fired with coal and natural gas, rather than a cupola fired with coke.
Coal, slag, and basalt from hoppers and silos are measured and weighed onto charging belts; mineral additives are used to achieve the correct chemistry of the melt, and the raw material mixture is blended and fed as a continuous stream into the cupola. The melting furnace operates continuously for a 2 week period under the melting furnace maintenance schedule.
Shutdown
The melting furnace is shut down for maintenance every two weeks, and is a process that requires about 15 minutes to complete, excluding cooling of the melting furnace. All air pollution control devices (APCD) operate continuously, including during shutdown, and therefore should continue to capture and control any emissions during the shutdown process.
Fiber Formation, Collection and Curing Process
As molten mineral mixture exits the melting furnace, the melt enters the spinners, forming fibers; phenol-formaldehyde binder is sprayed continuously as the fibers are formed and collected.  The combined collection and curing processes at Roxul are considered Vertical Design as the area where the fibers are collected is vertically oriented.
The collected fibers form a wooly fleece which is spread onto a moving conveyor to a pendulum device which lays the fiber fleece to the desired thickness.  The formed mat then enters the curing oven which heats and sets the phenol/formaldehyde resin. These processes are automated and are similar to the processes at other mineral wool production facilities.
Cooling Process
As the formed mat exits the curing oven, it is cooled before cutting and packaging.  When the ceiling tile and asphalt roofing fabrication processes are added at a future date, cooled mineral wool bats will be transferred to those manufacturing processes.
Fabrication (future) Processes
 Production of ceiling tile and asphalt roofing, products which are fabricated from mineral wool products, is also planned. The production of ceiling tile and asphalt roofing are not regulated under subpart DDD, Mineral Wool Production.
Cutting, Packaging, Storage, and Shipping
After the mineral wool produced to the desired thickness, it is cut to size. All cutting and packaging operations are automated and robotic are operated from a central location. Rollers transfer the product from the cooling section through the cutters, into the bagging section and then to storage until the product is shipped to the customer.
 Air Pollution Control Equipment
Pollutants emitted from the melting furnace are controlled using several sets of devices installed in series. The emissions from the melting furnace are first sent to an integrated SNCR for destruction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and secondary combustion chamber for destruction of CO, then to a baghouse for PM and HAP metals removal. The emission stream is next directed to a semi- dry lime scrubber for adsorption of sulfur oxides (SOx) in series with a second fabric filter for removal of the lime, then melting furnace emissions are directed to the furnace stack. Emissions from the collection process are sent first to a filter for fiber removal and then to the Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) for removal of filterable and condensable particulate matter (due to phenol-formaldehyde binder). Emissions of organics, including phenol, formaldehyde and methanol from the curing oven are first sent to an afterburner and then to a filter for removal of both organics and fibers.  Post-control emissions from the collection and curing processes enter separate stacks which run alongside one another and are adjoining at the outlet of the second stack. Particulate (fiber) emissions from the cooling zone are directed to a filter in series with the WESP. All emission control collection material from the furnace is returned to the raw material input bins for reincorporation into the process with the exception of the sorbent material used in the SO2 scrubber. A schematic of the Roxul manufacturing process entitled, "Process Overview" is available in the Appendix to this report.
Projected Emissions Estimates (commissioning phase underway)
Roxul has provided to the permitting authorities projections of expected emissions estimates from the mineral wool production lines, as shown in Table 4-1 below.  These emissions estimates are based upon production at the European and Canadian facilities, not on emissions testing, material balance, or emission factor-derived estimates.
Table 4-1: Pollutants and Significant Emissions Rates for the Roxul US Facility
                                   Pollutant
                     Significant Emissions Rate (tons/yr)
                               PTE Exceeds SER?
Carbon monoxide [*]
                                      100
                                      Yes
Nitrogen oxides [* a]
                                      40
                                      Yes
Sulfur dioxide [* b]
                                      40
                                      Yes
Particulate matter [*] (PM)
                                      25
                                      Yes
PM10 [*]
                                      15
                                      Yes
PM2.5 [* c]
                                      10
                                      Yes
Ozone (VOC) [*]
                              40 (of VOCs or NOx)
                                      Yes
Lead [*]
                                      0.6
                                      No
Asbestos
                                     0.007
                                      No
Beryllium
                                    0.0004
                                      No
Mercury
                                      0.1
                                      No
Vinyl chloride
                                       1
                                      No
Fluorides (excluding hydrogen fluoride[e]) [d]
                                       3
                                     No[e]
Sulfuric acid mist
                                       7
                                      Yes
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
                                      10
                                      No
Total Reduced sulfur compounds (including H2S) (excluding COS[e])
                                      10
                                      No
Arsenic [f]
                               Any emission rate
                                      Yes
* Criteria Pollutants
a Nitrogen dioxide is the compound regulated as a criteria pollutant; however, significant emissions are based on the sum of all oxides of nitrogen.
b Sulfur dioxide is the measured surrogate for the criteria pollutant sulfur oxides.
c 10 tpy of direct PM2.5 emissions; 40 tpy of sulfur dioxide emissions; 40 tpy of nitrogen oxide emissions unless demonstrated not to be a PM2.5 precursor under paragraph (b)(50) of this section.
d Total fluorides means elemental fluorine and all fluoride compounds as measured by reference methods specified in §60.195 or by equivalent or alternative methods (see §60.8(b)).  [40 CFR 60.191]
e HF and COS are HAPs and not included in the Fluoride or Total reduced Sulfur Compounds pollutant category. See Section 3.1.1 and §52.21(b)(50)(v) for further explanation.
f Significant emission rates have not been promulgated for these pollutants, and until such time, any emissions by a new major sources or any increase in emissions at an existing major source due to modification, are "significant."
Operating and Maintenance Schedule
Roxul operates for 2 week periods on a 24-hour schedule followed by melting furnace maintenance. Additionally, every 8 weeks additional maintenance and rebuilding of the melting furnace downspout is conducted, along with any other maintenance required downstream of the melting furnace.
Regulatory Issues

Issues regarding regulation of melting furnace emissions
Though the melting furnace process at Roxul is very different from any other mineral wool cupola now in operation, it meets the definition in DDD of a cupola, and would thus be subject to the cupola emissions limits. Roxul does not expect this to raise any compliance issues for any of the pollutants except for the demonstration of compliance with  CO.
The MACT standard of 1999 requires CO be measured as a surrogate to COS, and CO reductions of 99% are required under that rule. In order to determine percent reduction, measurements of the pollutant must be taken both before and after the APCD. Due to both the design and extreme temperatures (both unique to Roxul among mineral wool producers in the U.S.), the percent reduction cannot be measured. Because the CO limits are required by the existing MACT standard for this industry, and because CO remains the surrogate for COS until the RTR is finalized, as a legal matter, the CO limits cannot be dismissed. The EPA representatives recommended that Roxul pursue an alternative compliance demonstration for the Mineral Wool MACT CO limits.
Limited testing at the Byhalia facility also showed COS emissions below the method detection limit. Because the Roxul melting furnace design has an oxidizing atmosphere, compared to the standard mineral wool cupola design which has a reducing atmosphere, all the raw material and fuel sulfur is converted to SO2 rather than some being converted to COS.
Emissions of other pollutants (SO2), NOx, HF and HCl are controlled and are expected to be low.

Emission testing was conducted at sister sites in Europe on processes that are identical to the processes in place in the commissioning phase at Byhalia.  The available representative testing shows COS also tested below the detection level of the method.
Issues Regarding Startup / Shutdown Work Practices
Periods of startup and shutdown for this process are approximately 12-20 minutes.  Given this short startup/shutdown times, and the fact that the emission test methods for the pollutants of concern typically require a full day to collect three valid test runs, the EPA representatives noted it would appear that emission testing is not practicable. Therefore, Roxul was requested to provide to EPA any work practices used to minimize emissions during periods of startup and shutdown, and contact us to discuss and follow up on the potential work practices used for the unique cupola operated at this facility.
Issues Regarding New/Existing Source Status
As described in the Background section of this report, three proposals issued over the 3-year period (November 2011 to October 2014) pertain to the Mineral Wool Production Source Category. Roxul began actual construction of the facility in Byhalia, Mississippi in May of 2013, which was after the first and second proposal but before subsequent October 2014 supplemental proposal. Roxul representatives stated that they would have been considered a new site, not an existing site under the originally proposed version of the rule.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59236-59238]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23636]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67897; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1, Amending Rule 903(h) and
Related Commentary .10 To Expand the Number of Expirations Available
Under the Short Term Option Series Program (``STOS Program''), To Allow
for the Exchange To Delist Any Series in the STOS That Do Not Have Open
Interest and To Expand the Number of Series in STOS Under Limited
Circumstances

 September 20, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 6, 2012, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. On September 18, 2012, the Exchange filed Amendment No.
1. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 903(h) and related Commentary
.10 to expand the number of expirations available under the Short Term
Option Series Program (``STOS Program''), to allow for the Exchange to
delist any series in the STOS that do not have open interest and to
expand the number of series in STOS under limited circumstances. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to amend Rule 903(h) to provide for
the ability to open up to five consecutive expirations under the Short
Term Option Series Program (``STOS Program'') for trading on the
Exchange, to allow for the Exchange to delist any series in the STOS
that do not have open interest and to expand the number of series in
STOS under limited circumstances when there are no series at least 10%
but not more than 30% away from the current price of the underlying
security.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On July 12, 2005, the Commission approved the Weeklies
Program on a pilot basis. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
52014 (July 12, 2005), 70 FR 41244 (July 18, 2005) (Amex-2005-035).
The Weeklies Program was made permanent on June 23, 2010. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62370 (June 23, 2010), 75 FR
37870 (June 30, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange may select up to 5 currently listed option
classes on which STOS options may be opened in the STOS Program and the
Exchange may also match any option classes that are selected by other
securities exchanges that employ a similar program under their
respective rules.\5\ For each option class eligible for participation
in the STOS Program, the Exchange may open up to 30 Short Term Option
Series for each expiration date in that class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65805 (November 22,
2011), 76 FR 73750 (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-89); 67194 (June 13, 2012), 77
FR 36579 (June 19, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-08).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal seeks to allow the Exchange to open STOS option
series for up to five consecutive week expirations. The Exchange
intends to add a maximum of five consecutive week expirations under the
STOS Program, however it will not add a STOS expiration in the same
week that a monthly options series expires or, in the case of Quarterly
Option Series, on an expiration that coincides with an expiration of
Quarterly Option Series on the same class. In other words, the total
number of consecutive expirations will be five, including any existing
monthly or quarterly expirations.\6\ This change is being proposed
notwithstanding the current cap of 30 series per class under the STOS
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, if quarterly options expire week 1 and monthly
options expire week 3 from now, the proposal would allow the
following expirations: week 1 quarterly, week 2 STOS, week 3
monthly, week 4 STOS, and week 5 STOS. If quarterly options expire
week 3 and monthly options expire week 5, the following expirations
would be allowed: week 1 STOS, week 2 STOS, week 3 monthly, week 4
STOS, and week 5 quarterly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the STOS Program has been well-received by
market participants, in particular by retail investors.\7\ The Exchange
believes that the current proposed revision to the STOS Program will
permit the Exchange to meet increased customer demand and provide
market participants with the ability to hedge in a greater number of
option classes and series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Since the STOS Program [sic] been adopted, it has seen rapid
acceptance among industry participants as evidenced by the expansion
of the number of classes eligible for the STOS Program by various
Exchanges. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65775 (November
17, 2011), 76 FR 72473 (November 23, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-138);
65776 (November 17, 2011), 76 FR 72482 (November 23, 2011) (SR-PHLX-
2011-131); 66563 (March 9, 2012), 77 FR 15426 (March 15, 2012);
67194 (June 13, 2012), 77 FR 36597 (June 19, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-
08); and 67178 (June 11, 2012), 77 FR 36305 (June 18, 2012) (SR-
NYSEArca-2012-60).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity
to handle the potential additional traffic associated with trading of
an expanded number of expirations that participate in the STOS Program.
    In addition, to provide for circumstances where the underlying
security has moved such that there are no series that are at least 10%
above or below the current price of the underlying security, the
Exchange is proposing to add new language to Commentary .10 to provide
that the Exchange would delist series with no open interest in both the
call and the put series having a: (i) Strike higher than the highest
price with open interest in the put and/or call series for a given
expiration month; and (ii) strike lower than the lowest strike price
with open interest in the put and/or the call series for a given
expiration month, so as to list series that are at least 10% but not
more than 30% above or below the current price of the underlying
security. Further, in the event that all existing series have open
interest and there are no series at least 10% above or below the
current price of the underlying security, the Exchange may list
additional series, in excess of the 30 allowed currently under
Commentary .10, that are at least 10% and not more than 30% above or
below the current price of the underlying security.
    The Exchange believes that it is important to allow investors to
roll existing option positions and ensuring that there are always
series at least 10% but not more than 30% above or below the current
price of the underlying security will allow investors the flexibility
they need to roll existing positions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5),\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f (b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that expanding the STOS Program will result
in a continuing benefit to investors by giving them more flexibility to
closely tailor their investment decisions and hedging decisions in a
greater number of securities.
    The Exchange also believes that expanding the STOS Program will
provide the investing public and other market participants with
additional

opportunities to hedge their investment thus allowing these investors
to better manage their risk exposure. While the expansion of the STOS
Program will generate additional quote traffic, the Exchange does not
believe that this increased traffic will become unmanageable since the
proposal remains limited to a fixed number of expirations.
    The Exchange believes that the ability to delist series with no
open interest in both the call and the put series will benefit
investors by devoting the current cap in the number of series to those
series that are more closely tailored to the investment decisions and
hedging decisions of investors.

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-42 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-42. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on business days
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., located at 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-42 and should be submitted on or before
October 17, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23636 Filed 9-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 7589]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3258]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0001]

Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one
portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
    Name of Committee: Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee
(TPSAC).
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.

DATES: Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 1, 2012, from
10 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on March 2, 2012, from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.
    Location: Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug
Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 1-877-287-
1373.
    Contact Person: Caryn Cohen, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and
Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 1-877-
287-1373 (choose option 4), email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area), and follow the prompts to the desired center or
product area. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date
information on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about
last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site
and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to
learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: As part of the TPSAC's required report to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, the committee will complete their discussion
of issues related to the nature and impact of the use of dissolvable
tobacco products on the public health, including such use among
children. Discussion will include such topics as the composition and
characteristics of dissolvable tobacco products, product use, potential
health effects, and marketing.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: On March 1, 2012, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and on March 2,
2012, from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m., the meeting is open to the public.
Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or
in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions
may be made to the contact person on or before February 16, 2012. Oral
presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately
1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. on March 1, 2012. Those individuals interested
in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person
and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before February 23, 2012. Time allotted
for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by February 24, 2012.
    Closed Committee Deliberations: On March 1, 2012, from 10 a.m. to
12 p.m., the meeting will be closed to permit discussion and review of
trade secret and/or confidential commercial information (5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(4)). This portion of the meeting must be closed because the
Committee will be discussing trade secret and/or confidential data
regarding products provided by the tobacco companies.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Caryn Cohen at least
7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: February 8, 2012.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-3258 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 31772]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14334]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2808-017]

KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with Commission and are available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 2808-017.
    c. Date filed: January 30, 2017.
    d. Applicant: KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Barker's Mill Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Little Androscoggin River, in the City of
Auburn, Androscoggin County, Maine. The project does not occupy lands
of the United States.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Lewis Loon, Operations and Maintenance
Manager, 423 Brunswick Avenue, Gardiner, ME 04345,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Karen Sughrue<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
8556.
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests and
requests for cooperating agency status: August 29, 2017.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency
status using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2808-017.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The Barker's Mill Project consists of the following existing
facilities: (1) A 232-foot-long, 30-foot-high concrete dam with a 125-
foot-long spillway section with flashboards, a 46-foot-long non-
overflow section with two waste gates along the left buttress, and a
61-foot-long non-overflow section with seven stop-logs adjacent to the
intake canal; (2) a 16.5-acre reservoir with a storage capacity of 150-
acre-feet; (3) a 60-foot-long, 20-foot-wide, 9 foot, 7 inch-deep intake
canal on the right bank with seven stop-logs; (4) a 35-foot-long, 20-
foot-wide gatehouse containing a single gate fitted with trash racks;
(5) a buried 650-foot-long, 10 foot, 2 inch-wide, 7 foot, 2 inch-high
concrete penstock; (6) a 50-foot-long, 25-foot-wide concrete partially
buried powerhouse containing a single semi-Kaplan-type turbine/
generating unit with a rated capacity of 1.5 megawatts; (7) a tailrace;
(8) a 250-foot-long, 4.2 kilovolt underground power line; (9) a
substation; and (10) appurtenant facilities. The project produces an
average of 5,087 megawatt-hours annually.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but
only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests
or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
deadline date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE;'' (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application.

    Dated: June 30, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14334 Filed 7-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P