[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17886-17889]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06963]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0164; FRL-9908-89-Region-3]

Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Commonwealth of Virginia; Control
of Emissions From Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
section 111(d)/129 plan submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for
sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. The section 111(d)/129 plan
contains a state rule for existing SSI units that was submitted as a
result of the March 21, 2011, promulgation of Federal new source
performance standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines for SSI units.
This action is being taken under sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0164. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Gordon,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 129 of the CAA requires EPA to establish performance
standards and emission guidelines for various types of new and existing
solid waste incineration units. Section 129(b)(2) requires States to
submit to EPA for approval section 111(d)/129 plans that implement and
enforce the promulgated emission guidelines. State submittals under CAA
sections 111(d) and 129 must be consistent with the relevant emission
guidelines, in this instance 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM, and the
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and part 62, subpart A.
    On December 12, 2012, the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (VADEQ) submitted to EPA a formal section 111(d)/129 plan for
SSI units. The submitted section 111(d)/129 plan was in response to the
March 21, 2011 promulgation of Federal NSPS and emission guidelines
requirements for SSI units, 40 CFR part 60, subparts LLLL and MMMM,
respectively (76 FR 15372).
    On December 3, 2013 (78 FR 72609), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPR,
EPA proposed approval of Virginia's section 111(d)/129 plan for
existing SSI units. No comments were received on the proposed approval.

II. Summary of Section 111(d)/129 Plan Submittal

    EPA has reviewed the Virginia section 111(d)/129 plan submittal in
the context of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and MMMM,
and part 62, subpart A. In this action, EPA is finalizing its
determination that the submitted section 111(d)/129 plan meets the
above-cited requirements. EPA is also revising 40 CFR Part 62, Subpart
VV to reflect this approval. A detailed explanation of the rationale
behind this action is available in the Technical Support Document (TSD)
for this rulemaking as well as the December 3, 2013 proposal.

III. General Information Pertaining to Section 111(d)/129 Plan
Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
    Other specific requirements of Virginia's section 111(d)/129 plan
for existing SSI units and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are
explained in the NPR and associated TSD, and will not be restated here.
No public comments were received on the NPR.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Virginia's section 111(d)/129 plan for existing
sewage sludge incineration units. Therefore, EPA is amending 40 CFR
part 62,

subpart VV to reflect this final action. This approval is based on the
rationale discussed above and in further detail in the TSD associated
with this action.
    The EPA Administrator continues to retain authority for several
tasks, as provided in 40 CFR 60.5050 and in Plan Provisions--section J
of the submittal.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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). This rule also does not
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it
approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing VADEQ's submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a VADEQ submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a VADEQ
submission, to use VCS in place of a VADEQ submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this
rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors
and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order
12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings
implications of the rule in accordance with the Attorney General's
``Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. This rule for
the approval of VADEQ's section 111(d)/129 plan for SSI units does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 30, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action approving Virginia's Section 111(d)/129 plan for
existing sewage sludge incineration units may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Administrative practice and procedure, Aluminum,
Fertilizers, Flouride, Intergovernmental relations, Paper and products
industry, Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Sulfuric acid plants, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: March 13, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. Subpart VV is amended by adding an undesignated center heading after
Sec.  62.11642 and by adding Sec. Sec.  62.11650, 62.11651, and
62.11652 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units--Section
111(d)/129 Plan

Sec.  62.11650  Identification of plan.

    Section 111(d)/129 plan for existing sewage sludge incineration and
the associated Virginia Administrative Code (VAC), specifically Article
55 of 9VAC5 Chapter 40, submitted to EPA on December 12, 2012.

Sec.  62.11651  Identification of sources.

    The affected facility to which the plan applies is each sewage
sludge incineration unit within the Commonwealth of Virginia that
commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010.

Sec.  62.11652  Effective date.

    The effective date of the plan for existing sewage sludge
incineration units is April 30, 2014.

[FR Doc. 2014-06963 Filed 3-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18393-18395]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06503]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0255]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zones; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing three temporary, 500-yard
radius, moving security zones for certain vessels carrying Certain
Dangerous Cargoes (CDC) within the Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La
Quinta Channel. The temporary security zones are needed to protect the
vessels, the CDC cargo, and the surrounding waterway from terrorist
acts, sabotage, or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of
a similar nature. Entry of vessels or persons into these zones is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Corpus Christi or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from March 29, 2023
until April 1, 2023. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be used from March 23, 2023, until March 29, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Anthony Garofalo, Sector Corpus
Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-
939-5130, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must
establish these security zones by March 23, 2023 to ensure security of
these vessels and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment
period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to provide for the security of these vessels.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector
Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated
with the transit of the Motor Vessel (M/V) VEGA SUN, M/V CLEAN CAJUN,
M/V GASLOG GEORGETOWN, M/V GAS PRIDE, and M/V SOLARIS, when loaded,
will be a security concern within a 500-yard radius of each vessel.
This rule is needed to provide for the safety and security the vessels,
their cargo, and surrounding waterway from terrorist acts, sabotage or
other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature
while they are transiting within Corpus Christi, TX, from March 23,
2023 through April 1, 2023.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing four 500-yard radius temporary
moving security zones around M/V VEGA SUN, M/V CLEAN CAJUN, M/V GASLOG
GEORGETOWN, M/V GAS PRIDE, and M/V SOLARIS. The zones for the vessels
will be enforced from March 23, 2023, through April 1, 2023. The
duration of the zones are intended to protect the vessels and cargo and
surrounding waterway from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive
acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. No vessel or
person will be permitted to enter the security zones without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
    Entry into these security zones is prohibited unless authorized by
the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is
a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector
Corpus Christi. Persons or vessels desiring to enter or pass through
each zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If
permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the
instructions of the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a
designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast
Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or
Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate for the
enforcement times and dates for each security zone.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
duration, and location of the security zones. This rule will impact a
small, designated area of 500-yards around the moving vessels in the
Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La Quinta Channel as the vessels
transit the channel over a nine day period. Moreover, the rule allows
vessels to seek permission to enter the zones.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary security zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated
in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism

principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves moving security zones lasting for the
duration of time that the M/V VEGA SUN, M/V CLEAN CAJUN, M/V GASLOG
GEORGETOWN, M/V GAS PRIDE, and M/V SOLARIS are within the Corpus
Christi Ship Channel and La Quinta Channel while loaded with cargo. It
will prohibit entry within a 500-yard radius of M/V VEGA SUN, M/V CLEAN
CAJUN, M/V GASLOG GEORGETOWN, M/V GAS PRIDE, and M/V SOLARIS while the
vessels are transiting loaded within Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La
Quinta Channel. It is categorically excluded from further review under
L60 in Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 1. A record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0255 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0255  Security Zones; Corpus Christi Ship Channel. Corpus
Christi, TX.

    (a) Location. The following area are moving security zones: All
navigable waters encompassing a 500-yard radius around the M/V VEGA
SUN, M/V CLEAN CAJUN, M/V GASLOG GEORGETOWN, M/V GAS PRIDE, and M/V
SOLARIS while the vessels are in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La
Quinta Channel.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from March
23, 2023 through April 1, 2023.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations in Sec.  165.33 of
this part apply. Entry into the zones is prohibited unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the
operational control of USCG Sector Corpus Christi.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter or pass through the zones
must request permission from the COTP Sector Corpus Christi on VHF-FM
channel 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs),
Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information
Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate of the enforcement times and dates for
these security zones.

    Dated: March 22, 2023.
J.B. Gunning,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi.
[FR Doc. 2023-06503 Filed 3-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 18)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4765]
[DOCID:fr28ja08-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0040] (Formerly Docket No. 2006N-0168)

Food Labeling: Revision of Reference Values and Mandatory
Nutrients; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending to April
30, 2008, the comment period for the advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) that appeared in the Federal Register of November 2,
2007 (72 FR 62149). In the ANPRM, FDA requested comments on what new
reference values the agency should use to calculate the percent daily
value (DV) in the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels and what
factors the agency should consider in establishing such new reference
values. In addition, FDA requested comments on whether it should
require that certain nutrients be added or removed from the Nutrition
Facts and Supplement Facts labels. The agency is taking this action in
response to requests for an extension to allow interested persons
additional time to submit comments.

DATES: Submit written and electronic comments by April 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2008-
N-0040 (formerly Docket No. 2006N-0168), by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following ways:
     FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions]: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    To ensure more timely processing of comments, FDA is no longer
accepting comments submitted to the agency by e-mail. FDA encourages
you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, as described previously, in the ADDRESSES portion
of this document under Electronic Submissions.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and Docket No(s). and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) (if a RIN
number has been assigned) for this rulemaking. All comments received
may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. For additional information on
submitting comments, see the ``Request for Comments'' heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number(s), found in brackets in the heading of this document,
into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the
Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula R. Trumbo, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of November 2, 2007, FDA published an ANPRM
with a 90 day comment period to request comments on the revision of
reference values and mandatory nutrients for food labeling,
specifically the issues and questions presented in section II of the
ANPRM (see 72 FR 62149 at 62168). Comments will inform FDA's approach
to revising the reference values and mandatory nutrients for food
labeling.
    The agency has received requests for a 90-day extension of the
comment period to the ANPRM. Each request conveyed concern that the
current 90-day comment period, which closes January 31, 2008, does not
allow sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to
the request for comments on the issues and questions presented in
section II of the ANPRM.
    FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period
for the ANPRM for 90 days, until April 30, 2008. The agency believes
that a 90-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to
submit comments on the issues and questions presented in section II of
the ANPRM without significantly delaying the agency's consideration of
how FDA should revise the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Web site transitioned
to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-
wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic submissions will
be accepted by FDA through FDMS only.

    Dated: January 22, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-1446 Filed 1-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 22601]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08071]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94677; File No. SR-EMERALD-2022-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX Emerald Fee
Schedule To Adopt a Tiered-Pricing Structure for Additional Limited
Service MIAX Emerald Express Interface Ports

April 11, 2022.
    On February 1, 2022, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule to adopt a
tiered-pricing structure for additional limited service express
interface ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing with
the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ On
February 22, 2022, the proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register and, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\4\ the Commission: (1) Temporarily suspended the proposed rule
change; and (2) instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the
Act \5\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.\6\ On March 30, 2022, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule
change (SR-EMERALD-2022-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.''
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94260 (February 15,
2022), 87 FR 9695.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08071 Filed 4-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 161 (Friday, August 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52032-52034]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21171]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65133; File No. SR-BATS-2011-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Offer a
Bulk-Quoting Interface

August 15, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 9, 2011, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing related to the BATS Options Market
(``BATS Options'') to introduce a bulk-quoting interface for BATS
Options Market Makers \3\ that will help them meet their obligations as
market makers and to

provide liquidity to the market in an efficient manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in Rule 16.1(a)(37), a ``Market Maker'' on BATS
Options is a member of BATS Options registered with the Exchange for
the purpose of making markets in options contracts traded on the
Exchange and that is vested with the rights and responsibilities
specified in Chapter XXII of the Exchange's Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange currently offers an order-based market making
interface for the BATS Options trading platform. Market Makers use this
interface to provide a two-sided quotation on BATS Options. Since it is
an order-based interface, a two-sided quotation requires the entry of
both a buy and a sell order. As part of several technological
enhancements the Exchange plans to implement on BATS Options, the
Exchange proposes to introduce a bulk-quoting interface for market
makers in order to offer an additional market making interface choice
to BATS Options Market Makers. The proposed bulk-quoting market making
interface will be used by Market Makers to submit and update their
quotations in the marketplace much like the current order-based
interface is used today. The bulk-quoting interface, however, allows
Market Makers to provide both a bid and an offer in one message. In
addition, the bulk-quoting interface allows Market Makers to bundle
several quote updates into one bulk message. This is a useful feature
for Market Makers that provide quotations in many different options.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \5\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes this proposal is in keeping with those principles
by protecting investors and the public interest, as well as promoting
just and equitable principles of trade, through the addition of a new
market making interface option for BATS Options Market Makers, which by
aiding Market Makers in their market making activities will help to
enhance market liquidity for investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\9\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange notes that
the proposed rule change is a non-controversial system change and would
not affect the execution of trades. The Exchange also notes that prompt
implementation would extend the benefits and new features to BATS
Options Market Makers more quickly. For these reasons, the Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, and designates the
proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the
Commission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BATS-2011-029 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2011-029. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule changes between the

Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-BATS-2011-029 and should be submitted on or before
September 9, 2011.

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21171 Filed 8-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 75523-75524]
[DOCID:fr15de06-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC07-6Q-000; FERC Form 6Q]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Extension

December 8, 2006.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is soliciting public comment
on the specific aspects of the information collection described below.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due February 16,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Copies of sample filings of the proposed collection of
information can be obtained from the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filings/elibrary.asp
) or from the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Attn: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive
Director, ED-34, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments
may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those parties
filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For paper
filing, the original and 14 copies of such comments should be submitted
to the Secretary of the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and refer to
Docket No. IC07-6Q-000.
    Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in
WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable Document Format, or ASCII format. To
file the document, access the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 and click on ``Make an E-filing'', and then follow the

instructions for each screen. First time users will have to establish a
user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic
acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of
comments.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the eLibrary link. For user
assistance, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676. or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected under the
requirements of FERC Form 6Q ``Quarterly Financial Report of Oil
Pipeline Companies'' (OMB No. 1902-0206) is used by the Commission to
carry out its responsibilities in implementing the statutory provisions
of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), (49 U.S.C.).
    Although the Commission requires jurisdictional entities to file
financial information, a general weakness in this reporting program has
been the frequency with which the financial reports are required. In a
rapidly changing business environment, annual reporting is simply
insufficient. Financial accounting and reporting provides needed
information concerning a company's past performance and its future
prospects. Without reliable financial statements prepared in accordance
with the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts and related
regulations, the Commission would be unable to accurately determine the
costs that relate to a particular time period, service or line of
business. Additionally, it would be difficult to determine whether a
given entity has previously been given the opportunity to recover its
cost through rates, or to compare how the financial performance and
results of

operations of one regulated entity relates to that of another.
    The need for current and better disclosures in financial statements
drives the increasing demand for timely, relevant and reliable
financial information. As such, the FERC Form 6-Q Quarterly Report
provides the Commission with a more timely and informative picture of
the jurisdictional oil pipeline entities' financial and operational
condition.
    More specifically, the Commission's Office of Enforcement (OE) uses
the FERC Form 6-Q data collected to assist in the implementation of its
financial and operational audits and investigation programs, in the
review of the financial condition of regulated companies, and in the
assessment of energy markets. The Office of Energy Markets and
Reliability (OEMR) uses the data collected for its various rate
proceedings and economic analysis. The Office of Administrative
Litigation (OAL) uses the data collected for background research for
use in litigation. The Office of General Counsel (OGC) uses the data in
its programs relating to the administration of the ICA.
    Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is
estimated as:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of      Average burden    Total annual
              Number of respondents annually (1)                responses per      hours per       burden hours
                                                                respondent (2)    response (3)   (1) x (2) x (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
138..........................................................               3              150           62,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated cost burden to respondents is $3,646,494. (62,100 hours/
2080 hours per year times $122,137 per year average per employee =
$3,646,494). The cost per respondent is $26,424).
    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities, which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21385 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 213 (Monday, November 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 76266]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24636]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 9, 2023.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: November 2, 2023.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-24636 Filed 11-2-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT MAIL

August 20, 2013

Ms. Susan Fairchild Sector Policies and Programs Division Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 4930 Old Page Road Durham, NC  27703

      RE:	EPA's Request For Cullet and Batch Cost Data

Dear Ms. Fairchild:

In response to the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") request for cullet and batch costs, the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association ("NAIMA") created the following questionnaire:

1. What was the cost per ton of purchased cullet for:    2010:  ____________________    2011:  ____________________

2. What was the cost per ton of glass for batch raw materials excluding cullet for:    2010:  ____________________    2011:  ____________________

3. What was your overall batch cost per ton of glass for:    2010:  ____________________    2011:  ____________________

4. What would your cost per ton of glass batch have been if no purchased cullet was used for:    2010:  ____________________    2011:  ____________________

The questionnaire was sent out to all five fiber glass companies.  The companies submitted data to Kirkland & Ellis, to protect and preserve the confidentiality of the data, and Kirkland & Ellis aggregated the data and calculated industry average values weighted by the most recent year's sales data.

While the data was requested from five companies, some responsive data from one company was incomplete.  Therefore the summary of data set forth below represents four companies that comprise approximately 90 percent of the industry:

                               Weighted Average 1. What was the cost per ton of purchased cullet for:

2010                                                              $            88.82

2011                                                              $            94.20

2. What was the cost per ton of glass for batch raw materials excluding cullet for:

2010                                                               $          171.96

2011                                                               $          177.15

3. What was your overall batch cost per ton of glass for:

2010                                                               $          145.59

2011                                                               $          151.52

4. What would your cost per ton of glass batch have been if no purchased cullet was used for:

2010                                                               $          151.92

2011                                                               $          158.81

These numbers illustrate the aggregated costs of purchased cullet and batch materials for the years indicated for NAIMA member companies.  While the data show that cullet is less expensive than other batch materials, it is not significant enough so as to prevent individual companies from cutting out or reducing chrome-containing cullet to avoid surpassing a stringent chromium emission limit, especially given the costly and unproven alternatives for reducing chromium emissions at facilities that may need to do so.  In fact, individual company cost data in some instances showed a much narrower difference between cullet and virgin batch, including, in at least one case, a higher total cost of using cullet than if all batch were utilized.

Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Angus E. Crane Executive Vice President, General Counsel

cc:	Mr. Keith W. Barnett 	Group Leader, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards 	Sector Policies and Programs Division, Mineral and Manufacturing Group       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency       4930 Old Page Road       Durham, NC  27703


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Primary Evaluator

Date:  14-SEP-2006

	George F. Kramer, Ph.D., Senior Chemist

Registration Action Branch (RAB1)

Health Effects Division (HED) (7509C)

	Approved by

Date:  14-SEP-2006

	P.V. Shah, Ph.D. Branch Senior Scientist

RAB1/HED (7509C)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 This DER was originally prepared under contract by Dynamac Corporation (1910 Sedwick Rd., Building 100, Durham, NC 27713; submitted 06/23/2006).  The DER has been reviewed by HED and revised to reflect current Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) policies.

STUDY REPORT:

46609401.  Samoil, K. (2005) Diflubenzuron:  Magnitude of the Residue on Peanut.  Lab Project Number:  07737.01-TXP02.  Unpublished study prepared by Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4).  645 p.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Twelve peanut field trials were conducted in EPA Zones 2, 3, and 6 during the 2001 growing season.  At each trial location, diflubenzuron (2 lb/gal flowable concentrate (FlC)) was applied three times as broadcast foliar applications using ground equipment at 0.121-0.132 lb ai/A/application for a total rate of 0.373-0.385 lb ai/A.  The first application was at first bloom, the second was 14 (± 1) days after the first, and the third was 28 (± 1) days before harvest at nine sites, 20 days at two sites and 26 days at one site.  A single control and single or duplicate treated samples of peanuts and peanut hay were harvested from each site at 20-28 days after treatment (DAT).   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  Additional samples of peanut nutmeat and hay were collected from one site at 15, 20, 29, and 35 DAT to generate residue decline data.  All samples were stored frozen for up to 481 days prior to residue extraction and analysis, an interval partially supported by available storage stability data.

The harvested samples were analyzed for residues of diflubenzuron using a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)/ultraviolet (UV) method for nutmeat and hay, for residues of 4-chlorophenylurea (CPU) using HPLC/mass spectrometry (MS)/MS or UV for nutmeat or gas chromatography (GC)/MS methods for hay, and for residues of 4-chloroaniline (PCA) using GC/MS method for nutmeat and hay.  These methods, which are similar or based on method submissions previously deemed acceptable by the Agency, were adequately validated in conjunction with the field sample analyses.

The results from three field sites (Trial IDs TN03, GA01, and GA03) showed possible sample contamination since residues of diflubenzuron or CPU in/on control samples of peanut nutmeat were equal to or higher than treated samples.  No adequate explanation was provided except a statement from the petitioner commenting that the magnitude of residues in/on control samples which bore quantifiable residues was low relative to the residues in/on treated samples.

When samples from Trial IDs TN03, GA01, and GA03 are excluded, the combined residues of diflubenzuron, CPU and PCA ranged <0.060-<0.070 ppm in/on 18 samples of peanut nutmeat and 1.12-18.46 ppm in/on 11 samples of peanut hay that were harvested 20-28 days following the last of three foliar treatments of a 2 lb/gal FlC test formulation for a total application rate of 0.373-0.385 lb ai/A.  The HAFT values were <0.070 ppm for nutmeat and 18.46 ppm for hay.  The average combined residues were 0.06 ppm for nutmeat and 7.14 ppm for hay.

The submitted residue decline data for peanut nutmeat is inconclusive, and a trend could not be established because residues of the parent and its metabolites were all below the respective LOQs from samples collected at PHIs of 15, 20, 29, and 35 days.  Although detectable residues in peanut hay were observed from the decline trial, a meaningful trend in residue decline could not also be established since residue levels fluctuated at various sampling intervals.

STUDY/WAIVER ACCEPTABILITY/DEFICIENCIES/CLARIFICATIONS:

Under the conditions and parameters used in the study, the peanut field trial residue data are classified as partially acceptable to satisfy the guideline requirement for crop field trials (Residue Chemistry Guideline OPPTS 860.1500).  The data from three GA trials are unacceptable because the reported diflubenzuron or CPU residues in/on control samples which were higher than those of treated samples.  The acceptability of this study for regulatory purposes is addressed in the forthcoming U.S. EPA Residue Chemistry Summary Document DP# 321623.

COMPLIANCE:

Signed and dated Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), Quality Assurance and Data Confidentiality statements were provided.  No deviations were reported that would substantially impact the validity of the study.

A.	BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Diflubenzuron is an insecticide/acaricide (insect growth regulator) that behaves as a chitin inhibitor to suppress the growth of many leaf-eating larvae, mosquito larvae, aquatic midges, rust mite, boll weevil, and flies.  Diflubenzuron was first registered in the United States in 1979 for use as an insecticide.  The Agency issued a Registration Standard for diflubenzuron in September, 1985, (NTIS #PB86-176500).  Diflubenzuron was also the subject of a Residue Chemistry Chapter dated 11/16/84, an Addendum to the Registration Standard dated 12/4/84, and a Reregistration Standard Update dated 6/21/91.  The Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for diflubenzuron was issued in August, 1997 (EPA 738-R-97-008).  Tolerances for residues of diflubenzuron are established under 40 CFR §180.377.

TABLE A.1.	Diflubenzuron Nomenclature.

Compound

Common Name	Diflubenzuron

Trade and other Names	Dimilin, Vigilante, Micromite, Adept

IUPAC Name	1-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(2,6-difluorobenzoyl)urea

CAS Name	N-[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide

CAS Registry Number	35367-38-5

End-Use Product (EP)	2 lb/gal FlC formulation; DIMILIN® 2L (EPA Reg. No. 400-461)

Regulated Metabolite

Common name	4-chlorophenylurea (CPU)

Regulated Metabolite

Common Name	4-chloroaniline (PCA)

TABLE A.2.	Physicochemical Properties of Diflubenzuron.

Parameter	Value	Reference

Melting range	230-232 °C	  HYPERLINK "http://www.arsusda.gov/acsl/services/ppdb/textfiles/DIFLUBENZURON"  http://www.arsusda.gov/acsl/services/ppdb/textfiles/DIFLUBENZURON

pH	Not available

	Density	Not available

	Water solubility (25 °C)	0.08 ppm

	Solvent solubility (25 °C) (ppm)	6.5 x 103     Acetone

2 x 103        Acetonitrile

2.4 x 104     Dioxane

1.04 x 105   Dimethylformamide

1.2 x 105     Dimethylsulfoxide

1 x 103        Methanol

6 x 102        Dichloromethane

	Vapor pressure (25 °C)	1.2 x 10- 4 mPa

	Dissociation constant, pKa	Not available

	Octanol/water partition coefficient, Log(KOW)	3.89

	UV/visible absorption spectrum	Not available

	B.	EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

B.1.	Study Site Information

Peanuts were grown and maintained at each trial site (Table B.1.1) using typical agricultural practices for the respective geographical region.  Information pertaining to soil conditions, temperature, and precipitation was provided.  Irrigation for all sites and weather conditions were within normal variations for the region.  Information was also provided on the maintenance chemicals and other pesticides used at each site.

TABLE B.1.1.	Trial Site Conditions.

Trial Identification

(City, State; Year)	Soil Characteristics1

	Type	%OM	pH	CEC (meq/g)

Salisbury, MD; 2001	Loamy Sand	0.8	6.0	NR

Crossville, TN; 2001	Sandy Loam	2.5	5.8	NR

Crossville; TN2001	Sandy Loam	2.5	5.8	NR

Rocky Mt, NC; 2001	Sandy Loam	1.2	6.0	NR

Weslaco, TX; 2001	Sandy Loam	0.5	8.1	NR

Weslaco, TX; 2001	Sandy Loam	0.5	8.1	NR

Tifton, GA; 2001	Sand	0.67	6.2	NR

Tifton, GA; 2001	Sand	0.67	6.2	NR

Tifton, GA; 2001	Sand	0.67	6.2	NR

Colony, OK; 2001	Sand	0.4	7.1	NR

Salisbury, MD; 2001	Sandy Loam	1.1	6.2	NR

Citra, FL; 2001	Sand	0.8	4.9-5.5	NR

1  OM = Organic matter, CEC = Cation-exchange capacity.  These parameters are optional except in cases where their value affects the use pattern for the chemical.

NR = Not Reported

TABLE B.1.2.  Study Use Pattern on Peanuts.

Location

City, State; Year;

Trial ID

EP1	Application

Tank Mix/ Adjuvants

Method; Timing	Volume GPA	Single Rate

(lb ai/A)	RTI2

(days)	Total Rate

(lb ai/A)

	Salisbury, MD 2001; MD01	2 lb/gal FlC	Three broadcast foliar applications; first bloom, full bloom, some peanuts mature	40-41 0.125-0.126	13, 14	0.376	None

Crossville, TN 2001; TN03	2 lb/gal FlC	Three broadcast foliar applications; vegetative	23-24	0.122-0.127	14, 28	0.374	None

Crossville, TN2001;

TN04	2 lb/gal FlC	Three broadcast foliar applications; vegetative	23-24 0.125-0.126	14, 28	0.376	None

Rocky Mt, NC 2001;NC01	2 lb/gal FlC	Three broadcast foliar applications; bloom, late bloom, pod-fill	18-19	0.123-0.128	14, 32	0.377	None

Weslaco, TX 2001; TX04	2 lb/gal FlC	Three broadcast foliar applications; first flower, flowering, nuts from first flowers pink	14-17	0.121-0.132 13, 35	0.379	None

Weslaco, TX 2001; TX05	2 lb/gal FlC	Three broadcast foliar applications; first flower, flowering, nuts from first flowers pink	14-18	0.123-0.126 14, 30	0.374	None

Tifton, GA 2001; GA01	2 lb/gal FlC	Three broadcast foliar applications; first bloom, bloom, immature peanuts	20	0.125-0.127	15, 12	0.378	None

Tifton, GA 2001; GA02	2 lb/gal FlC	Three broadcast foliar applications; first bloom, bloom, immature peanuts	20	0.124-0.125	15, 18	0.374	None

Tifton, GA 2001;

GA03	2 lb/gal FlC	Three broadcast foliar applications; first bloom, bloom, immature peanuts	20	0.124-0.126	15, 18	0.375	None

Colony, OK 2001;

OK01	2 lb/gal FlC	Three broadcast foliar applications; bloom, pegging, beginning maturity	11	0.123-0.126	13, 34	0.373	None

Salisbury, MD 2001; MD17	2 lb/gal FlC	Three broadcast foliar applications; first bloom, beginning to form pegs, beginning to form red skins	41-68	0.124-0.127	14, 19	0.377	None

Citra, FL 2001;

FL52	2 lb/gal FlC	Three broadcast foliar applications; first bloom, vegetative bloom, fruiting	15-16	0.126-0.132	13, 22	0.385	None

1  EP = End-use Product; DIMILIN® 2L.

2  RTI = Retreatment Interval.

TABLE B.1.3.	Trial Numbers and Geographical Locations.

NAFTA Growing Zones	Peanuts

	Submitted	Requested

Canada	U.S.

2	8	---	8

3	1	---	1

6	31	---	2

8	---	---	1

Total	12	NA	12

1  One trial was very near Zone 8 and will suffice to fulfill the geographic representation.

B.2.	Sample Handling and Preparation

Single control and treated samples of peanut hay and duplicate treated samples of peanuts (amount not reported) were harvested from each trial site at commercial maturity 20-28 days after the third application of the test formulation.  Peanut plants were pulled or dug from the ground (by hand or using a mechanical digger).  Hay was allowed to dry in the field before harvest to achieve a moisture content of 10-12%.  Dried peanuts were shelled by hand or mechanical sheller.  All samples were placed in frozen storage within 4.0 hours of collection.  Field storage time was not documented.  Samples were shipped frozen by ACDS freezer truck to the analytical laboratory (PTRL West, Hercules, CA) where samples were stored at <0 °C until extraction for analysis.

B.3.	Analytical Methodology

Samples were analyzed for diflubenzuron, CPU, and PCA using separate methods based on those described in “Dimilin 25W, Dimilin 80WD, and Dimilin 2L in Almonds:  Magnitude of the Residue Study,” Janine E. Rose, PTRL Study No, 723W, September 1999.  Due to analytical difficulties, CPU analysis for hay were done based on the method described in “Gas Chromatographic Determination of Diflubenzuron Metabolite A:  Parachlorophenyl Urea in Mushrooms,” D. Uhden, S.E. Kane, and M.A Morgenstern, Colorado Analytical Study No. 1248, November 20, 1995.

Samples of peanut nutmeat and hay were analyzed for diflubenzuron using an HPLC/UV method.  Briefly, residues are extracted twice with ethyl acetate and then filtered.  Residues are evaporated to dryness and redissolved in hexane.  Residues are partitioned with acetonitrile (ACN) and again evaporated to dryness.  Residues are redissolved with dichloromethane, and cleaned up on a Florisil solid-phase extraction (SPE) column.  After clean up, residues are analyzed by HPLC on a C18 column with UV detection.  The limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.05 ppm from nutmeat and 0.1 ppm from hay, the calculated limit of detection (LOD) is 0.026 ppm for nutmeat and was not calculated for hay.

Samples of peanut nutmeat were analyzed for CPU using HPLC/MS/MS or HPLC/UV method.  Briefly, samples are extracted twice with ACN and centrifuged.  The supernatants are combined and partitioned with hexane.  The ACN layer is concentrated to dryness, redissolved in ACN and water, and sequentially cleaned up on a C18 SPE column and silica-gel SPE column.  After clean up, residues are analyzed by HPLC/MS/MS or HPLC/UV.  The LOQ is 0.005 ppm for nutmeat, the LOD was not calculated.

Samples of peanut hay were analyzed for CPU using a GC/MS method.  Briefly, samples are dried with sodium sulfate and extracted with ethyl acetate.  Residues are evaporated to dryness, redissolved in acetone and petroleum ether, and cleaned up on a silica-gel SPE column.  Again, residues are evaporated to dryness and redissolved in ACN.  The sample is filtered and derivatized in a glass tube with heptafluorobutyric anhydride for 10 minutes.  Residues are then analyzed by GC/MS.  The LOQ is 0.01 ppm for hay, the LOD was not calculated.

Samples of peanut nutmeat and hay were analyzed for PCA using a GC/MS method.  Briefly, residues are acidified with HCl and sonicated for 30 minutes at 60 °C.  NaOH and NaCl are added, and residues are extracted three times with hexane.  Residues are then partitioned with 0.1 N HCl, neutralized and extracted with hexane.  Extracts are dried and cleaned up with a Florisil column, derivatized with heptafluorobutyric acid for 10 minutes, after which water, sodium carbonate and hexane are added.  Residues in the hexane layer are analyzed by GC/MS.  The LOQ is 0.005 ppm for nutmeat and hay and the calculated LOD is 0.001 ppm.

In conjunction with the analysis of field trial samples, the above methods were validated using control samples of peanut nutmeat and hay fortified with diflubenzuron, CPU or PCA at 0.005-20 ppm.

C.	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In 12 peanut field trials conducted during 2001, diflubenzuron (2 lb/gal FlC) was applied three times to fields as broadcast foliar applications using ground equipment at 0.121-0.132 lb ai/A/application during crop development.  A single control and single or duplicate treated samples of mature peanut and peanut hay were harvested from each site at 20-28 DAT.  At one site, samples were also collected at 15, 20, 29, and 35 DAT to assess residue decline.

The HPLC/UV (for nutmeat and hay), HPLC/MS/MS or UV (for nutmeat) or GC/MS (for hay), and GC/MS (for nutmeat and hay) methods used to determine residues of diflubenzuron, CPU, and PCA in/on peanut nutmeat and hay were adequately validated in conjunction with the field sample analyses.  Method recoveries from concurrent analysis of samples as well as from additional method verification (see Table C.1) are well within the acceptable range of 70-120% except for two samples of nutmeat which reported CPU recoveries of 64% and 68% and one sample of peanut hay which reported CPU recoveries of 50%.  In addition, method validation recoveries of diflubenzuron from hay at the 0.05 ppm fortification level reported only 9 ± 1% average recovery; however, residue values of diflubenzuron in hay were well above this level from field samples.  Adequate examples calculation and samples chromatograms were provided.

Samples of peanut nutmeat and hay samples were stored frozen for up to 481 days prior to residue extraction and analysis (Table C.2.1).  To validate sample storage conditions and intervals, a freezer storage stability study was conducted as part of the residue field study.  The results of this study (Table C.2.2) indicate that diflubenzuron (average corrected stored recovery of 93%) is relatively stable in/on nutmeat for up to 295 days; however, CPU (average corrected stored recovery of 67%) and PCA (average corrected stored recovery of 63%) exhibited 33-37% reduction in residues after 421 and 289 days of frozen storage, respectively.  A similar storage stability profile was observed for peanut hay.  Diflubenzuron (average corrected stored recovery of 82%) is relatively stable in/on hay for up to 356 days; CPU (average corrected stored recovery of 29%) and PCA (average corrected stored recovery of 75%) exhibited 25-71% reduction in residues after 484 and 338 days of frozen storage, respectively.

The results suggest that residues of CPU and PCA should be corrected in order to determine the residue levels that were present at the time of sample collection.  However, HED has determined that correction of CPU and PCA residues for degradation during storage would not have a significant effect on the results of the submitted field trials because individual residues of CPU and PCA in/on treated samples were mostly below the LOQ (<0.005 ppm).  These data are adequate to support the storage conditions and intervals of the field trial samples.

Following application of diflubenzuron totaling 0.373-0.385 lb ai/A, the combined residues of diflubenzuron, CPU and PCA were <0.060-<0.070 ppm in/on 18 samples of peanut nutmeat harvested 20-28 DAT.  Combined residues were 1.12-18.46 ppm in/on 11 treated samples of peanut hay (Table C.3.).  HAFT values were <0.070 ppm for nutmeat and 18.46 ppm for hay; average combined residues were 0.06 ppm for nutmeat and 7.14 ppm for hay (Table C.4).  In three different trials, residues of diflubenzuron or CPU in peanut nutmeat were equal to or higher in control samples than treated samples; these residues were not included in the calculations from Table C.4.

The submitted residue decline data for peanut nutmeat is inconclusive, and a trend could not be established because residues of the parent and its metabolites were all below the respective LOQs at PHIs of 15, 20, 29, and 35 days.  Although detectable residues in peanut hay were observed from the decline trial, a meaningful trend with regard to residue decline could not also be established since residue levels fluctuated at various sampling intervals.

Common cultural practices were used to maintain the test crop.  The weather conditions did not have a notable impact on the residue data.  It is unclear whether or not the maintenance chemicals played a role in the high levels of CPU residues found in the TN03 and GA01 trials sites, as CPU is a metabolite of the maintenance chemical PCNB, and may have contributed to high residue levels in control samples.  Other trial sites which also used this maintenance chemical did not experience high residues of CPU in control samples.

TABLE C.1.	Summary of Concurrent and Method Recoveries of Diflubenzuron from Peanuts.

Analyte

Matrix	Spike level

 (ppm)	Sample size

(n)

Recoveries (%)	Mean std dev

(%)

Concurrent

Diflubenzuron	Nutmeat	0.05	4	74, 76, 80, 86	79 ± 5

0.1	7	80, 86, 90, 94, 95, 97, 102	92 ± 7

0.2	2	761, 921	84

CPU

0.01	14	64, 68, 70, 80, 80, 90, 90, 100, 100, 100, 110, 110, 120, 120	93 ± 19

PCA

0.005	14	95, 97, 98, 98, 101, 102, 102, 105, 106, 106, 107, 108, 108, 110	103 ± 5

Diflubenzuron	Hay	0.1	4	701, 841, 881, 1021	86 ± 13

0.5	5	721, 72, 76, 79, 811	76 ± 4

CPU

0.02	6	76, 78, 801, 801, 102, 109	88 ± 14

0.10	1	99	99

PCA

0.005	2	110, 118	114

0.020	6	90, 93, 94, 97, 98, 101	96 ± 4

Method validation

Diflubenzuron	Nutmeat	0.05	3	102, 106, 116	108 ± 7

0.5	3	84, 85, 85	85 ± 1

1.0	3	81, 97, 98	92 ± 10

CPU

0.005	3	80, 100, 100	93 ± 12

0.05	3	96, 98, 100	98 ± 2

0.1	3	91, 92, 93	92 ± 1

PCA

0.005	3	100, 104, 120	108 ± 11

0.05	3	111, 112, 113	112 ± 1

0.10	3	110, 112, 115	112 ± 3

Diflubenzuron	Hay	0.05	3	8, 10, 10	9 ± 1

0.5	3	88, 89, 91	89 ± 2

1.0	3	98, 103, 104	102 ± 3

202	3	85, 87, 92	88 ± 4

CPU

0.01	3	501, 1001, 1101	87 ± 32

0.1	3	931, 931, 1001	95 ± 4

PCA

0.005	3	106, 108, 110	108 ± 2

0.05	3	100, 112, 115, 	109 ± 8

0.10	3	96, 103, 118	106 ± 11

1  Reported recoveries were corrected by the petitioner for apparent residue in control samples.

2  Recoveries of samples fortified with diflubenzuron at 20 ppm were only reported in the summary table of the submission.

TABLE C.2.1	Summary of Storage Conditions.

Analyte 	Storage Temperature (°C)

Matrix	Actual Storage Duration1

(days)	Interval of Demonstrated Storage Stability (days)

Diflubenzuron	<0	Nutmeat	244	295

Hay	349	356

CPU

Nutmeat	408	421

Hay	481	484

PCA

Nutmeat	266	289

Hay	323	338

1  From harvest to extraction for analysis.  Extracts were stored for up to 9 days before analysis

TABLE C.2.2	Stability of Diflubenzuron and its Metabolites in Frozen Peanut Matrices.

Matrix

Analyte

Spike Level

(ppm)

Storage interval (days)	Freshly Fortified Recovery (%)

Stored Sample Residues (%)	Average Corrected Stored Recovery (%)

Nutmeat	Diflubenzuron	0.5	295	75, 69

[72]	65, 68

[67]	93

	CPU	0.5	421	79, 84

[81]	54, 53

[54]	67

	PCA	0.1	289	70, 71

[71]	41, 39

[45]	63

Hay	Diflubenzuron	0.5	356	95, 103

[99]	83, 79

[81]	82

	CPU	0.5	484	88, 108

[98]	21, 35

[28]	29

	PCA	0.1	338	102, 99

[101]	77, 76

[76]	75

TABLE C.3.	Residue Data from Peanut Field Trials with Diflubenzuron.

Trial ID

(City, State; Year)

Zone

Crop

Variety	Total Rate (lb ai/A)

Matrix

PHI (days)

Residues (ppm)1

Diflubenzuron

CPU

PCA

Combined

Salisbury, MD 2001

MD01	2	VA-C98R	0.376	Nut	28	<0.05, <0.05	<0.005, 0.005	<0.005, <0.005 <0.060, <0.060

Hay

No sample	No sample	No sample	No sample

Crossville, TN 2001

TN03	2	VA 98R	0.374	Nut	28	<0.05, <0.05	0.0112, 0.0192	<0.005, <0.005 <0.0662, <0.0742

Hay

18.39	0.052	0.016	18.46

Crossville, TN 2001

TN04	2	VA-C92R	0.376	Nut	28	0.059, 0.060	<0.005, <0.005	<0.005, <0.005 <0.069, <0.070

Hay

10.69	0.065	0.037	10.79

Rocky Mt, NC 2001

NC01	2	VA 98R	0.377	Nut	28	<0.05, 0.055	<0.005, <0.005	<0.005, <0.005 <0.060, <0.065

Hay

17.00	0.018	0.018	17.04

Weslaco, TX 2001

TX04	6	Florunner	0.379	Nut	15	<0.05, <0.05	<0.005, <0.005	<0.005, <0.005 <0.060, <0.060

	20	<0.05, <0.05	<0.005, <0.005	<0.005, <0.005	<0.060, <0.060

	29	<0.05, <0.05	<0.005, <0.005	<0.005, <0.005	<0.060, <0.060

	35	<0.05, <0.05	<0.005, <0.005	<0.005, <0.005	<0.060, <0.060

Hay	15	11.03	0.029	0.017	11.08

	20	9.61	0.012	0.021	9.64

	29	8.39	<0.01	0.015	<8.42

	35	10.31	0.017	0.021	10.35

Weslaco, TX 2001

TX05	6	Florunner	0.374	Nut	28	<0.05, <0.05	<0.005, <0.005	<0.005, <0.005 <0.060, <0.060

Hay

7.86	0.019	0.021	7.90

Tifton, GA 2001

GA01	2	NCV11	0.378	Nut	26	<0.05, <0.05	<0.0052, <0.0052	<0.005, <0.005 <0.0602, <0.0602

Hay

2.64	0.012	0.047	2.70

Tifton, GA 2001

GA02	2	C99R	0.374	Nut	20	0.052, 0.060	<0.005, <0.005	<0.005, <0.005 <0.062, <0.070

Hay

1.05	0.013	0.054	1.12

Tifton, GA 2001

GA03	2	Georgia Green	0.375	Nut	20	0.0722, 0.0972	<0.005, <0.005	<0.005, <0.005	<0.0822, <0.1072

Hay

1.11	0.024	0.046	1.18

Colony, OK 2001

OK01	6	Tamspan	0.373	Nut	27	<0.05, <0.05	<0.005, <0.005	<0.005, <0.005 <0.060, <0.060

Hay

1.64	0.019	0.013	1.67

Salisbury, MD 2001

MD17	2	VA-C98R	0.377	Nut	28	<0.05, <0.05	<0.005, <0.005	<0.005, <0.005 <0.060, <0.060

Hay

7.11	0.046	0.017	7.17

Citra, FL 2001

FL 52	3	Florunner	0.385	Nut	28	<0.05, <0.05	<0.005, 0.006	<0.005, <0.005 <0.060, <0.060

Hay

1.89	0.025	0.137	2.05

1  The LOQ is 0.05 ppm for residues of diflubenzuron, and 0.005 ppm for residues of CPU and PCA in nutmeat.  The LOQ is 0.05 ppm for residues of diflubenzuron, 0.01 ppm for residues of CPU, and 0.005 ppm for residues of  PCA in hay.

2   Residues found in control samples were greater than that of treated samples; these values were excluded from calculations in Table C.4.  Control samples from GA03 bore residues of diflubenzuron at 0.097 ppm and 0.084 ppm; control samples from TN03 bore residues of CPU at 0.022 ppm and 0.026 ppm; control samples from GA01 bore residues of CPU at 0.015 ppm and 0.006 ppm.

TABLE C.4.	Summary of Combined Residue Data from Peanut Field Trials with Diflubenzuron.

Commodity	Total Applic. Rate (lb ai/A)	PHI (days)	Residue Levels (ppm)1

	n	Min.	Max.	HAFT2	Median	Mean	Std. Dev.

Nutmeat	0.373-0.385	20-28	18	<0.060	<0.070	<0.070	0.060	0.060	0.0

Hay

	11	1.12	18.46	18.46	7.17	7.14	6.24

1   The LOQ is 0.05 ppm for residues of diflubenzuron, and 0.005 ppm for residues of CPU and PCA in nutmeat.

2   HAFT = Highest-Average Field Trial.

D.	CONCLUSION

The peanut field trial data are partially acceptable to support the use of diflubenzuron on peanuts for up to three foliar treatments at a total seasonal rate of 0.375 lb ai/A, a PHI of 20-28 days, and a retreatment interval of 12-35 days.  The data from three field sites (Trial IDs TN03, GA01, and GA03) are unacceptable because the reported diflubenzuron or CPU residues in/on control samples which were higher than those of treated samples.  The combined residues of diflubenzuron, CPU and PCA ranged <0.060-<0.070 ppm in/on 18 samples of peanut nutmeat and 1.12-18.46 ppm in/on 11 samples of peanut hay that were harvested 20-28 days following the last of three foliar treatments of a 2 lb/gal FlC test formulation for a total application rate of 0.373-0.385 lb ai/A.  The HAFT values were <0.070 ppm for nutmeat and 18.46 ppm for hay.  The average combined residues were 0.06 ppm for nutmeat and 7.14 ppm for hay.

E.	REFERENCES

None

F.	DOCUMENT TRACKING

RDI:  RAB1 Chemists (8/23/06)

Petition Number(s):  PP#5E6967

DP#:  321623

PC Code:  108201

Template Version June 2005

	Diflubenzuron/PC Code 108201/IR-4

	DACO 7.4.1/7.4.2/OPPTS 860.1500/OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.⸳″湡䥉䅉㠠㌮ㄮ⸸⸳ⰲ㠠㌮㌮ऍ牃灯䘠敩摬吠 楲污阠倠慥畮൴഍倍前⁁畓浢獩楳湯丠⹯††⼠偄䈠牡 潣敤†⍄⌣⌣‣††䴯䥒⁄潎ഠ慐敧 漠ጠ丠䵕䅐䕇⁓⩜愠慲楢⩜䴠剅䕇但䵒呁ᐠㄱക഍ 䐍⍐㌠ㄲ㈶⼳䴠䥒⁄潎㘴〶㐹㄰उउउ慐敧ጠ倠䝁⁅ ㄔᔱ漠–啎偍䝁卅ᐠㄱക഍