[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 33 (Friday, February 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7090-7092]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03200]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82687; File No. SR-ICEEU-2018-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the ICE Clear Europe Rules for the Transition of Trading in
Certain F&O Contracts

February 12, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 7, 2018, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule changes described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear
Europe filed the proposed rule changes pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) thereunder,\4\ so that the
proposal was immediately effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    ICE Clear Europe proposes revising the ICE Clear Europe Rules (the
``Clearing House Rules'') \5\ to add new rules to accommodate the
transition of trading in certain F&O Contracts from one Market to
another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the Clearing House Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    ICE Futures Europe has announced that certain F&O Contracts
currently listed on that exchange and cleared at ICE Clear Europe will
be removed from trading and that equivalent contracts will commence
trading on the ICE Futures U.S., Inc. (``ICE Futures US'') exchange.\6\
Clearing of the transitioning contracts will remain at ICE Clear
Europe. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to accommodate this
transition under the Clearing House Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ICE Futures Europe Circular 18/002 (Jan. 10, 2018); ICE
Futures Europe Circular 18/009 (Jan. 23, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, ICE Clear Europe is adopting a new Part 23 of the
Rules, which will apply to the announced transition as well as any
future similar transitions. Part 23 will apply where the Clearing House
identifies by Circular one or more F&O Contracts for which

trading is to be transitioned from one Market to another
(``Transitioning Contracts'') as of a designated time (the ``Transition
Time''). Rule 2302 adds related definitions, including the concepts of
``Exiting Market'' (from which the contracts are being moved) and
``Receiving Market'' (to which the contracts are being moved). (In
connection with the announced transition between ICE Futures Europe and
ICE Futures US, ICE Futures Europe would be the Exiting Market and ICE
Futures US would be the Receiving Market.)
    New Rule 2303 provides that as of the relevant Transition Time,
trading of the Transitioning Contract will transfer from the Exiting
Market to the Receiving Market. New Rule 2304(a) provides that the
Transitioning Contracts will be automatically redesignated such that
they become Contracts under the Market Rules of the Receiving Market
and are no longer Contracts under the Market Rules of the Exiting
Market. Under the Rule, the redesignated Contracts remain in full force
and effect as between the relevant Clearing Member and the Clearing
House.
    New Rule 2304(b) further addresses the situation where the
Receiving Market is a U.S. designated contract market and the Exiting
Market is not. In that case, in order to comply with relevant
segregation requirements under Section 4d of the U.S. Commodity
Exchange Act, Transitioning Contracts registered in the Non-DCM/Swap
Customer Account of an FCM/BD Clearing Member will be automatically
transferred to the DCM Customer Account of such FCM/BD Clearing Member;
and FCM/BD Customer Collateral in respect of such open Transitioning
Contracts will be held in the Clearing House DCM Segregated Account as
FCM/BD U.S. Futures Customer Collateral under the Rules.
    In connection with the announced transition between ICE Futures
Europe and ICE Futures US, ICE Clear Europe will issue a Circular
indicating the specific contracts that are to be Transitioning
Contracts and the Transition Time for purposes of Part 23 of the Rules.
ICE Clear Europe has attached as Exhibit 5 hereto the list of
Transitioning Contracts. The Transition Time is expected to be on or
about February 18, 2018.
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the changes described herein are
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \7\ and the
regulations thereunder applicable to it, and in particular are
consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance of and settlement of
securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative
agreements, contracts and transactions, the safeguarding of securities
and funds in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe or for which it
is responsible and the protection of investors and the public interest,
within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\8\ ICE Clear
Europe is implementing the amendments in order to facilitate the
transition of the Transitioning Contracts from one Market to another in
a manner designed to minimize any impact on Clearing Members and their
customers. The Transitioning Contracts will continue to be eligible for
clearing at ICE Clear Europe, and the terms and conditions of such
contracts are not changing in any material respect. The Transitioning
Contracts will be cleared by ICE Clear Europe in substantially the same
manner as before the transition (other than with respect to the class
of customer account, as discussed herein). With respect to the
safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICE
Clear Europe, the Transitioning Contracts will become traded on ICE
Futures US, a designated contract market under the Commodity Exchange
Act, and as such will become subject to the segregation requirements
under that act. Accordingly, the amendments provide that customer
positions in Transitioning Contracts will, following the transition, be
held in the DCM Customer Account and the associated margin will be held
in the Clearing House DCM Segregated Account as FCM/BD U.S. Futures
Customer Collateral. For the foregoing reasons, ICE Clear Europe
believes that the amendments are consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) and the regulations of the Commission thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed changes to the rules
would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The
amendments solely are designed to facilitate the transition of the
Transitioning Contracts from one Market to another, as requested by
such markets. As a result, ICE Clear Europe does not believe the
amendments would adversely affect Clearing Members, materially affect
the cost of clearing, adversely affect access to clearing in F&O
Contracts for Clearing Members or their customers, or otherwise
adversely affect competition in clearing services. Accordingly, ICE
Clear Europe does not believe that the amendments would impose any
impact or burden on competition that is not appropriate in furtherance
of the purpose of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed changes to the rules have
not been solicited or received. ICE Clear Europe will notify the
Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \10\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2018-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2018-003. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE
Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation#rule-filings.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2018-003 and should be
submitted on or before March 9, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03200 Filed 2-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on October 12, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-1997-2943

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AEROVIAS de MEXICO, S.A. de C.V.  (Aeromexico)		Date Filed:
August 30, 2005

Relief requested:  Renewal of exemption from 49 USC § 41301 to permit
the applicant to conduct scheduled, combination service between
Guadalajara, Mexico, and Phoenix, Arizona.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  September 17, 2004, in
this Docket.

Applicant representative:  William C. Evans,<PHONE_NUMBER>	DOT analyst:
Robert J. Finamore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
                                     Action date:  October 12, 2005

Effective dates of authority granted:  October 12, 2005, through October
12, 2006.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement (“the Agreement”).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations of our standard exemption conditions
(attached), and to the otherwise-applicable terms, conditions, and
limitations of Aeromexico’s foreign air carrier permit (Order
91-5-25).

Special conditions/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director, Office of International
Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

FOREIGN CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
                              ATTACHMENT

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

1) Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

2) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

3) Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage contained
in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any operations
under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the form of a
completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation Administration’s
Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards Service (any
changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be filed with that
office);

4) Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

5) Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

6) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

7) Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: a) based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or b) based on
a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term “international air transportation” means “international
transportation” as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

8) Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

9) Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department’s
rules governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations
required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department,
with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S. agencies and
courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49911-49913]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17787]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0407; FRL-9949-67-Region 7]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Implementation Plans;
State of Iowa; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove elements of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Iowa for the
2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone.
Infrastructure SIPs address the applicable requirements of Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 110, which requires that each state adopt and submit
a SIP

for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each new or
revised NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred
to as ``infrastructure'' SIPs. The infrastructure requirements are
designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air
quality management program are adequate to meet the state's
responsibilities under the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2016-0407, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton, Air Planning and
Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7039; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. A detailed technical support document (TSD) is
included in this rulemaking docket to address the following: A
description of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure
SIPs; the applicable elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2); EPA's
approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions, and EPA's
evaluation of how Iowa addressed the relevant elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2). This section provides additional information by
addressing the following questions:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. What action is EPA taking?

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
the infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Iowa received on
January 17, 2013. Specifically, EPA proposes to approve the following
elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)--prong 3 only,
(E) through (H), and (J) through (M). EPA proposes to disapprove
element (D)(i)(II)--prong 4. EPA will not be acting on sections
(D)(i)(I)--prongs 1 and 2, and (I).
    A Technical Support Document (TSD) is included as part of the
docket to discuss the details of this proposal, including analysis of
how the SIP meets the applicable 110 requirements for infrastructure
SIPs.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, as explained above and in more detail in the TSD which is
part of this document, the revision meets the substantive SIP
requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing
regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
the January 17, 2013 infrastructure SIP submission from the State of
Iowa, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) as applicable to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As stated above, EPA
proposes to approve the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A),
(B), (C), (D)(i)(II)--prong 3 only, (E) through (H), and (J) through
(M). EPA proposes to disapprove element (D)(i)(II)--prong 4. Details of
the submission are addressed in a TSD as part of the docket to discuss
the proposal.
    We are processing this as a proposed action because we are
soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will
occur after consideration of any comments.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

V. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 110
of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Prevention of
significant deterioration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 18, 2016.
Mark Hague,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart Q--Iowa

0
2. In Sec.  52.820, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the
entry ``(43) Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements
2008 Ozone NAAQS'' in numerical order to read as follows:

Sec.  52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                   EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of nonregulatory SIP     Applicable geographic       State
           provision             or nonattainment area  submittal date  EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(43) Sections 110(a)(1) and     Statewide.............         1/17/13  7/29/16 [Insert    This action addresses
 (2) Infrastructure                                                      Federal Register   the following CAA
 Requirements 2008 Ozone NAAQS.                                          citation].         elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(i)(II)--
                                                                                prong 3 only, (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).
                                                                                110(a)(2)(I) is not
                                                                                applicable. [EPA-R07-
                                                                                OAR-2016-0407; FRL-
                                                                                9949-67-Region 7].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-17787 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 72877]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28924]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR14-8-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1),: Statement of
Operating Conditions Baseline to be effective 11/21/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/21/13.
    Accession Number: 20131121-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/13.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: PR14-9-000.
    Applicants: J-W Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2)+: J-W Pipeline Rate
Petition Filing to be effective 12/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/21/13.
    Accession Number: 20131121-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/13.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-200-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Annual Operational Flow Order Report of Southern Star
Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Filed Date: 11/21/13.
    Accession Number: 20131121-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-201-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: TSCA 2014 to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/21/13.
    Accession Number: 20131121-5207.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-202-000.
    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest LLC.
    Description: Annual Fuel Filing 2013 to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20131122-5020.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-203-000.
    Applicants: Chandeleur Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Chandeleur Pipe Line Company's Fuel and Line Loss
Allowance Calculation for 2013.
    Filed Date: 11/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20131122-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-204-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Annual Cash-Out Refund Report of Southern Star Central
Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Filed Date: 11/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20131122-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-205-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: MidAmerican Energy Negotiated Rate to be effective 12/
1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20131122-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-206-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Non-Conforming Agreements Filing (SRP) to be effective
1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20131125-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/13.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR Sec.  385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1376-001.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Negotiated Rate & Non-Conforming Agreement--SW--
Compliance to be effective 11/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/21/13.
    Accession Number: 20131121-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-151-001.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.
    Description: 2013 NWP Housekeeping Filing Ammendment to be
effective 12/5/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20131122-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/13.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR Sec.  385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 25, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28924 Filed 12-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 138 (Friday, July 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41948]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16701]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0400; FRL-9913-80-Region-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri, Auto Exhaust Emission Controls

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take
direct final action to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the state of Missouri on January 14, 2014, for
the purpose of removing an outdated rule. This action amends the SIP to
remove a rule that was originally approved in 1972 but has now been
rescinded. This rule refers to exhaust emission control components that
are no longer manufactured. Vehicle manufacturers now produce newer
technology in exhaust emissions equipment in order to meet more
stringent Federal motor vehicle standards.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
August 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2014-0400, by mail to Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or
through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in
the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of
the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional
information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 1, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2014-16701 Filed 7-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45787-45788]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19347]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC11-97-000.
    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, Morgan Stanley
Capitol Group Inc.
    Description: Joint Section 203 Application of J.P. Morgan Ventures
Energy Corporation and Morgan Stanley Capital Group.
    Filed Date: 07/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110722-5173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 12, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2042-001; ER10-1942-001; ER10-1941-001; ER10-
1938-001; ER10-1888-001; ER10-1885-001; ER10-1884-001; ER10-1883-001;
ER10-1878-001; ER10-1876-001; ER10-1875-001; ER10-1873-001; ER10-1947-
001; ER10-1864-001; ER10-1862-001; ER10-1865-001.
    Applicants: Calpine Energy Services, L.P., South Point Energy
Center, LLC, Delta Energy Center, LLC, Geysers Power Company, LLC, Otay
Mesa Energy Center, LLC, Calpine Power America--CA, LLC, Pastoria
Energy Center, LLC, Metcalf Energy Center, LLC, Los Medanos Energy
Center LLC, Los Esteros Critical Energy Facility LLC, Goose Haven
Energy Center, LLC, Gilroy Energy Center, LLC, Creed Energy Center,
LLC, Calpine Gilroy Cogen, L.P., Power Contract Financing, L.L.C.,
Calpine Construction Finance Co., L.P.
    Description: Fourth Supplement to updated Market Power Analysis of
Calpine Energy Services, L.P., et al.
    Filed Date: 07/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110722-5179.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 12, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2074-001; ER10-2097-003.
    Applicants: Kansas City Power & Light Company, KCP&L Greater
Missouri Operations Company.
    Description: Supplemental Information of Kansas City Power & Light
Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 07/15/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110715-5153.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 05, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2758-001.
    Applicants: EnergyConnect, Inc.
    Description: EnergyConnect, Inc. Notice of Non-Material Change in
Status.
    Filed Date: 07/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110722-5148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 12, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3912-001.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits tariff filing
per 35.17(b): Amendment to APS Service Agreement No. 311 to be
effective 8/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 07/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110722-5029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 12, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3963-001.
    Applicants: Bruce Power Inc.
    Description: Bruce Power Inc. submits tariff filing per 35: Bruce
Power Inc. Substitute First Revised Tariff submitted on 7/22/2011.
    Filed Date: 07/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110722-5055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 12, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4102-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits tariff
filing per 35: OATT Changes for Intra-Hour Scheduling to be effective
9/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 07/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110722-5136.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 12, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4103-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 253, Construction
Agreement between WAPA and APS to be effective 9/9/2011.
    Filed Date: 07/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110722-5151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 12, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4104-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Letter Agreement for Three 230kV Lines
Eldorado Substation with NV Energy to be effective 7/14/2011.
    Filed Date: 07/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110722-5154.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 12, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4105-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35: Order No. 745 Compliance Filing to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 07/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110722-5159.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 12, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4106-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35: Compliance Filing per Order 745 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 07/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110722-5160.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 12, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the

FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic
service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or
be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an
eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling
link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 25, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-19347 Filed 7-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


SECTION F: PROPOSED TOLERANCE:

ArchAngel LLC is proposing to amend the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 C. F. R. 180.1021( c) to read:

180.1021 Copper; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance ( a) ***

( b) ***

( c) Copper sulfate pentahydrate ( CAS Reg. No. 7758 99 8) is exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when applied as a fungicide to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest and for residues in or on meat, fat and meat by products of cattle, sheep, hogs, goats, horses, poultry, milk and eggs when applied as a bactericide fungicide to animal premises and bedding.


Comments on draft Ch. 5 of the RIA for PM (August 16, 2006)

The brief comments on draft Ch. 5 have to do with the issues of
uncertainty and of differential toxicity brought up in the draft
chapter.

Summary

The draft RIA, Ch. 5, should discuss specific sensitivities in at least
some detail, rather than briefly mentioning them (sometimes with
ambiguous wording).  If sensitivities are to be brought up (as we agree
they should be), then some important ones not presently identified
and/or discussed should be identified and discussed.

Discussion

A.  In the last paragraph on pg. 5-23 is the following passage:

“While the HEI reexamination lends credibility to the original
studies, it also highlights sensitivities concerning the relative impact
of various pollutants, the potential role of education in mediating the
association between pollution and mortality, and the influence of
spatial correlation modeling.  Further confirmation and extension of the
overall findings using more recent air quality and a longer follow-up
period for the ACS cohort was recently published (Pope et al., 2002  XE
"Pope et al., 2002"  )….”

The draft is correct to highlight sensitivities, but it fails to note
important sensitivities, some of which were spelled out in the Preamble
of Jan. 17.  Among these are:

1.  The influence of spatial correlation modeling appears to refer to
the fact that when the gas SO2 is included in the model of Krewski et al
(2000), the fine PM and the sulfate risk coefficients are sharply
reduced and become insignificant, while the SO2 risk coefficient remains
large and significant.  Commenters have suggested that the dominance of
SO2 may be reflective that PM emissions from specific local sources of
SO2 (such as steel mills and coke ovens of the time period of these
studies, starting in the early 1980s) were the most health-relevant.

The January 17 Preamble discusses this issue on pp. 2652/3.  It points
out that the Pope et al (2002) follow-up analysis failed to include
multi-pollutant modeling, in particular with regard to SO2.

Thus the discussion on pg. 5-23 could be augmented by explaining more
fully what is meant by the ambiguous passage “and the influence of
spatial correlation modeling” and by pointing out that the Pope et al
(2002) follow-up skirted the issue.  If this ambiguous passage does NOT
refer to the SO2/multipollutant modeling issue, then it should include
discussion of this issue.

2.  Neither the ACS study nor the Six Cities study monitored for health
relevant local pollutants such as PAHs and BC/EC, metals such as Ni and
V, and proxies for specific source exposure such as vehicle miles
traveled per square mile.  While central monitor studies have
methodological infirmities that have been improved upon by more recent
studies using more sophisticated methodologies, nevertheless monitoring
for emissions and proxides such as these could have pointed to specific
sources and might have driven fine PM to statistical insignificance, as
inclusion of SO2 has already done.

Thus in a discussion of sensitivities of the ACS and Six Cities studies,
and of the Krewski et al (2000) reanalysis, the sensitivity of the many
pollutant and proxies not monitored is important, and should be
mentioned here.

Finally, two additional recent publications discuss in detail these
issues of sensitivity, and therefore, along with Krewski et al (2000)
should also be referenced and discussed: these are Jerrett et al (2003)
and Jerrett and Finkelstein (2005).

B.  On pg. 5-35, there is a discussion of Uncertainties in the PM
Mortality Relationship.  The discussion of Other Pollutants is very
short and uninformative, and should be expanded substantially.

For example, there are three cohort studies (from 2002, 2004, and 2005)
showing that those who live in close proximity to highways and major
urban roads have highly elevated risks of mortality and cardiovascular
morbidity, far higher than in Pope et al (2002), the ACS follow-up.
Highway emissions include VOCs and SVOCs which are highly correlated
with vehicular PM; in fact, the mass of just SVOCs from a clean burning
diesel engine is greater than the mass of PM from the engine.  PAHs come
in all three physical forms (VOC, SVOC, and PM), with PM PAHs often in
the ultrafine size mode.

Toxicology as well shows that emissions from such roads have substantial
health effects (McDonald et al, 2004; Seagrave et al, 2006).  DOE’s
May 1 comments included a 47 page section discussing the many studies
(epidemiology, CAPs, and toxicology) suggesting many different health
effects attributable to vehicular emissions.

So one uncertainty, with regard to Other Pollutants, would be emissions
from highway vehicles, and this uncertainty should be specifically noted
and briefly discussed.

Other Pollutants should also briefly identify residual fuel fly ash
(ROFA) and Ni as also being pollutants with identifiable specific
effects, based upon a number of recent studies.

C. On pg. 5-36, there is a discussion of relative toxicity, including
this passage:

However, to provide information that may be useful as additional studies
become available, we are providing estimates of the proportions of
benefits that are attributable to specific components of PM2.5, e.g.,
ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, elemental carbon, organic carbon,
and crustal material (which includes metals).

1.  Where is this information provided?

2.  Are there going to be sensitivity analyses, based upon assumptions
of differential toxicities of different types of fine PM?

3.  As a recommendation – recognizing that EPA does not at this point
agree that secondary sulfates are not harmful (including any secondary
aerosols which might not exist but for atmospheric processes involving
transformation of SO2) – a model run could nevertheless  be done based
on the assumption of little to no harm from these types of fine PM (with
as many caveats as EPA would like).  This would be of especial
significance for understanding the 14/35 option, which depends largely
on further reductions of SO2 from industry and EGUs.  What would the
costs and benefits of 14/35 be, if health effects of these types of fine
PM were negligible?

We would point out that DOE comments of May 1 on the Proposed Standard,
and DOE comments of July 6 on the Provisional Assessment, both reviewed
abundant new evidence showing that secondary sulfates and associated
organic aerosols are unlikely to cause much harm.  Most of these studies
have become available since the “cutoff date” of April 2002 for
consideration of new studies.  Thus there is adequate justification for
doing a provisional model run with the assumption that these types of
fine PM may pose negligible threats to human health.

For example, I became aware today of a new 2006 study, funded by EPA and
the Health Effects Institute, of the differential effects of types of
fine PM in Detroit.  This study finds that adverse airway responses in
allergic laboratory animals did not occur when the air mass was high in
fine PM mass and in secondary sulfate, but did occur on days with
smaller fine PM mass, but with higher levels of local emissions.  This
is another in a long line of studies making similar findings, most of
which have been provided to EPA and OMB in the two sets of prior
comments.

 Spatial Analysis of the Air Pollution-Mortality Relationship in the
Context of Ecological Confounders, J. Toxicol. Enviro. Health, Part A,
66: 1735-1777 (2003)

 Geographies of Risk in Studies Linking Chronic Air Pollution Exposure
to Health Outcomes, , J. Toxicol. Enviro. Health, Part A, 68: 1-36
(2005)

 Chow et al, 2006 Critical Review Discussion: Health Effects of Fine
Particulate Air Pollution: Lines That Connect, J Air Waste Mgmt Assn, in
press (2006)

 Morishita, M. et al.  2006.  Source identification of ambient PM2.5
during summer inhalation exposure studies in Detroit, MI.  Atmospheric
Environment 40: 3823-3834


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, DC 20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

July 6, 2006

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Residential Exposure Inert Assessment of Alkylbenzene Sulfonates for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document (RED).

TO:		Heather Garvie, Chemical Review Manager, Reregistration Team 36

		Regulatory Management Branch II

		Antimicrobials Division (7510C)

		And

Deborah Smegal, Risk Assessor

Reregistration Branch I

Health Effects Division (7509C)

FROM:	Talia Milano, Chemist, Team II

		Cassi Walls, Ph.D., Chemist, Team III

		Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510C)

THRU:	Norm Cook, Branch Chief

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510C)

DP Barcode: 330330

Case No.: 4006

	Chemical Name (s) 								CAS #1				PC CODE1

Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate				 25155-30-0		790102

Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16-alkyl derivatives 		68584-22-5		790116

Dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid 				27176-87-0		790101

1: The CAS # and PC Codes listed reflect the current numbering system. However, Dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid is not a pure chemical, and is considered part of the mixture of Benzenesulfonic acid.  A discussion of this discrepancy can be found in the Preliminary Risk Assessment.

RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE INERT ASSESSMENT OF

ALKYLBENZENE SULFONATES IN SUPPORT OF THE REREGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY DECISION DOCUMENT (RED)

REREGISTRATION CASE 4006

7/6/06

Antimicrobials Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Executive Summary/Background Information:

This document is the Residential Inert Exposure Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document (RED) for alkylbenzene sulfonates.  The currently listed ingredients that are included under this decision are sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (CAS # 25155-30-0), dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid (CAS # 27176-87-0), and benzenesulfonic acid, C10-C16 alkyl derivatives (CAS # 68584-22-5).  To date, dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid has been listed separately from benzenesulfonic acid, C10-C16 alkyl derivatives, and identified by the CAS #27176-87-0 on numerous labels and in different databases.  Dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid is not considered to be a pure compound, and is included in the mixture of benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16 alkyl derivatives.  For future references of this chapter, any conclusions that are made specifically about benzenesulfonic acid, C10-C16 alkyl derivatives will be representative of dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid.  For this specific chapter, the chemicals are referred to as they are identified in current databases.

At this time alkylbenzene sulfonates are formulated as inert ingredients in approximately 350 registered end-use products, which are formulated as soluble concentrates, flowable concentrates, ready-to-use solutions, or water-soluble packaging.  The alkylbenzene sulfonate inerts function as a solvent, surfactant, dispersant, detergent, or wetting agent.  Products that contain alkylbenzene sulfonates as an inert are designated for use in agricultural settings, food handling premises, medical premises, commercial/ institutional/ industrial settings, and residential settings.  Specified use sites for the products include the following: indoor hard non-porous surfaces (e.g. floors, walls etc.), carpets, food contact surfaces (glasses, dishes, silverware, countertops, etc.), agricultural tools and crops, lawns and turfs, fruits and vegetables (post-harvest), wood preservatives, materials preservatives, metalworking fluids, and pet products. This assessment evaluated representative high-end residential exposure scenarios which include: applicators of ready to use liquid turf and garden products, applicators of  ready to use liquid hard surface cleaners, applicators of pet products, and children’s post-application exposures to turf, hard surface, and pet products.

For this assessment, the CSFs were examined to determine appropriate formulation rates to use for each scenario evaluated.  The percent formulations for most of the products that contain alkylbenzene sulfonates as an inert ingredient range from 0.01% to 5%.  It should be noted that a few sanitizing products have inert levels as high as 30% and the highest concentration of alkylbenzene sulfonates are found in wood preservative products up to 65%.  The risks were assessed at an appropriate high-end formulation, which is dependent upon the product type.

The durations and routes of exposure that were evaluated in this assessment include short-term (ST) inhalation exposure and short term incidental oral exposure to children.   A dermal assessment was not conducted because the Agency determined that quantification of dermal risks is not required. However, it should be noted that alkylbenzene sulfonates are considered to be dermal irritants in formulations generally greater than 20%.  The toxicological endpoints used in this assessment are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Alkylbenzene Sulfonates

Exposure

Scenario	Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF 	Special FQPA SF*, endpoint and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment	Study and Toxicological Effects

Acute Dietary

(All populations)	No endpoint was selected.  No effects are attributable to a single dose.

Chronic Dietary

(All populations)	Systemic/

Reproductive NOAEL= 50  mg/kg/day

UF = 100

Chronic RfD =

 0.5 mg/kg/day

	FQPA SF = 1X

cPAD =

chronic RfD

 FQPA SF

= 0.5 mg/kg/day	Systemic/Reproductive LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based on decreased Day 21 female pup body weight (Buehler, E. et al. 1971. Tox. Appl. Pharmacol. 18:83-91)

plus

LOAEL= 145 mg/kg/day from 9 month drinking water rat study based on decreased body weight gain, and serum/ biochemical and enzymatic changes in the liver and kidney  (Yoneyama et al. 1976 Ann. Rep. Tokyo Metrop. Res. Lab. Public Health 27(2):105-112)

 plus

LOAEL= 114 mg/kg/day (0.2%) based on increased caecum weight and slight kidney damage in a 6 month rat dietary study (Yoneyama et al  1972  Ann. Rep. Tokyo Metrop. Res. Lab. Public Health 24:409-440)

Short-Term Incidental Oral (1-30 days)

	Oral NOAEL= 50 mg/kg/day	Residential LOC for MOE = 100  Systemic/Reproductive LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based on decreased Day 21 female pup body weight (Buehler, E. et al. 1971. Tox. Appl. Pharmacol. 18:83-91)

plus

LOAEL= 145 mg/kg/day from 9 month drinking water rat study based on decreased body weight gain, and serum/ biochemical and enzymatic changes in the liver and kidney  (Yoneyama et al. 1976 Ann. Rep. Tokyo Metrop. Res. Lab. Public Health 27(2):105-112)

 plus

LOAEL= 114 mg/kg/day (0.2%) based on increased caecum weight and slight kidney damage in a 6 month rat dietary study (Yoneyama et al  1972  Ann. Rep. Tokyo Metrop. Res. Lab. Public Health 24:409-440)

Short-, intermediate- and Long-Term Inhalation (1 to 30 days, 1-6 months, >6 months)

	Inhalation study NOAEL= 1mg/m3 detergent dust combined with up to 0.1 mg/m3 enzyme dust

Equivalent to approximately 0.14 mg/kg/day (a)

(inhalation absorption rate = 100%)

purity= 13% active ingredient	Residential LOC for MOE = 100

Occupational LOC for MOE = 100 	Subchronic Inhalation Monkey Study

LOAEL = 10 mg/m3 detergent combined with 0.1 mg/m3 enzyme dust based on weight loss and decreased weight gain (W. Coates, et al  1978. Tox. Appl. Pharmacol. 45: 477-496)  This air concentration is equivalent to approximately 1.4 mg/kg/day (a)

Dermal Endpoint	Quantification of dermal risk is not required since: 1) the alkylbenzene sulfonates are surfactants that are dermal irritants at concentrations generally greater than 20% solution (WHO 1996).  Thus, dermal exposure would be self-limiting to preclude dermal irritation.  Most pesticide formulations have less than 5% alkylbenzene sulfonates as an inert ingredient, with the vast majority of household products containing approximately 2%.  Additionally, the requirement of the dermal toxicity studies with the end-use product will determine whether personal protective clothing would be necessary to protect against irritation during product use; 2) no systemic toxicity was seen following repeated dermal applications to rabbits at 200 mg/kg/day (with an end use product);  3) no developmental toxicity concerns were seen following repeated dermal applications to pregnant mice, rats or rabbits (developmental effects were seen either in the presence of maternal toxicity or at doses higher than those that caused maternal toxicity); and 4) there is no residential exposure to alkylbenzene sulfonates as an active ingredient, however, residential exposure from its use as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations is expected to be of an intermittent nature (i.e, no continuous, constant contact, multi-day exposure) from household products.

Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)	No evidence of carcinogenicity in reported studies in rats done before 1980 GLPs

The margins of exposures (MOEs) that were calculated for the inert uses of alkylbenzene sulfonates in residential products (i.e., turf/garden, cleaning products, and pet products) are summarized in Table 2.  The MOEs were calculated for each scenario at the appropriate high-end representative rate.  The target MOE for this assessment is 100.

Table 2. Summary of the Short Term MOEs for Alkylbenzene Sulfonates used as Inert Ingredients

Product Use

Exposure Scenario

MOE  @ selected representative formulation

Ready to Use Liquid turf spot/gardensa

Applicator

Low pressure handwand; MLAP	20,000

Applicator

Hose end sprayer; MLAP	3,100

Applicator

Backpack; MLAP	20,000

	Applicator

Sprinkling can; MLAP	63,000

Ready to Use Liquid, hard surface cleanerb,d

Applicator

Low pressure handwand; MLAP	1,000

Pet productsc	Applicator

Handler inhalation exposure to shampoo	87

Ready to Use Liquid Turf spot/gardensa	Postapplication

Incidental ingestion: hand to mouth	4,600

Ready to Use Liquid, hard surface cleaner b,d	Postapplication

Incidental ingestion: hand to mouth	7,400

Pet productsc	Postapplication

Toddler incidental oral ingestion	106

a: representative high end % formulation for this use scenario  = 11%

b: representative high end % formulation for this use scenario = 8%

c: representative high end % formulation for this use scenario  = 24%

d: This postapplication scenario is representative of the incidental oral ingestion exposures to treated carpets.  There is a higher percent active ingredient used in the hard surface cleaner product, and in addition, there is a higher rate of transfer from the floor than there is from the carpets.  Any risk associated with hard surface cleaners are assumed representative of those associated with carpet cleaners.

Inert Assessment of Alkylbenzene Sulfonates:

The U.S Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Pesticide Inert Risk Assessment Tool (PiRat) was used to estimate applicator and post-application exposures and risks from the use of alkylbenzene sulfonates as an inert ingredient in representative residential products.  Background information and the downloadable executable file for PiRat can be found at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/docs/pirat.htm.  Unless specified, all of PiRat’s default values were used in each run.  Although PiRat has a module that can estimate exposures to pet products, it was not used since HED’s screening level methodologies have changed since the development of PiRat.  Therefore, the most recent methodologies were utilized to assess exposure to inert ingredients in pet products. It should also be noted that PiRat does not have a module that can estimate post application exposures to hard surface cleaners, therefore AD’s standard methodologies which are based on HED’s Residential SOPs were used.

Based on the review of Confidential Statements of Formula (CSFs), the percent formulations assessed were selected as a result of being high-end representations of the overall query of products that contain alkylbenzene sulfonates as an inert.  These selected percentages are appropriately indicated in the footnotes of the summary tables presented below.  It should be noted that even though alkylbenzene sulfonates are used in numerous types of residential and occupational products, only exposures from representative residential, high-end scenarios were estimated in this assessment.  There was no dermal assessment conducted because of the lack of a dermal toxicological endpoint.  In addition, there were no post-application inhalation risks anticipated because the vapor pressure of the sulfonates is extremely low, and thus an inhalation post-application assessment was not conducted.

The following residential use sites were assumed to be the high-end representative scenarios for inert uses of alkylbenzene sulfonates: outdoor residential premises, indoor hard surfaces, and pet products.  For each of the use sites that were assessed through using PiRat, the applicator exposures and risks are presented in Tables 3 and 4, while the oral (incidental ingestion) exposures and risks are presented in Table 5.

Table 3. Applicator Short-term Inhalation Exposures and MOEs for Alkylbenzene Sulfonates used as Inert Ingredients in Outdoor Products

Product Use

Application Method

Area Treateda	Inhalation Exposure

@ 11% (mg/kg/day)b

Inhalation MOEc

@ 11% a.i. formulation

Ready to Use Liquid turf spot/gardens

Low pressure handwand; MLAP	1000 ft2/day (spot)	7.07E-06	2.00.E+04

Hose end sprayer; MLAP	2x104 ft2/day

(full broadcast)	4.48E-05	3.10.E+03

Backpack; MLAP	1000 ft2/day (spot)	7.07E-06	2.00.E+04

	Sprinkling can; MLAP	1000 ft2/day (spot)	2.24E-06	6.30.E+04

a:  Standard PiRat model input parameters, for complete model output, see Appendix A

b: an application rate of 0.00015 lb product/ft2 was assumed for all scenarios and the body weight = 70kg.

c:  MOEs = NOAEL / exposure, where inhalation NOAEL = 0.14 mg/kg/day and the target MOE = 100

Table 4. Applicator Short-term Inhalation Exposures and MOEs for Alkylbenzene Sulfonates used as Inert Ingredients in Indoor Products

Product Use	Application Method	Amount Usedb	Inhalation Exposure

@ 8%

(mg/kg/day)c	MOEd

@ 8% a.i. formulation

Ready to Use Liquid, hard surface cleaner a,e

Low pressure handwand; MLAP	0.5 gallons/day	1.37x10-4	1,000

a: PiRat’s crack and crevice scenario was used to represent the applicator hard surface cleaner scenario.

b: Standard PiRat model input parameters, for complete model output, see Appendix B.

c: An application rate of 8 lb/gallon, which is the density of water, was assumed for all scenarios and the body weight =70kg.

d:  MOEs = NOAEL / exposure, where inhalation NOAEL = 0.14 mg/kg/day and the target MOE = 100

Table 5. Toddler Short-term Post-Application Incidental Oral Exposures and MOEs for Alkylbenzene Sulfonates when used as an inerta

Product Use	Route of Exposure	Exposure @11% (mg/kg/day)

	MOEc

@ 11% a.i. formulation

Ready to Use Liquid Turf spot/gardensd	Incidental ingestion: hand to mouth	1.08E-02	4,600

a: The representative use sites assessed using PiRAT, For a complete model output, see Appendix C.

b: The toddler body weight = 15kg

c: MOEs = NOAEL / exposure where incidental oral NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day.  Target MOE = 100.

	As previously indicated, there is the potential for dermal exposure to toddlers crawling on hard floors after treatment with alkylbenzene sulfonate containing products.  Because there is no dermal endpoint identified, a post application dermal exposure assessment was not conducted.  However, toddlers crawling on treated hard floors will also be exposed to alkylbenzne sulfonate residues via incidental oral exposure through hand-to-mouth activity.  To calculate incidental ingestion exposure to these chemicals due to hand-to-mouth transfer, AD’s methodologies based on HED’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments (USEPA 2000 and, 2001) were used.  Exposures were calculated for children contacting treated floors in residential homes using the following equations for hand-to-mouth transfer of residues to toddlers.  In addition, the risks associated with a toddler coming into contact with a treated hard surface residues are assumed to represent the risks associated with a toddler coming into contact with a treated carpet residues.

PDD = SR x DTF x SA x EF x ET x SE x CF1

                                         BW

where:

PDD		=		Potential daily dose (mg/kg/day);

μg/cm2);

DTF		=		Dermal transfer factor (unitless fraction);

SA		=		Surface area of the hands that contact both the treated area, and the individuals mouth (cm2/event);

FQ		=		Frequency of hand-to-mouth events (events/hr);

SE		=		Saliva extraction efficiency (unitless fraction);

ET		=		Exposure Time (4 hrs/day);

CF1		=		Unit conversion factor (0.001 mg/µg); and

BW		=		Body weight (15 kg)

And

SR=AR x DRF x CF2 x CF3

where:

SR		=		Surface residue (µg/cm2);

AR		=		Application rate (lb ai/ft2);

DRF		=		Disinfection fraction remaining on floor (unitless);

CF2		=		Unit conversion factor (4.54x108 µg/lb); and

CF3		=		Unit conversion factor (1.08x10-3 ft2/cm2)

Assumptions

Toddlers (3 years old) were used to represent the 1 to 6 year old age group and are assumed to weigh 15 kg, the median for male and female toddlers (USEPA, 2000 and 2001).

Based on HED’s Residential SOP, it was assumed that the surface area used for each hand-to-mouth event is 20 cm2.  For short-term exposures, it is assumed that there were 20 events per hour (90th percentile, according to the SOP) and for intermediate-term exposures, it was assumed that there were 9.5 event/hour (mean value).

The exposure time was 4 hours a day (USEPA, 2000 and 2001).

The saliva extraction efficiency was 50% (USEPA, 2000 and 2001).

The labels did not provide information on the volume of disinfectant to be used for cleaning surfaces such as floors.  It was assumed that the diluted treatment solution was applied at a rate of 1 gallon per 1,000 sq. ft. The maximum application rate on the product labels for application to hard surfaces is 0.0104 lb ai/gal.  Therefore, the application rate used in the post application scenario was 0.0000104 lb ai/ft2.

No data could be found regarding the quantity of solution residue left on the floor after treatment.  As a conservative measure, it was assumed that 25% of the cleaner remains after the final mopping.

No transferable residue data were available that could be used to estimate the transfer of alkylbenzene sulfonates from the floor to skin.  Therefore, it was assumed that 10% of the deposition rate is available for dermal transfer (USEPA, 2000 and 2001).

Results

	The calculation of the short term oral doses and oral MOEs are shown in Table 6.  The oral MOEs are above the target MOE of 100 for residential settings, and therefore are not of concern.

Table 6. Toddler Short-term Post-Application Incidental Oral Exposures and MOEs for Alkylbenzene Sulfonates when used as an inert in hard surface cleanersa

Exposure Scenario

Appl. Rate

 (lb ai/

sq ft)

Product remaining after mopping

Surface Residuea (µg/cm2)

Percent transferable residue

Surface area mouthed (cm2/event)

Exposure Frequency (events/hr)

Saliva Extraction Factor

Exp. Time (hrs/day)

Absorbed Potential Daily Doseb (mg/kg/day)

Oral MOEc

Hard surfaces - residential setting @ 8%	1.04 x E-05

25%

1.3

10%

20

20

50%

4	0.0068	7,400

a 	Surface residue (µg/cm2) = (application rate, lb ai/ft2)*(Disinfectant fraction remaining on floor, 0.25)*(conversion factor to convert lb to µg, 4.54E+08 µg/lb)*(conversion factor to convert ft2 to cm2, 1.08E-03 ft2/cm2)

b 	Absorbed Potential Daily Dose  (mg/kg/day) = [(Surface residue, µg/cm2)*(transferable residue, 0.10)*(exposure time, 4 hrs/day)*(surface area of hands, 20 cm2/event)*(frequency of hand-to-mouth activity, 20 events/hr)*(extraction by saliva, 50 %)*(conversion factor to convert µg to mg, 0.001 mg/µg)]/(body weight, 15 kg)

c 	MOE = NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / absorbed potential daily dose(mg/kg/day) [Where short-term oral NOAEL = 50

mg/kg/day].  Target MOE = 100.

Alkylbenzene sulfonates are also used as inert ingredients in pet flea and tick products.  Therefore applicator inhalation exposures as well as toddler incidental oral exposures were evaluated.  Although PiRat has a module that can estimate exposures to pet products, it was not used since HED’s screening level methodologies have changed since the development of PiRat.  The most recent methodologies were utilized to assess exposure pet products residues. In addition, aerosol application was the methodology chosen as the representative worst case scenario for this assessment.

The following equation and assumptions were used to estimate dermal and inhalation residential applicator exposures to pet product residues:

Exposure = UE x AR x N / BW

where,

AR	=	Application rate (lb ai/can)

UE	=	Unit exposure (mg/lb ai)

N	=	Number of cans (cans/day)

BW	=	Body weight (kg)

All of the input parameters are defaults provided in HEDs Residential SOPs (US EPA, 1997 and 2001).  The 24% formulation was used as the representative high end scenario.  Table 7 provides the input parameters and resulting exposures and MOEs.

Table 7. Applicator Short-term Exposures and MOEs for Alkylbenzene Suflonates used as Inert Ingredients in Aerosol Pet Flea and Tick Products

Exposure = UE x AR x N / BW

Percent a.i.

24%

Unit Exposure (mg / lb ai)1	UE	2.4

Application Rate (lb ai/can)2	AR	0.0938

Number of cans/day 1	N	0.5

Percent Absorption

100%

Body weight (kg)1	BW	70

Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)

1.61x10-3

Inhalation NOAEL (mg/kg/day)

0.14

Target MOE

100

MOE3

87

1 AD Standard Assumption

2 6 oz/can x % ai x 1gal/128oz x 8.34lb/gal (assuming density of water)

3 MOEs = NOAEL / exposure, where the NOAEL = 0.14 mg/kg/day

The following equation and assumptions were used to estimate toddler incidental oral residential post-application exposure to pet product residues:

Exposure = AR x T x SA x SE x FQ / BW

where,

AR	=	Application rate (mg/cm2 animal)

T	=	Transfer fraction from treated pet (%)

SA	=	Surface area of a child’s hands (cm2/event)

SE	=	Saliva extraction (%)

FQ	=	Frequency of contact (event/day)

BW	=	Body weight (kg)

All of the input parameters are defaults provided in HEDs Residential SOPs (US EPA, 1997 and 2001).  The percent formulation of 24% was also used in this assessment.  Table 8 provides the input parameters and resulting exposures and MOEs.

Table 8. Toddler Short-term Post-application Incidental Oral Exposure and MOE for Alkylbenzene Sulfonates when used as an Inert Ingredient in Aerosol Flea and Tick Pet Products

Exposure = AR x T x SA x SE x FQ / BW

Percent a.i.

24%

 Application Rate (mg/cm2 of animal)1	AR	3.554

 Transferable Fraction2	T	20%

 Surface area of a child’s hand (cm2) 2	SA	20

 Saliva Extraction2	SE	50%

 Frequency (events/day)3	FQ	1

 Body weight (kg)2	BW	15

 Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)

0.4739

 Oral NOAEL (mg/kg/day)

50

     Target MOE

100

 MOE4

106

1 3 oz x %ai/6000cm2 x 1gal/128oz x 8.34lb/gal x 1kg/2.2lb x 1000g/kg x 1000mg/g

where it was assumed that 1/( of 6 oz spray container is applied to a 30 lb animal having a surface area of 6000cm2

2 US EPA, 1997 and 2001 (HED’s Residential SOPs)

3 frequency was modified to reflect transferable residue assumptions which is based on a 5 minute heavy rubbing/petting technique that would lead to significantly higher hand concentrations than would result from a single contact

4 MOE = NOAEL / exposure

Works Cited:

USEPA.  2000.  Residential SOPs.  EPA Office of Pesticide Programs(Human Health Effects Division. Dated April 5, 2000.

USEPA.  2001.  HED Science Advisory Council for Exposure. Policy Update, November 12.  Recommended Revisions to the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessment, February 22, 2001.

Appendix A: PiRat Model Output for Inhalation Risks to Handlers Using Outdoor Products

 PRIVATE  PiRat Handler Report for Formulation Type Emulsifiable Concentrate

Functional Use:Surfactant (surfactant, detergent) PRIVATE

Toxicity Value: .14

Body Weight: 70.0 kg	Weight Fraction: 0.110

Duration: Short Term

Absorption Value: 100.0 %

 PRIVATE  	Scenario #1		Scenario #2	Scenario #3	Scenario #4

Product Use:	turf	turf	turf			turf

Application Method:	low pressure handwand; MLAP	hose end sprayer; MLAP backpack: MLAP	sprinkling can; MLAP

Dermal PDR (mg/kg/day):	         N/A 	         N/A 	         N/A 	         N/A

Inhalation PDR (mg/kg/day)	     7.07E-06	    4.48E-05	    7.07E-06	     2.24E-06

Dermal Unit Exposure (mg/lb):	         N/A 	         N/A

	         N/A

	         N/A

Inhalation Unit Exposure (mg/lb):	    3.00E-02

Medium

80 reps	    9.50E-03

Low

8 reps	    3.00E-02

Low

11 reps	    9.50E-03

Low

8 reps

Application Rate: 	    1.50E-04* lb/ft2	    1.50E-04* lb/ft2	    1.50E-04* mg/kg/day	    1.50E-04* lb/ft2

Fraction Exposed:	         N/A 	         N/A 	         N/A 	         N/A

Amount used:	1000.00  ft2/day (spot)	2.00E+04  ft2/day (full broadcast) 1000.00  ft2/day (spot)	1000.00  ft2/day (spot)

Density (lb/gal):	         N/A 	         N/A 	         N/A 	         N/A

MOE:	       20000	        3100	       20000	       63000

Exposure Frequency (yrs)	         N/A	         N/A	         N/A	         N/A

Exposure Duration (yrs)	         N/A	         N/A	         N/A	         N/A

Averaging Time (yrs)	         N/A	         N/A	         N/A	         N/A

LADD	         N/A	         N/A	         N/A	         N/A

Cancer Risk	         N/A	         N/A	         N/A	         N/A

 PRIVATE  Dose Calculation:	Scenario #1-4	PDR=(UE*AR*WF*A)/BW

Assumptions:	Scenario #1	 1,000 ft2/day assumed to be equivalent to 5 gal/day; SAC Policy 11

	Scenario #2	upper percentile lawn size (SAC Policy 11)

	Scenario #3	1,000 ft2/day assumed to be equivalent to 5 gal/day; SAC Policy 11

	Scenario #4	assumed based on hose-end; SOPs

* Modified by user

Appendix B: PiRat Model Output for Inhalation Risks to Handlers Using Indoor Products

 PRIVATE  PiRat Handler Report for Formulation Type Soluble Concentrate

Functional Use:Surfactant (surfactant, sirfactant, detergent) PRIVATE

Toxicity Value: .14

Body Weight: 70.0 kg	Weight Fraction: 8.00E-02 (hard surface), 6.00E-02 (carpet)

Duration: Short Term

Absorption Value: 100.0 %

 PRIVATE  	Scenario #1	(hard surface)	Scenario #2 (carpet)

Product Use:	crack & crevice	crack & crevice

Application Method:	low pressure handwand; MLAP	low pressure handwand; MLAP

Dermal PDR (mg/kg/day):	         N/A 	         N/A

Inhalation PDR (mg/kg/day)	     1.37E-04	     1.03E-04

Dermal Unit Exposure (mg/lb):	         N/A

	         N/A

Inhalation Unit Exposure (mg/lb):	    3.00E-02

Medium

80 reps	    3.00E-02

Medium

80 reps

Application Rate: 	        8.00* lb/gal	        8.00* lb/gal

Fraction Exposed:	         N/A 	         N/A

Amount used:	        0.50  gal/day	        0.50  gal/day

Density (lb/gal):	         N/A 	         N/A

MOE:	        1000	        1400

Exposure Frequency (yrs)	         N/A	         N/A

Exposure Duration (yrs)	         N/A	         N/A

Averaging Time (yrs)	         N/A	         N/A

LADD	         N/A	         N/A

Cancer Risk	         N/A	         N/A

 PRIVATE  Dose Calculation:	Scenario #1 and 2	PDR=(UE*AR*WF*A)/BW

Assumptions:	Scenario #1 and 2	 SAC Policy 11

* Modified by user

Appendix C: PiRat Model Output for Toddler Postapplication Incidental Oral Exposure to Outdoor Products

 PRIVATE  PIRAT Post Application Report for Formulation Type Soluble Concentrate

Functional Use:Surfactant (surfactant, sirfactant, detergent)  PRIVATE

Toxicity Value: 50

Body Weight: 15 kg	Weight Fraction: 0.110 (turf)

Duration: Short Term

Absorption Value: 100.00 %

 PRIVATE  	Scenario #1 (turf)

Product Use:	turf

Activity:	hand-to-mouth transfer

Population:	toddlers (3 years)

PDR (mg/kg/day)	     1.08E-02

Ingestion Rate:	        0.50  (saliva extraction factor)

T (or Tc)	         N/A

Application Rate: 	    1.50E-04* lb/ft2

Weight Fraction:	0.110

Fraction Exposed:	    5.00E-02

Surface Area (cm2/event):	       20.00

Exposure Time (hrs/day):	        2.00

Frequency (ev/hr)	       20.00

Kp (cm/hr)	         N/A

Vp (torr)	         N/A

Molecular Weight (g/mole)	         N/A

Room Volume (m3)	         N/A

MOE:			        4600

Exposure Frequency (days/yr)	        0.00

Exposure Duration (yrs)	        0.00

Averaging Time (yrs)	       70.00

LADD (mg/kg/day)	         N/A

Cancer Risk	         N/A

Density (lbs/gal)	         N/A

Body Wt (postapp) (kg)	       15.00

Treated area	         N/A

 PRIVATE  Dose Calculation:	PDR={(AR/TA)*WF*F*4.54e5 mg/lb*1.08e-3 ft2/cm2*SA*IgR*FQ*ET}/BW*ABS

    * Modified by user

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  20


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

    \87\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs.
Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \88\ 18 CFR 380.4(2)(ii) (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    99. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 \89\ generally requires
a description and analysis of rules that will have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Most, if not all, of
the transmission organizations to which the requirements of this rule
would apply do not fall within the definition of small entities.\90\
Therefore, the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12 (2000).
    \90\ The RFA definition of ``small entity'' refers to the
definition provided in the Small Business Act, which defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. See
15 U.S.C. 632 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Comment Procedures

    100. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments
on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted,
including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters
may wish to discuss. Comments are due March 13, 2006. Reply comments
are due March 27, 2006. Comments and reply comments must refer to
Docket No. RM06-8-000,\91\

and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent,
if applicable, and their address in their comments. Comments and reply
comments may be filed either in electronic or paper format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ While we are issuing this NOPR in both Docket No. RM06-8-
000 and Docket No. AD05-7-000, we expect to issue our Final Rule in
only Docket No. RM06-8-000. Comments in response to this NOPR should
be filed in Docket No. RM06-8-000 only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    101. Comments and reply comments may be filed electronically via
the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov.

The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats and
commenters may attach additional files with supporting information in
certain other file formats. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing. Commenters that are not able to file
comments and reply comments electronically must send an original and 14
copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
    102. All comments and reply comments will be placed in the
Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded
remotely as described in the Document Availability section below.
Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their
comments and reply comments on other commenters.

XI. Document Availability

    103. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in
the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and

in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    104. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available in the Commission's document management
system, eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    105. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (e-
mail at FERCOnlineSupport@FERC.gov), or the Public Reference Room at
(202) 502-8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER> (e-mail at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov).

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40

    Electric power rates; Electric utilities.

    By direction of the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend
Subchapter B, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, by
adding a new Part 40 as follows:
* * * * *

Subchapter B--Regulations Under the Federal Power Act

* * * * *

PART 40--LONG-TERM FIRM TRANSMISSION RIGHTS IN ORGANIZED
ELECTRICITY MARKETS

Sec.
40.1 Requirement that Transmission Organizations with Organized
Electricity Markets offer Long-Term Transmission Rights

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r and section 217 of the Federal
Power Act.

Sec.  40.1  Requirement that Transmission Organizations with Organized
Electricity Markets Offer Long-Term Transmission Rights.

    (a) Purpose. This section requires a transmission organization with
one or more organized electricity markets (administered either by it or
by another entity) to make available long-term firm transmission
rights, pursuant to section 217(b)(4) of the Federal Power Act, that
satisfy the guidelines set forth in paragraph (d) of this section. This
section does not require that a specific type of long-term firm
transmission right be made available, and is intended to permit
transmission organizations flexibility in satisfying the guidelines set
forth in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    (1) Transmission Organization means a Regional Transmission
Organization, Independent System Operator, independent transmission
provider, or other independent transmission organization finally
approved by the Commission for the operation of transmission
facilities.
    (2) Load-serving entity means a distribution utility or an electric
utility that has a service obligation.
    (3) Service obligation means a requirement applicable to, or the
exercise of authority granted to, an electric utility under Federal,
State, or local law or under long-term contracts to provide electric
service to end-users or to a distribution utility.
    (4) Organized Electricity Market means an auction-based market
where a single entity receives offers to sell and bids to buy electric
energy and/or ancillary services from multiple sellers and buyers and
determines which sales and purchases are completed and at what prices,
based on formal rules contained in Commission-approved tariffs, and
where the prices are used by a transmission organization for
establishing transmission usage charges.
    (5) Long-term power supply arrangements means the ownership of
generation facilities, rights to market the output of Federal
generation facilities with a term of longer than one year, or rights
under one or more wholesale contracts to purchase electric energy with
a term of longer than one year, for the purpose of meeting a service
obligation.
    (c) General rule.
    (1) Every public utility that is a transmission organization and
that owns, operates or controls facilities used for the transmission of
electric energy in interstate commerce and has one or more organized
electricity markets (administered either by it or by another entity)
must file with the Commission, no later than [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], one of the
following:
    (i) Tariff sheets and rate schedules that make available long-term
firm transmission rights that are consistent with the guidelines set
forth in paragraph (d) of this section; or
    (ii) An explanation of how its current tariff and rate schedules
already provide for long-term firm transmission rights that are
consistent with the guidelines set forth in paragraph (d) of this
section.
    (2) Any transmission organization that is approved by the
Commission for operation after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and has one or more organized
electricity markets (administered either by it or by another entity)
must satisfy this general rule before commencing operation.
    (d) Guidelines for Design and Administration of Long-term Firm
Transmission Rights. Transmission organizations subject to paragraph
(c) of this section must make available long-term firm transmission
rights that satisfy the following guidelines:
    (1) The long-term firm transmission right should specify a source
(injection node or nodes) and sink (withdrawal node or nodes), and a
quantity (MW).
    (2) The long-term firm transmission right must provide a hedge
against day-

ahead locational marginal pricing congestion charges (or other direct
assignment of congestion costs) for the period covered and quantity
specified. Once allocated, the financial coverage provided by the right
should not be modified during its term except in the case of
extraordinary circumstances or through voluntary agreement of both the
holder of the right and the transmission organization.
    (3) Long-term firm transmission rights made feasible by
transmission upgrades or expansions must be available upon request to
any party that pays for such upgrades or expansions in accordance with
the transmission organization's prevailing cost allocation methods for
upgrades or expansions. The term of the rights should be equal to the
life of the facility (or facilities) or a lesser term requested by the
party paying for the upgrade or expansion.
    (4) Long-term firm transmission rights must be made available with
terms (and/or rights to renewal) that are sufficient to meet the needs
of load-serving entities to hedge long-term power supply arrangements
made or planned to satisfy a service obligation. The length of term of
renewals may be different from the original term.
    (5) Load-serving entities with long-term power supply arrangements
to meet a service obligation must have priority to existing
transmission capacity that supports long-term firm transmission rights
requested to hedge such arrangements.
    (6) A long-term transmission right held by a load-serving entity to
support a service obligation should be re-assignable to another entity
that acquires that service obligation.
    (7) The initial allocation of the long-term firm transmission
rights shall not require recipients to participate in an auction.
    (8) Allocation of long-term firm transmission rights should balance
any adverse economic impact between participants receiving and not
receiving the right.

[FR Doc. 06-1195 Filed 2-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P