[Federal Register: August 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 169)]
[Notice]
[Page 50361-50362]
[DOCID:fr31au07-93]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12830-000, Project No. 12849-000]

Free Flow Power Corporation FFP Project 4, LLC; Notice of
Competing Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests

August 22, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Applications: Preliminary Permit (Competing).
    b. Applicants, Project Numbers, and Dates Filed:
    Free Flow Power Corporation filed the application for Project No.
12830-000 on July 23, 2007.
    FFP Project 4, LLC filed the application for Project No. 12849-000
on July 25, 2007.
    c. Name of the project is Live Oak Project. The project would be
located on the Mississippi River in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. The
project uses no dam or impoundment.
    d. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    e. Applicants Contacts: For the Free Flow Power Corporation: Mr.
Dan Irvin, Free Flow Power Corporation, 69 Bridge Street, Manchester,
MA 01944, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>. FFP Project 4, LLC: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP
Project 22, LLC, 69 Bridge Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone (978)
232-3536.
    f. FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    g. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12830-000 or
P-12849-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    h. Description of Projects: The project proposed by Free Flow Power
Corporation would consist of: (1) 900 proposed 20-kilowatt Free Flow
generating units having a total installed capacity of 18-megawatts, (2)
a proposed transmission line, and (4) appurtenant facilities. The Free
Flow Power Corporation project would have an average annual generation
of 78.84-gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local utility.
    The project proposed by FFP Project 4, LLC would consist of: (1)
900 proposed 20 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 18-megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line,
and (4) appurtenant facilities. The FFP Project 4, LLC project would
have an average annual generation of 78.84-gigawatt-hours and be sold
to a local utility.
    i. The filings are available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item e above.
    j. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    k. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a

notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    l. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    m. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17245 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 41695]
[DOCID:fr18au09-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-452-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

August 11, 2009.
    Take notice that on August 5, 2009, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York
14221, filed in Docket No. CP09-452-000, a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for
authorization to abandon certain minor underground natural gas storage
facilities, located in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania, all as more
fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed
on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Specifically, National Fuel proposes to plug and abandon one
injection/withdrawal well, Well 4885 and to abandon the associated well
line GW-4885, consisting of approximately 500 feet of 4-inch diameter
pipeline, in the Galbraith Storage Field, located in Jefferson County,
Pennsylvania. National Fuel states that the well is no longer useful
due to poor injection performance and poor deliverability and needs to
be reconditioned or plugged due to deterioration of the well casing.
National Fuel declares that the well line will serve no purpose once
the well is plugged and abandoned. National Fuel asserts that due to
the poor performance of Well 4885, the proposed abandonment will not
result in a material decrease in service to customers.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to David
W. Reitz, Deputy General Counsel, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation,
6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, or call at (716) 857-
7949.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest,
the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19729 Filed 8-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 [Federal Register Volume 81, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 31167-31169] [FR Doc No: C1-2016-04800]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0034] RIN 1218-AB70

Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica

Correction

    In rule document 2016-04800 appearing on pages 16285-16890 in the  issue of March 25, 2016, make the following corrections:

Sec.  1910.1000  [Corrected]

0 (1) On pages 16861-16862, in Sec.  1910.100, Table Z-3--Mineral Dusts  is corrected to read as set forth below: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18MY16.000

* * * * *

Sec.  1915.1000  [Corrected]

0 (2) On page 16875, in Sec.  1910.100, Table Z--Shipyards is corrected  to read as set forth below:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18MY16.001

* * * * *

Sec.  1926.55  [Corrected]

0 (3) On pages 16875-16876, in Sec.  1926.55, the table titled  ``Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants for Construction'' is  corrected to read as set forth below:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18MY16.002

* * * * * [FR Doc. C1-2016-04800 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am]  BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24986-24989]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10160]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74814; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-107]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, To
Reflect Changes to the Means of Achieving the Investment Objective
Applicable to the Guggenheim Enhanced Short Duration ETF

April 27, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On October 21, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``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 reflect certain
changes to the description of the Guggenheim Enhanced Short Duration
ETF (``Fund''), a series of Claymore Exchange-Traded Fund Trust
(``Trust'').\3\ On October 29, 2014, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1 thereto, was published for comment in the Federal
Register on November 7, 2014.\4\ The Commission received one comment on
the proposal.\5\ On December 10, 2014, the Commission designated a
longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\ On
February 3, 2015, the Commission instituted proceedings to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\ On March
16, 2015, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change,\8\ and on March 24, 2015, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to
the

proposed rule change.\9\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 from interested persons,
and is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
Nos. 1, 2, and 3, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Commission previously approved the listing and trading
of the shares (``Shares'') of the Fund. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64550 (May 26, 2011), 76 FR 32005 (Jun. 2, 2011) (SR-
NYSEArca-2011-11) (``Prior Order''). See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 64224 (Apr. 7, 2011), 76 FR 20401 (Apr. 12, 2011)
(SR-NYSEArca-2011-11) (``Prior Notice,'' and together with the Prior
Order, collectively ``Prior Release''). The Exchange represents that
the Shares are currently listed and trading on the Exchange under
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading
of Managed Fund Shares.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73512 (Nov. 3,
2014), 79 FR 66442 (``Notice''). In Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change, the Exchange clarified that asset-backed securities in
which the Fund may invest include collateralized debt obligations,
as described in the Prior Release.
    \5\ Comments on the proposed rule change, including Amendment
Nos. 2 and 3, can be found on the Commission's Web site, available
at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2014-107/nysearca2014107.shtml.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73810, 79 FR 74783
(Dec. 16, 2014). The Commission determined that it was appropriate
to designate a longer period within which to take action on the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission designated
February 5, 2015 as the date by which it should approve, disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74199, 80 FR 7050
(Feb. 9, 2015) (``Order Instituting Proceedings''). In the Order
Instituting Proceedings, the Commission noted, among other things,
that questions remain as to whether the Exchange's proposal is
consistent with the requirements of Section (6)(b)(5) of the Act,
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public
interest and asked questions regarding the liquidity and
transparency of the Fund's proposed holdings in asset-backed
securities.
    \8\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange: (1) Modified the proposal
to permit the Fund to invest up to 20% of its assets in MBS and ABS
that are privately issued, non-agency, and non-government sponsored
entity, collectively defined as ``Private MBS/ABS'' and (2) made
conforming changes in the proposal to reflect the defined term
``Private MBS/ABS.''
    \9\ In Amendment No. 3, the Exchange made additional conforming
changes in the proposal to reflect the defined term ``Private MBS/
ABS,'' the preponderance of which will be investment grade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The Exchange's Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to reflect certain changes to the measures
that Guggenheim Funds Investment Advisors, LLC (``Adviser'') may use to
implement the Fund's investment objective, which is to seek maximum
current income, consistent with preservation of capital and daily
liquidity.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ According to the Prior Release, the Fund uses a low
duration strategy to seek to outperform the 1-3 month Treasury Bill
Index, in addition to providing returns in excess of those available
in U.S. Treasury bills, government repurchase agreements, and money
market funds, while providing preservation of capital and daily
liquidity. The Prior Release also stated that the Fund would hold,
under normal circumstances, a diversified portfolio of fixed income
instruments of varying maturities, but that have an average duration
of less than one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Prior Release stated that the Fund may invest up to 10%
of its assets in mortgage-backed securities (``MBS'') or in other
asset-backed securities (``ABS'').\11\ The Exchange proposes to modify
this limitation to permit the Fund to invest up to 20% of its assets in
MBS and ABS that are privately-issued, non-agency, and non-government
sponsored entity (``Private MBS/ABS''). The Exchange notes that the
holdings in Private MBS/ABS would be subject to the respective
limitations on the Fund's investments in illiquid assets and high yield
securities, as described below. According to the Exchange, this change
to the Fund's investment limitations would allow the Adviser to better
achieve the Fund's investment objective to seek maximum current income,
consistent with preservation of capital and daily liquidity. In
addition, the Exchange represents that the Fund's increased investment
in Private MBS/ABS will continue to adhere to the Fund's investment
strategy of investing in short duration, fixed income securities. The
Exchange further notes that, because the Fund may invest no more than
10% of its net assets in high yield securities, the preponderance of
the Fund's investments in Private MBS/ABS will be in investment grade
instruments. Due to the quality of Private MBS/ABS in which the Fund
will invest, the Exchange states that the Fund's additional investments
in Private MBS/ABS should not expose the Fund to additional liquidity
risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As stated in the Prior Release, this 10% limitation does
not apply to securities issued or guaranteed by federal agencies or
U.S. government sponsored instrumentalities, such as the Government
National Mortgage Administration, the Federal Housing
Administration, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Prior Release stated that the Fund may invest up to an
aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in: (1) Illiquid securities;
and (2) Rule 144A securities. The Exchange proposes to modify this
limitation and permit the Fund to hold up to an aggregate amount of 15%
of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of
investment),\12\ including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the
Adviser, consistent with Commission guidance. According to the
Exchange, the Adviser and the Trust's Board of Trustees will continue
to evaluate each Rule 144A security based on the Fund's valuation
procedures to oversee liquidity and valuation concerns. With respect to
investment in illiquid assets, if changes in the values of the Fund's
assets cause the Fund's holdings of illiquid assets to exceed the 15%
limitation (as if liquid assets have become illiquid), the Fund will
take such actions as it deems appropriate and practicable to attempt to
reduce its holdings of illiquid assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In reaching liquidity decisions, the Adviser may consider
the following factors: The frequency of trades and quotes for the
security; the number of dealers wishing to purchase or sell the
security and the number of other potential purchasers; dealer
undertakings to make a market in the security; and the nature of the
security and the nature of the marketplace trades (e.g., the time
needed to dispose of the security, the method of soliciting offers,
and the mechanics of transfer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Prior Release stated that the Fund primarily will invest
in U.S. dollar-denominated, investment grade debt securities rated Baa
or higher by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. (``Moody's''), or
equivalently rated by Standard & Poor's Rating Group (``S&P'') or Fitch
Investor Services (``Fitch''), or, if unrated, determined by the
Adviser to be of comparable quality. The Exchange proposes to modify
this representation, as described above, to a representation that the
Fund primarily will invest in U.S. dollar-denominated, investment grade
debt securities rated Baa3 or higher by Moody's,\13\ or equivalently
rated by S&P, Fitch, or by any other nationally recognized statistical
rating organizations, or, if unrated, determined by the Adviser to be
of comparable quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ According to the Exchange, ``Baa3'' is the lowest tier
within the ``Baa'' rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, the Prior Release stated that the Fund will invest at least
80% of its net assets in fixed income securities. The Fund proposes to
modify this statement to permit the Fund to invest at least 80% of its
net assets in fixed income securities and in exchange-traded funds
(``ETFs'') and closed-end funds that invest substantially all of their
assets in fixed income securities.\14\ The Exchange represents that the
shares of these ETFs and closed-end funds will be listed on a U.S.
national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ According to the Exchange, ETFs include Investment Company
Units (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)); Portfolio
Depositary Receipts (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100);
and Managed Fund Shares (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule
8.600). The Fund will invest in the securities of ETFs registered
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``1940 Act'') consistent
with the requirements of Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act, or any
rule, regulation or order of the Commission or interpretation
thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that there is no change to the Fund's
investment objective, and that the Fund will continue to comply with
all initial and continued listing requirements under NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 8.600. In addition, the Exchange represents that, except for the
changes noted above, all other facts presented and representations made
in the Prior Release remain unchanged.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Prior Release also stated that the Fund is considered
non-diversified under the 1940 Act and can invest a greater portion
of assets in securities of individual issuers than a diversified
fund. According to the Exchange, Trust changed this representation
in an amendment to the Trust's registration statement to state that
the Fund is considered a diversified fund. To reflect this change in
the registration statement, the Exchange's current proposed rule
change states that the Fund is considered a diversified fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information regarding the Trust, Fund, and the Shares,
including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption
procedures, fees, portfolio holdings disclosure policies, trading
halts, dissemination and availability of information, distributions,
and taxes can be found in the Prior Release, Notice, as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the registration statement, as
applicable.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra notes 3 and 4; see also Notice, supra note 4, at
66443 n.6 (referring to the registration statement on Form N-1A
relating to the Fund (File Nos. 333-134551 and 811-21906)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act \17\
and the rules and

regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\18\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ which requires, among
other things, that the Exchange's rules be 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the changes proposed by the Exchange
with respect to the Fund are consistent with the listing standards
applicable to other existing ETFs. Specifically, the Commission notes
that, with respect to proposals to list and trade other Managed Fund
Shares on the Exchange, it has previously approved similar limitations
on MBS and ABS holdings and on illiquid assets.\20\ The Commission also
notes that it has previously approved the listing and trading of other
series of Managed Fund Shares based on portfolios comprising fixed
income securities of any credit rating, including investment grade
securities rated Baa3 or higher,\21\ and shares of other ETFs and
exchange-traded closed-end funds.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74109 (Jan.
21, 2015), 80 FR 4327 (Jan. 27, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-134)
(providing for similar limitations on MBS and ABS with respect to
the IQ Wilshire Alternative Strategies ETF); and 70282 (Aug. 29,
2013), 78 FR 54700 (Sept. 5, 2013) (providing for similar
limitations on illiquid assets with respect to the First Trust
Inflation Managed Fund).
    \21\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74093 (Jan.
20, 2015), 80 FR 4015 (Jan. 26, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-126)
(approving the listing and trading of shares of the AdvisorShares
Pacific Asset Enhanced Floating Rate ETF based on a portfolio of
non-investment grade fixed income securities defined as being rated
below ``Baa3,'' among other investments); and 71617 (Feb. 26, 2014),
79 FR 12257 (Mar. 4, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-135) (approving the
listing and trading of shares of the db-X Ultra-Short Duration Fund
based on a portfolio of investment grade fixed income securities
defined as being rated ``Baa3'' or higher, among other investments).
    \22\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67277 (Jun.
27, 2012), 80 FR 4327 (July 3, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-39)
(approving the listing and trading of shares of the Global Alpha &
Beta ETF based on a portfolio of other exchange-traded products that
include other ETFs and closed-end funds, among other investments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of its proposal, the Exchange has made the following
representations:
    (1) The Fund and the Shares are currently in compliance with the
listing standards and other rules of the Exchange and the requirements
set forth in the Prior Release.
    (2) The Fund will continue to comply with all initial and continued
listing requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which sets
forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed
Fund Shares.
    (3) There is no change to the Fund's investment objective.
    (4) Except for the changes noted above, all other facts presented
and representations made in the Prior Release remain unchanged.
    This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's
representations, including those set forth above; in the Notice, as
modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto; in Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to the
proposed rule change; and in the Prior Release.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \23\ and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.10A-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to the Proposed
Rule Change

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning whether Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to the proposed
rule change are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by
any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-107 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-NYSEArca-2014-107. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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 the filing also will 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 Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-107 and should
be submitted on or before May 22, 2015.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, prior to the
thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of the amendments
in the Federal Register. Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 modify the proposed
rule change by permitting the Fund to invest up to 20% of its assets in
Private MBS/ABS. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with the permitted allocation of such MBS and ABS
holdings with respect to other issues of Managed Fund Shares previously
approved by the Commission for Exchange listing and trading.\24\
Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\25\ to approve the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 20 and accompanying text.
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\26\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2014-107), as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, be, and it hereby is, approved
on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-10160 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8203-8205]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02423]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68766; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-116]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval to a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Bylaw and Other Changes Concerning the Board of Directors
of the Exchange

January 30, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On November 30, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its Bylaws concerning
the nomination of Representative Directors, petition candidates, and
the size of the

Exchange's Board of Directors (``Board''), and to make conforming
changes to the CBOE Certificate of Incorporation. On December 19, 2012,
the proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule
change. This order grants approval to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68428 (December 13,
2012), 77 FR 75230 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

Compositional Requirements Determined by the Board

    In December of 2011, CBOE amended its Bylaws and Certificate of
Incorporation to, among other things: (i) eliminate the requirement
that its Board of Directors be composed of at least 30% Industry
Directors, and (ii) eliminate the requirement in Section 3.2 of the
Bylaws that the Representative Directors must be Industry Directors.\4\
In connection with these changes, CBOE also amended Section 3.1 of the
Bylaws to provide that: ``[T]he Board shall determine from time to time
pursuant to resolution adopted by the Board the total number of
directors, the number of Non-Industry Directors and Industry Directors
(if any), and the number of Representative Directors that are Non-
Industry Directors and Industry Directors (if any).'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65682 (November 3,
2011), 76 FR 69780 (November 9, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-099) (noticing
for comment); and 65980 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79252 (December
21, 2011) (approving SR-CBOE-2011-099).
    \5\ See CBOE Bylaw 3.1. See also Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 65682 (November 3, 2011), 76 FR 69780 at (November 9, 2011)
(SR-CBOE-2011-099) (noticing for comment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE proposed to amend the Bylaws to expressly provide that any
person nominated by the Representative Director Nominating Body \6\ and
any petition candidate nominated pursuant to the Section 3.2 of the
Bylaws must satisfy the compositional requirements determined by the
Board pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Board in accordance with
Section 3.1 designating the number of Representative Directors that are
Non-Industry Directors and Industry Directors (if any). CBOE also
proposed to amend Section 3.5 of the Bylaws relating to the filling of
vacancies on the Board to provide that the Representative Director
Nominating Body may only recommend individuals to fill a vacancy in a
Representative Director position who satisfy those same compositional
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange noted that at all times at least 20% of the
directors serving on the Board would be Representative Directors
nominated by the Representative Director Nominating Body as provided
in Section 3.2 of the Bylaws (or otherwise selected through the
petition process). See Notice, supra note 3, at 75230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Board Size Range

    Currently, the Bylaws provide that the Board shall consist of not
less than 11 and not more than 23 directors. CBOE proposed to change
the Board size range such that the Board would consist of not less than
12 and not more than 16 directors.

Conforming Amendments to Certificate of Incorporation

    Finally, CBOE proposed to make conforming changes to its
Certificate of Incorporation and to include in its Certificate of
Incorporation that the Board and/or Nominating and Governance
Committee, as applicable, shall make determinations as to whether a
director candidate satisfies applicable qualifications for election as
a director pursuant to and in accordance with Section 3.1 of the
Exchange's Bylaws, which is nearly identical to the current provisions
in the Exchange's existing Bylaws.

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\7\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\8\ which requires a
national securities exchange to be so organized and have the capacity
to carry out the purposes of the Act and to enforce compliance by its
members and persons associated with its members with the provisions of
the Act; Section 6(b)(3) of the Act,\9\ which requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange assure the fair representation of its
members in the selection of its directors and administration of its
affairs, and provide that one or more directors shall be representative
of issuers and investors and not be associated with a member of the
exchange, broker, or dealer (the ``fair representation requirement'');
and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in that it is designed, among other
things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to expressly
provide that any person nominated by the Representative Director
Nominating Body \11\ and any petition candidate nominated pursuant to
the Section 3.2 of the Bylaws must satisfy the compositional
requirements determined by the Board pursuant to a resolution adopted
by the Board in accordance with Section 3.1 of the Bylaws, as well as
the proposal to amend Section 3.5 of the Bylaws to provide that the
Representative Director Nominating Body may only recommend individuals
to fill a vacancy in a Representative Director position who satisfy
those same compositional requirements, are consistent with Section 6(b)
of the Act,\12\ including Section 6(b)(3) of the Act.\13\ The
Exchange's proposal would not impact its current process to ensure fair
representation of its Trading Permit Holders in the selection of its
directors and administration of its affairs as required by Section
6(b)(3) of the Act.\14\ Specifically, the proposed changes are
consistent with the changes to the Bylaws that CBOE made in December of
2011 and simply reflect the application of those changes. As the
Commission noted when it approved that prior proposal, the Commission
had previously approved proposals in which an exchange's board of
directors was composed of all or nearly all non-industry directors
where the process was nevertheless designed to comply with the ``fair
representation'' requirement in the selection and election of
directors.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 6.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3). Section 6(b)(3) of the Act requires
that the rules of a national securities exchange assure the fair
representation of its members in the selection of its directors and
administration of its affairs, and provide that one or more
directors shall be representative of issuers and investors and not
be associated with a member of the exchange, broker, or dealer.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65980 (December 15,
2011), 76 FR 79252 at 79253 (December 21, 2011) (approving SR-CBOE-
2011-099) (citing to Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48946
(December 17, 2003), 68 FR 74678 (December 24, 2003) (approving SR-
NYSE-2003-34)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal
to change the Board size range to consist of not less than 12 and not
more than 16 directors is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\16\
including Section 6(b)(3) of

the Act.\17\ The Exchange's proposal would not impact in any manner its
current process to ensure fair representation of its Trading Permit
Holders in the selection of its directors and administration of its
affairs as required by Section 6(b)(3) of the Act.\18\ Further, the
proposed change is consistent with the current size of CBOE's Board and
simply narrows the possible size range from 11 to 23 to 12 to 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\19\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2012-116) be and hereby
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02423 Filed 2-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 59333-59334]
[DOCID:fr12oc05-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

October 5, 2005.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER00-826-004; ER00-828-004; ER98-421-015; ER98-
4055-012; ER01-1337-007; ER04-288-001; ER02-177-008; ER03-1212-006;
ER01-1820-007.
    Applicants: Brownsville Power I, L.L.C.; Caledonia Power I, L.L.C.;
CinCap IV, LLC; CinCap V, LLC; Cinergy Capital & Trading, Inc.;
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.; Cinergy Power Investments, Inc.; St.
Paul Cogeneration, LLC; Cinergy Operating Companies.
    Description: Cinergy Entities submit a correction to the 7/21/05
compliance filing pursuant to Commission Order issued 7/15/05.
    Filed Date: 09/28/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051004-0067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 19, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-205-010; ER98-2640-008; ER98-4590-006; ER99-
1610-013; EL05-115-000
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services, Inc.; Northern States Power
Company and Northern States Power Company (Wisconsin); Public Service
Company of Colorado; Southwestern Public Service Company; and Xcel
Energy Services Inc., et al.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services Inc, on behalf of itself & the
Xcel Energy Operating Companies, submits revisions to the market-based
rate tariffs of XES, SPS, & PSCol.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051005-0032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2005.
    Docket Numbers: ER04-691-062; EL04-104-059; ER04-106-017.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission and Energy
Markets Tariff.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051004-0061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 20, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1259-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc
submits inadvertently omitted information from the Transmittal Letter
accompanying its 7/28/05 filing of an Interconnection Agreement with
the City of Lebanon, OH.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051005-0027.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 20, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1260-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits information inadvertently omitted from the 7/28/05 filing of an
Interconnection Agreement with Hooiser Energy Rural Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051004-0062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 20, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1520-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp submits
Amendement No. 3 to the Interconnected Control Area Operating Agreement
with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051004-0073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 20, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-795-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc submits advance notice of an 10/1/
05 effective date for the Market Rule Changes to the Re-Offer Period
bidding flexibility elements of Phase I of the Ancillary Services
Market project filed on 9/16/05 under Accession No. 20050929-0107.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2005.
    Accession Number: 20050929-0105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 14, 2005.
    Docket Numbers: ER05-856-002.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Virginia Electric and Power Co submits an Agreement
for the purchase of electricity for resale with the Town of Windsor,
N.C.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051004-0058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2005.

    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.
    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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5572 Filed 10-11-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 42555-42556]
[DOCID:fr22jy08-29]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. 13232-000]

Coastal Power, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

July 11, 2008.
    On May 27, 2008, Coastal Power, Inc. filed an application, pursuant
to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the
feasibility of the Hell Gate Tidal Project, to be located on the East
River in the Manhattan area of New York.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) Six Venturi Water
Turbines, dimensions approximately four feet by twelve feet, anchored
to the bottom of

the river by eight wood pilings, (2) visible towers that house a
generator for each turbine, dimensions approximately one foot by one
foot, located on the surface of the river, (3) a commercial inverter
which is two feet by four feet by three feet and located on the shore
of the river, (4) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an
annual energy generation of 821,250 KW-hrs per year.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Gregory Aurre III, President, Coastal Power,
Inc., 1721 17th Court, Jupiter, Florida 33477; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
FERC Contact: Alyssa Dorval,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13232) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-16701 Filed 7-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 14, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70999-71000]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26983]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0566; FRL-9090-01-OAR]

Notice of Opportunity To Comment on Proposed Denial of Petitions
for Small Refinery Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed denial of petitions.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to deny
all undecided/pending small refinery exemption petitions under the
Renewable Fuel Standard program currently before the agency. EPA is
providing an opportunity for the public to comment on our proposed
denial of these petitions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 7, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments. You may send your comments, identified by Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0566, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method) Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0566 in the subject line of the message.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Air Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of
operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal
Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our
staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public,
with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19.
Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to
submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov or email, as there may
be a delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers
may be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information
on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Nelson, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Compliance Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-
4657; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) provides that a small refinery \1\ may at
any time petition EPA for an exemption from the obligations of the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program for the reason of
disproportionate economic hardship (DEH).\2\ In evaluating such
petitions, the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of
Energy, will consider the findings of a Department of Energy (DOE)
study and other economic factors.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The CAA defines a small refinery as ``a refinery for which
the average aggregate daily crude oil throughput for a calendar year
. . . does not exceed 75,000 barrels.'' CAA section 211(o)(1)(K).
    \2\ CAA section 211(o)(9)(B)(i).
    \3\ CAA section 211(o)(9)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA provided an initial blanket small refinery exemption (SRE)
to all small refineries, exempting them from their RFS obligations
until calendar year 2011.\4\ The CAA includes two additional provisions
regarding extensions of the temporary exemption for the period after
the initial blanket exemption expired. The first statutory mechanism,
applicable to 2011 and 2012, was based on a DOE determination, through
the above-mentioned study, that compliance with the RFS requirements
would impose DEH on a small refinery. If DOE made such a determination,
EPA was required to extend the small refinery's exemption for no less
than two years.\5\ Under the second statutory mechanism, small
refineries are authorized to petition at any time for extensions of the
original statutory exemption for the reason of DEH.\6\ Since 2013, EPA
has shared the incoming petitions and supporting information with DOE,
and DOE has provided EPA with its findings based on a scoring matrix;
however, the ultimate decision of whether to grant or deny a petition
rests with EPA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAA section 211(o)(9)(A)(i).
    \5\ CAA section 211(o)(9)(A)(ii)(II).
    \6\ CAA section 211(o)(9)(B)(i).
    \7\ More information on the RFS program and the history of SREs,
including how EPA's approach to evaluating SRE petitions has changed
over time, can be found in Section II of the ``Proposed RFS Small
Refinery Exemption Decision,'' available in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Decision

    In the Proposed RFS Small Refinery Exemption Decision (hereinafter
``the proposed adjudication,'' available in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0566) and on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/proposal-deny-petitions-small-refinery-exemptions), we have conducted an extensive analysis and
review of information provided by small refineries in their SRE
petitions to EPA, finding that all refineries face the same costs to
acquire RINs regardless of whether the RINs are created through the act
of blending renewable fuels or purchased on the open market. This
happens because the market price for these fuels increases to reflect
the cost of the RIN, much as it would increase in response to higher
crude prices. In other words, this increased price for gasoline and
diesel fuel allows obligated parties to recover their RIN costs through
the market price of the fuel they produce. Because the market behaves
this way for all parties subject to the RFS, there is no
disproportionate cost to any party, including small refineries. As a
result, we conclude that small refineries do not face DEH.
    Given this conclusion and the other reasons described in the
proposed adjudication, we are proposing to deny all pending SRE
petitions by finding the petitioning refineries do not face DEH caused
by compliance with their RFS obligations. We seek comment on all
aspects of this proposed denial, most notably on our conclusions that
the CAA requires small refineries to demonstrate that DEH is caused by
compliance with the RFS program and our economic analyses concluding
that no small refineries face such disproportionate costs of compliance
due to the RFS program. Specifically, we seek comment on our findings
regarding the absence of a causal relationship between compliance with
the RFS program and DEH experienced by small refineries. We request
additional data that would show the relationship between RFS compliance
costs and the price of transportation fuel blendstocks. We also seek
comment on our proposed change in approach to SRE eligibility based on
receipt of the original statutory exemption, and our decision to deny
all pending/undecided SRE petitions based on the proportional nature of
the RFS requirements and our findings regarding RIN cost passthrough.
We intend to consider these comments before making a final
determination on these pending petitions.

Joseph Goffman,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2021-26983 Filed 12-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15387-15391]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04747]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0832; FRL-10005-85]

Cyazofamid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
cyazofamid in or on multiple commodities that are identified and
discussed later in this document. The Interregional Project Number 4
(IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective March 18, 2020. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 18, 2020, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0832, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0832 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
May 18, 2020. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0832, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of May 9, 2019 (84 FR 20320) (FRL-9992-36),
EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 8E8718)
by IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road
East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, New Jersey 08540. The petition requested
that 40 CFR 180.601 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues
of the fungicide cyazofamid, 4-chloro-2-cyano-N,N-dimethyl-5-(4-
methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-1-sulfonamide, in or on brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 4-16B at 15.0 parts per million (ppm); ginseng at 0.2
ppm; kohlrabi at 1.5 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4-16A at 10.0 ppm; and
vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 1.5 ppm. Upon the
establishment of those tolerances, the petition requested the removal
of existing tolerances for residues of the fungicide cyazofamid in or
on brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 1.2 ppm; brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 5B at 12.0 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4A at 10 ppm;
and turnip, greens at 12.0 ppm. That document referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by ISK Biosciences Corporation, the registrant,
which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. Two
comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these
comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition and pursuant
to its authority in FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA is establishing
three of the tolerances at a different level than requested. The
reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the

pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures
and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This
includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings,
but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants
and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue. . . .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for cyazofamid including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with cyazofamid follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Cyazofamid belongs to a chemical class based on the cyanoimidazole
and sulfonamide moieties. It specifically interferes with the
cytochrome bc1 complex (ubiquinol cytochrome c oxidoreductase) in the
mitochondrial respiratory chain of oomycetes fungi. The mechanism of
toxicity in mammals is not clear. There were no treatment-related
adverse effects in the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies.
However, following repeated administration in more than one species,
toxicological effects were observed primarily in the kidney. There were
no effects observed up to the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg) in the dermal
toxicity study. In dogs, there were no major toxicity findings.
    In the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats, there was a
marginal increased incidence of bent ribs observed in the high-dose
(1,000 mg/kg/day) without any maternal effects, indicating quantitative
susceptibility following in utero exposure.
    Cyazofamid is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans'' based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in both the
rat and the mouse studies. Additionally, cyazofamid does not appear to
be mutagenic, based on several negative in vivo and in vitro studies.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by cyazofamid as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in document ``Cyazofamid. Human Health Risk
Assessment for New Uses of Cyazofamid on Ginseng, and Greenhouse
Cucumbers and Crop Group Conversions on Vegetable, Brassica, Head and
Stem, Group 5-16; Brassica, Leafy Greens, Subgroup 4-16B; Leafy Greens,
Subgroup 4-16A; and to Establish an Individual Tolerance on Kohlrabi''
on page 20 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0832.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyazofamid used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of February 3, 2016 (81 FR 5602)
(FRL-9940-46).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to cyazofamid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing cyazofamid tolerances in 40 CFR
180.601. EPA assessed dietary exposures from cyazofamid in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for cyazofamid; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA included
tolerance-level residues for all crops, default processing factors and
assumed that 100% of the crops were treated (100% CT) with cyazofamid.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data cited in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that cyazofamid does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for cyazofamid. Tolerance-level residues and/or 100%
CT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for cyazofamid in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of cyazofamid. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of cyazofamid
for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be
133.5

ppb for surface water and 211 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 211 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Cyazofamid is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Turf and ornamentals. EPA
assumes there is no residential handler exposure because labels require
users to wear personal protective equipment. Post application exposure
(to turf and ornamental) from hand-to-mouth exposures was greatest to
children 1 to less than 2 years old. Further information regarding EPA
standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may
be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' Unlike other pesticides for
which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common
mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity
finding as to cyazofamid and any other substances and cyazofamid does
not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.
For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that
cyazofamid has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.
For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals
have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative
effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In the prenatal
developmental toxicity study in rats, there was a marginal increased
incidence of bent ribs observed at the high-dose (1,000 mg/kg/day)
without any maternal effects, indicating quantitative susceptibility
following in utero exposure. There is low concern for this effect
because (1) bent ribs are a developmental variation rather than a
malformation; (2) the increased incidence was only marginally increased
over historical and concurrent controls; (3) similar effects were not
seen in the rabbit developmental study; and (4) the effect was only
observed at the limit dose.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for cyazofamid is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that cyazofamid is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. Although there is evidence of quantitative susceptibility in
the developmental rat study, the concern is low because the effects
occur at the limit dose and are well-characterized with clearly
established no observed adverse-effect level (NOAEL)/lowest-observed
adverse-effect level (LOAEL) values and selected endpoints address the
observed effects.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT, default processing factors and assumed tolerance-level
residues for all crops. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions
in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
cyazofamid in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative
assumptions to assess post application exposure of children as well as
incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by cyazofamid.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
cyazofamid is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
cyazofamid from food and water will utilize 2.0% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
cyazofamid is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Cyazofamid is
currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to cyazofamid.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 6,200 for
children 1 to less than 2 years old for dietary exposure (which is
considered a background exposure) and incidental oral (hand-to-mouth)
exposure from contact with

treated turf. Because EPA's level of concern for cyazofamid is an MOE
of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
cyazofamid is not registered for any use patterns that would result in
intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
cyazofamid.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, cyazofamid is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to cyazofamid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methods are available to determine residues of
cyazofamid and its metabolite CCIM (4-chloro-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-
imidazole-2-carbonitrile) in various commodities. An enforcement method
for non-fatty commodities is available, FDA's Multiresidue Protocol D
(without cleanup). The method completely recovers cyazofamid and its
metabolite CCIM. In addition, the high-performance liquid
chromatography method with ultraviolent light detection (HPLC/UV)
method is acceptable for use as a single analyte enforcement method
provided a confirmatory method such as the liquid chromatography method
with tandem mass-spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS) method is used.
    The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has established MRLs for cyazofamid in or on Brassica
(cole or cabbage) vegetables, head cabbage, and flowerhead Brassicas at
1.5 ppm; leaves of Brassicaceae at 15 ppm; and leafy vegetables (except
Brassica leafy vegetables) at 10 ppm. The U.S. tolerances being
established are harmonized with these Codex MRLs, specifically
vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 1.5 ppm; kohlrabi at
1.5 ppm; brassica leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 15 ppm; and leafy
greens subgroup 4-16A at 10 ppm. There is no Codex MRL for ginseng.

C. Response to Comments

    EPA received two comments to the Notice of Filing, generally
opposed to any cyazofamid residues on leafy greens. Although the Agency
recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be
banned on agricultural crops, the existing legal framework provided by
section 408 of the FFDCA states that tolerances may be set when persons
seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the
pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. These
comments appear to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's
implementation of it; the comments provide no information relevant the
Agency's safety determination.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA is establishing tolerances for Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup
4-16B and Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A at different levels than
requested to be consistent with the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) rounding class practice. For
ginseng, the petitioner's proposed tolerance was adjusted because
storage stability data indicated a decline in residues of CCIM.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
statistical calculation procedures applied to the corrected residue
data provided a different value (0.3 ppm) than the proposed value (0.2
ppm). Therefore, EPA is establishing the tolerance for ginseng at 0.3
ppm.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of cyazofamid,
4-chloro-2-cyano-N,N-dimethyl-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-1-
sulfonamide, in or on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 15 ppm;
Ginseng at 0.3 ppm; Kohlrabi at 1.5 ppm; Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A at
10 ppm; and Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 1.5 ppm.
Additionally, EPA is removing the established tolerances for Brassica,
head and stem, subgroup 5A at 1.2 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup
5B at 12.0 ppm; Leafy greens subgroup 4A at 10 ppm; and Turnip, greens
at 12.0 ppm. Finally, as a housekeeping measure, EPA is removing the
expired exemption in paragraph (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions for
Basil, dried at 144 ppm, as it expired on December 31, 2014.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' (82 FR 9339, February
3, 2017). This action does not contain any information

collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: March 2, 2020.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.601:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (a):
0
i. Remove the entries: Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A; and
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B;
0
ii. Add alphabetically the entries: Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-
16B; Ginseng; and Kohlrabi;
0
iii. Remove the entry Leafy greens subgroup 4A;
0
iv. Add alphabetically the entry Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A;
0
v. Remove the entry Turnip, greens; and
0
vi. Add alphabetically the entry Vegetable, brassica, head and stem,
group 5-16; and
0
b. Remove and reserve paragraph (b).
    The additions and revision read as follows:

Sec.  180.601  Cyazofamid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

                         Table to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B......................          15

                                * * * * *
Ginseng.....................................................         0.3

                                * * * * *
Kohlrabi....................................................         1.5
Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A.................................          10
Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16..............         1.5

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-04747 Filed 3-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P