[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 16, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3377-3381]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00714]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0001; FRL-9375-4]

Notice of Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for
Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of several
initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A contact person, with telephone
number and email address, is listed at the end of each pesticide
petition summary. You may also reach each contact person by mail at
Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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:
    [emsp14]Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    [emsp14]Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    [emsp14]Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    [emsp14]Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of
the pesticide petition summary of interest.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
(21 U.S.C. 346a), requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on
the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing
any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the
pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not
fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or
whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After
considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and
what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA
can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)),
EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

New Tolerances

    1. PP 2E8068. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0710). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528, requests
to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
fungicide boscalid (BAS 510F); [3-pyridinecarboxamide, 2-chloro-N-(4'-
chloro(1,1'-biphenyl)-2-yl)-], in or on artichoke, globe at 6.0 ppm;
berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 4.5 ppm; bushberry, subgroup 13-
07B at 13 ppm; caneberry, subgroup 13-07A at 6.0 ppm; endive, Belgium
at 5.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 1.6 ppm; fruit, pome, group
11-10 at 3.0 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,
subgroup 13-07F, at 3.5 ppm; oilseed, group 20 at 3.5 ppm; persimmon at
7.0 ppm; turnip, greens at 18.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb group 3-07 at 3.0
ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 1.2 ppm; vegetable, root
subgroup 1B, except sugarbeet, at 1.0 ppm. In plants, the parent
residue is extracted using an aqueous organic solvent mixture followed
by liquid/liquid (L/L) partitioning and a column clean up. Quantitation
is by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). In livestock, the
residues are extracted with methanol. The extract is treated with
enzymes in order to release the conjugated glucuronic acid metabolite.
The residues are then isolated by L/L partition followed by column
chromatography. The hydroxylated metabolite is acetylated followed by a
column clean-up. The parent and acetylated metabolite are quantitated
by GC with electron capture detection (ECD). Contact: Andrew Ertman,
(703) 308-9367, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 2E8069. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0549). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide pyraclostrobin, carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-
chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester
and its metabolite methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]o-
tolyl] carbamate (BF 500-3); expressed as parent compound, in or on
artichoke, globe at 3.0 parts per million (ppm); endive, Belgium at 3.0
ppm; and persimmon at 3.0 ppm. In plants, the method of analysis is
aqueous organic solvent extraction, column clean up and quantitation by
liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). In animals,
the method of analysis involves base hydrolysis, organic extraction,
column clean up and quantitation by LC/MS/MS or derivatization
(methylation) followed by quantitation by GC/MS. Contact: Andrew
Ertman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. PP 2E8114. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0903). Dow AgroSciences, LLC, 9330
Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide
tricyclazole, 5-methyl-1,2,4-triazolo[3,4-b] benzothiazole, including

its metabolites and degradates, in or on rice at 3.0 ppm. There are
adequate validated methods that exist for the quantification of
tricyclazole (TCA) and tricyclazole alcohol metabolite (TCA-OH)
residues in rice. There is also successful method validation available
for multi-residue DFG method S19 for determination of tricyclazole in
rice by GS/MS detection. Contact: Erik Kraft,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. PP 2E8117. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0911). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide quinoxyfen, 5,7-dichloro-4-(4-
fluorophenoxy)quinoline, in or on vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at
1.7 ppm; fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup
13-07F at 0.60 ppm; and berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 0.90
ppm. A practical analytical method is available to monitor and enforce
the tolerances of quinoxyfen residues in crops. The analytical method
uses a capillary GC and MS detection (GC-MSD). The method is adequate
for collecting data and enforcing tolerances for quinoxyfen residues
in/on the subject crops. Contact: Sidney Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. PP 2E8118. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0912). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.544 for
residues of the insecticide methoxyfenozide, (3-methoxy-2-methylbenzoic
acid 2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl) hydrazide) including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on the raw agricultural
commodities under paragraph (a) in or on herb subgroup 19A, except
chive at 400 ppm; date at 7 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 6 ppm;
sorghum, grain, forage at 9 ppm; sorghum, grain, stover at 15 ppm;
sorghum, grain, grain at 4 ppm; sorghum, sweet, forage at 9 ppm;
sorghum, sweet, stover at 15 ppm; sorghum, sweet, grain at 4 ppm;
sorghum, sweet, stalk at 9 ppm; grain, aspirated grain fractions at 80
ppm; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C, except
pea, blackeyed, seed and pea, southern, seed at 0.5 ppm; fruit, small,
vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 1 ppm; berry,
low growing, except cranberry, subgroup 13-07G at 1.5 ppm; fruit, pome,
group 11-10 at 1.5 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 2 ppm; sugar
apple at 0.6 ppm; cherimoya at 0.6 ppm; atemoya at 0.6 ppm; custard
apple at 0.6 ppm; ilama at 0.6 ppm; soursop at 0.6 ppm; and biriba at
0.6 ppm. Additionally, the petition requested to establish tolerances
in 40 CFR 180.544, under paragraph (d)(2) for indirect or inadvertent
residues of methoxyfenozide in or on rapeseed subgroup 20A at 1.0 ppm
and sunflower subgroup 20B at 1.0 ppm. Per a recent 2012 decision on
tolerances, EPA stated adequate single methods are available for
tolerance enforcement in primary crops and animal commodities.
Analytical methodology for the magnitude of residue studies was based
on Dow AgroSciences method GRM 02.25 ``Determination of Residues of
Methoxyfenozide in High Moisture Crops by Liquid Chromatography with
Tandem Mass Spectrometry Detection''. Contact: Laura Nollen, (703) 305-
7390, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    6. PP 2F8058. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0924). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528, requests
to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
fungicide fluxapyroxad, (BAS 700 F); 1 H-Pyrazole-4-carboxamide,3-
(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-(3',4',5'-trifluoro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-yl)-,
its metabolites, and degradates, in or on nongrass animal feeds, group
18 at 0.5 ppm; and mint at 0.05 ppm. Independently validated analytical
methods have been submitted for analyzing residues of parent BAS 700 F
(fluxapyroxad) plus metabolites M700F008, M700F048 and M700F002 with
appropriate sensitivity in all the crop and processed commodities for
root and tuber vegetables (subgroups 1A, 1C, D), sugar beet tops,
legume vegetables including soybean (group 6), foliage of legume
vegetables (group 7), fruiting vegetables (group 8), pome fruits (group
11), stone fruits (group 12), cereal grains (group 15), forage, fodder
and straw of cereal grains (group 16), cotton, canola (rapeseed),
sunflower and peanut and in animal meat, fat, liver and kidney
matrices, poultry meat, fat, liver and skin, milk, cream and eggs for
which tolerances have been established. Contact: Olga Odiott, (703)
308-9369, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    7. PP 2F8077. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0829). Monsanto Company, 1300 I
Street NW., Suite 450 East, Washington, DC 20005, (a member of the
Acetochlor Registration Partnership, (ARP)), requests to establish
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.470(a) for residues of the herbicide
acetochlor (2-chloro-2'-methyl-6'-ethyl-N-ethoxymethyl acetanilide) and
its metabolites containing either the 2-ethyl-6-methylaniline (EMA) or
the 2-(1-hydroxyethyl)-6-methylaniline (HEMA) moiety, to be expressed
as acetochlor equivalents, resulting from applications to soil or
growing crops, in or on beet, sugar, dried pulp at 0.5 ppm; beet,
sugar, molasses at 1.3 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.3 ppm; beet, sugar,
tops at 0.8 ppm; peanut at 0.2 ppm; peanut, hay at 6.0 ppm; and peanut,
meal at 0.5 ppm. An adequate enforcement method for residues of
acetochlor in crops has been approved. Acetochlor and its metabolites
are hydrolyzed to either EMA or HEMA, which are determined by high
pressure liquid chromatography-oxidative coulometric electrochemical
detector (HPLC-OCED) and expressed as acetochlor equivalents. Contact:
Hope Johnson,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    8. PP 2F8099. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0941). Valent U.S.A. Corporation,
1600 Riviera Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, requests to
establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.627 for inadvertent residues of the
fungicide fluopicolide, 2,6-dichloro-N-[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridylmethyl]-benzamide, as an indicator of combined residues of
fluopicolide and its metabolite, 2,6-dichlorobenzamide (BAM), in or on
corn, field, forage at 0.09 ppm; corn, field, grain at 0.01 ppm; and
corn, field, stover at 0.3 ppm, resulting from the proposed use as a
fungicide. Additional data included in the petition, to assess
potential dietary exposure from P1x and PCA, shows no inadvertent
residues of P1x or PCA in the corn grain. Practical analytical methods
for detecting and measuring levels of fluopicolide and its metabolites
have been developed and validated in/on all appropriate plant and
animal matrices. An analytical method for detecting fluopicolide and
BAM in field corn matrices has been submitted with this petition. In
addition, an analytical method for detecting P1x and PCA in corn grain
(for assessing dietary exposure) has been submitted with this petition.
Contact: Dominic Schuler,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    9. PP 2F8106. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0925). Taminco, Inc., Two Windsor
Plaza, Suite 411, Allentown, PA, requests to establish a tolerance in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide thiram, in or on
strawberry at 20 ppm. Strawberry samples were analyzed according to ALS
Laboratory Group method MS 133.02 ``The Determination of Mancozeb and/
or Other Ethylene-bis-dithiocarbamates (EBDCs) as CS2 in
Plant Tissue by GC/MS''. Detection and quantitation for thiram (as
CS2) were conducted using a GC equipped with a mass spectral

detector (MSD) for determination of CS2. Contact: Shaunta
Hill,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Amended Tolerances

    1. PP 2E8068. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0710). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528, requests
to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.589 by removing tolerances for
residues of the fungicide boscalid (BAS 510F); [3-pyridinecarboxamide,
2-chloro-N-(4'-chloro(1,1'-biphenyl)-2-yl)-], in or on bushberry,
subgroup 13B at 13 ppm; caneberry, subgroup 13A at 6.0 ppm; canola,
seed at 3.5 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 1.0 ppm; fruit, citrus,
group 10 at 1.6 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 3.0 ppm; grape at 3.5
ppm; strawberry at 4.5 ppm; sunflower, seed at 0.6 ppm; vegetable,
bulb, group 3 at 3.0 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 1.2 ppm; and
vegetable, root, subgroup 1A except sugarbeet, garden beet, radish, and
turnip at 1.0 ppm, upon approval of the tolerances listed under ``New
Tolerances'' for PP 2E8068. Contact: Andrew Ertman,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 2E8069. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0549). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to concurrently update the existing crop group
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.582 for residues of the fungicide
pyraclostrobin, carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy]methyl] phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester and its metabolite methyl-
N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]o-tolyl] carbamate (BF 500-3);
expressed as parent compound, to vegetable, bulb, group 3-07 at 0.9
ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 1.4 ppm; fruit, citrus, group
10-10 at 2.0 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 1.5 ppm; oilseed, group
20 at 0.45 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 4.0 ppm; bushberry
subgroup 13-07B at 4.0 ppm; small fruit, vine climbing subgroup (except
fuzzy kiwi) 13-07F at 2.0 ppm; and low growing berry subgroup 13-07G at
1.2 ppm, upon approval of the tolerances listed under ``New
Tolerances'' for PP 2E8069.
    In addition, the IR-4 requests to concurrently amend 40 CFR 180.582
by removing tolerances for residues of pyraclostrobin, carbamic acid,
[2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-,
methyl ester and its metabolite methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-
3-yl]oxy]o-tolyl] carbamate (BF 500-3); expressed as parent compound,
in or on the raw agricultural commodity berry, group 13 at 4.0 ppm;
fruit, citrus, group 10 at 2.0 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 1.5 ppm;
grape at 2.0 ppm; strawberry at 1.2 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3 at
0.9 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 1.4 ppm; borage, seed at 0.45
ppm; castor oil plant, seed at 0.45 ppm; Chinese tallowtree, seed at
0.45 ppm; crambe, seed at 0.45 ppm; cuphea, seed at 0.45 ppm; echium,
seed at 0.45 ppm; euphorbia, seed at 0.45 ppm; evening primrose, seed
at 0.45 ppm; flax seed at 0.45 ppm; gold of pleasure, seed at 0.45 ppm;
Hare's ear mustard, seed at 0.45 ppm, jojoba, seed at 0.45 ppm;
lesquerella, seed at 0.45 ppm, lunaria, seed at 0.45 ppm; meadowfoam,
seed at 0.45 ppm; milkweed, seed at 0.45 ppm; mustard, seed at 0.45
ppm; Niger seed, seed at 0.45 ppm; oil radish, seed at 0.45 ppm; poppy,
seed at 0.45 ppm; rapeseed, seed at 0.45 ppm; rose hip, seed at 0.45
ppm; safflower, seed at 0.45 ppm; sesame, seed at 0.45 ppm; stokes
aster, seed at 0.45 ppm; sunflower, seed at 0.45 ppm; sweet rocket,
seed at 0.45 ppm; tallowwood, seed at 0.45 ppm; tea oil plant, seed at
0.45 ppm; and ternonia, seed at 0.45 ppm, upon approval of the
tolerances listed under ``New Tolerances'' for PP 2E8069. In plants,
the method of analysis is aqueous organic solvent extraction, column
clean up and quantitation by LC/MS/MS. In animals, the method of
analysis involves base hydrolysis, organic extraction, column clean up
and quantitation by LC/MS/MS or derivatization (methylation) followed
by quantitation by GC/MS. Contact: Andrew Ertman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. PP 2E8117. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0911). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.588 for
residues of the fungicide quinoxyfen, 5,7-dichloro-4-(4-
fluorophenoxy)quinoline, by removing the established tolerances in or
on grape at 0.60 ppm; strawberry at 0.90 ppm; pepper, bell at 0.35 ppm;
and pepper, nonbell at 1.7 ppm, upon approval of the proposed
tolerances listed under ``New Tolerances'' for PP 2E8117. Contact:
Sidney Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. PP 2E8118. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0912). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.544 for
residues of the insecticide methoxyfenozide, (3-methoxy-2-methylbenzoic
acid 2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl) hydrazide) including
its metabolites and degradates, upon approval of the proposed
tolerances listed under ``New Tolerances'' for PP 2E8118 in paragraph
(a), the petition also requests to amend the tolerances in paragraph
(d)(2) from herb and spice, group 19, except coriander, leaves at 4.5
ppm to spice subgroup 19B at 4.5 ppm. In addition, it is proposed that
the tolerances for residues of methoxyfenozide in or on pea, dry, seed
at 2.5 ppm; bean, dry, seed at 0.24 ppm; coriander, leaves at 30 ppm;
grape at 1.0 ppm; strawberry at 1.5 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 1.5
ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 2.0 ppm; and okra at 2.0 ppm be
removed upon the approval of the proposed tolerances listed under ``New
Tolerances'' for PP 2E8118. Contact: Laura Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. PP 2F8073. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0923). Gowan Company, LLC, P.O. Box
556, Yuma, AZ 85366, requests to amend the regional restriction of
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.448 for residues of the insecticide
hexythiazox (trans-5-(4-chlorophenyll)-N-cyclohexyl-4-methyl-2-
oxothiazolidine-3-carboxamide), in or on cotton, gin byproduct at 3
ppm; and cotton, undelinted seed at 0.2 ppm by including Arizona. A
practical analytical method, high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC)
with an ultraviolet (UV) detector, which detects and measures residues
of hexythiazox and its metabolites as a common moiety, is available for
enforcement purposes with a limit of detection that allows monitoring
of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances.
Contact: Olga Odiott,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    6. PP 2F8077. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0829). Monsanto Company, 1300 I
Street NW., Suite 450 East, Washington DC 20005, (a member of the ARP),
requests to delete from 40 CFR 180.470 (d) tolerances for indirect or
inadvertent residues of the herbicide acetochlor (2-chloro-2'-methyl-
6'-ethyl-N-ethoxymethyl acetanilide) and its metabolites containing
either the 2-ethyl-6-methylaniline (EMA) or the 2-(1-hydroxyethyl)-6-
methyl-aniline (HEMA) moiety, to be expressed as acetochlor
equivalents, in or on beet, sugar, roots at 0.05 ppm, and beet, sugar,
tops at 0.05 ppm, upon approval of the proposed tolerances listed under
``New Tolerances'' for PP 2F8077. Contact: Hope Johnson, (703) 305-
5410, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    7. PP 2F8155. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0926). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to amend the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.368 for residues of the

herbicide S-metolachlor, in or on corn, field, forage; corn, sweet,
forage; and corn, stover at 20, 40 and 40 ppm, respectively. A GC-
nitrogen phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) method has been submitted to the
Agency for determining residues in/on crop commodities and is published
in PAM Vol. II, Method I. A GC/MSD method has been submitted to the
Agency for determining residues in livestock commodities and is
published in PAM Vol. II, Method II. These methods determine residues
of S-metolachlor and its metabolites as either CGA-37913 or CGA-49751
following acid hydrolysis. Contact: Michael Walsh,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
New Tolerance Exemptions

    1. PP 2E8091. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0921). DuPont Tate & Lyle
BioProducts, LLC, 198 Blair Bend Drive, Loudon, TN 37774, requests to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of 1,3-propanediol (CAS No. 504-63-2) under 40 CFR 180.910 for pre- and
post-harvest uses in pesticide formulations and 40 CFR 180.940 for food
contact sanitizing solutions in public eating places, diary-processing
equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils, when used as an
inert ingredient as a solvent, co-solvent, diluent, or freeze point
depressant. 1,3-Propanediol would be used in or on the raw agricultural
commodity and in the food contact sanitizing solution as an inert
ingredient without limitation. The petitioner believes no analytical
method is needed because it is not required for the establishment of a
tolerance exemption for inert ingredients. Contact: David Lieu, (703)
305-0079, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP IN-10520. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0874). Rhodia Inc., c/o SciReg,
Inc., 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192, requests to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of dimethyl esters of glutaric acid (CAS No. 1119-40-0), succinic acid
(CAS No. 106-65-0), and adipic acid (CAS No. 627-93-0), herein referred
to as DME, under 40 CFR 180.910 when used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations. Rhodia is requesting that DME be exempt from
the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.910. Therefore, Rhodia
believes that an analytical method to determine residues in treated
crops is not relevant. Contact: Deirdre Sunderland,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. PP IN-10525. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0901). Ecolab, Inc., 370 N.
Wabasha Street, St. Paul, MN 55102, requests to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of propylene glycol
(CAS No. 57-55-6) when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial
pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public
eating places, dairy processing equipment and food processing equipment
and utensils in accordance with 40 CFR 180.940(a). The petitioner
believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for
the establishment of a tolerance exemption for inert ingredients.
Contact: Mark Dow,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. PP IN-10526. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0922). Ecolab, Inc., 370 N.
Wabasha Street, St. Paul, MN 55102, requests to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of sodium bisulfate
(CAS No. 7681-38-1) for use as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial
pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public
eating places, dairy processing equipment and food processing equipment
and utensils in accordance with 40 CFR 180.940(a). The petitioner
believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for
the establishment of a tolerance exemption for inert ingredients.
Contact: David Lieu,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. PP IN-10528. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0945. Ecolab, Inc., 370 N. Wabasha
Street, St. Paul, MN 55102, requests to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of FD&C Yellow No. 5
(Tartrazine) (CAS No. 1934-21-0) under 40 CFR 180.940(a) for use as an
inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to
food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing
equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils. The petitioner
believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for
the establishment of a tolerance exemption for inert ingredients.
Contact: Janet Whitehurst,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: January 8, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-00714 Filed 1-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 71686]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28576]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: US Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form BD-N/Rule 15b11-1, SEC File No. 270-498, OMB Control No.
3235-0556.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 15b11-1 (17 CFR 240.15b11-1) requires that futures commission
merchants and introducing brokers registered with the Commidity Futures
Trading Commission that conduct a business in security futures products
must notice-register as broker-dealers pursuant to Section 15(b)(11)(A)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). Form
BD-N Form BD-N (17 CFR 249.501b) is the Form by which these entities
must notice register with the Commission.
    The total annual burden imposed by Rule 15b11-1 and Form BD-N is
approximately 16 hours, based on approximately 60 responses (2 initial
filings + 58 amendments). Each initial filing requires approximately 30
minutes to complete and each amendment requires approximately 15
minutes to complete. There is no annual cost burden.
    The Commission will use the information collected pursuant to Rule
15b11-1 to understand the market for securities futures product and
fulfill its regulatory obligations.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Comments should be directed to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 60 days of
this notice.

    Dated: November 22, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28576 Filed 11-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 131)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38891-38893]
[DOCID:fr08jy08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0272; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-275-AD;
Amendment 39-15594; AD 2008-13-31]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Falcon 2000 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    In service events have shown that, after implementation of
Dassault Aviation SB (service bulletin) F2000-133 and F2000-166, a
risk of engine cowlings separation from the airplane still exists,
and may cause potential damages to the engine itself and to the
horizontal stabilizer.
    It is suspected that on-ground improper latching may lead to a
radial deformation of engine cowlings in flight and to their
eventual escape out of their locking devices. This situation may
represent a hazard to the aircraft propulsive system and/or its
structural integrity.

* * * * *
We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 12, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 12,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2008 (73
FR 13511). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    In service events have shown that, after implementation of
Dassault Aviation SB (service bulletin) F2000-133 and F2000-166, a
risk of engine cowlings separation from the airplane still exists,
and may cause potential damages to the engine itself and to the
horizontal stabilizer.
    It is suspected that on-ground improper latching may lead to a
radial deformation of engine cowlings in flight and to their
eventual escape out of their locking devices.

This situation may represent a hazard to the aircraft propulsive
system and/or its structural integrity.
    The purpose of this Airworthiness Directive (AD) is to secure
safe closure of engine cowlings and improve the existing locking
devices.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 229 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 90 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $1,648,800, or $7,200 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
Requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-13-31 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-15594. Docket No. FAA-
2008-0272; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-275-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August
12, 2008.

 Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Dassault Model Falcon 2000 airplanes,
certificated in any category, all serial numbers, except those that
have incorporated Modification M2275 during production or Dassault
Service Bulletin F2000-298 in service.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54:
Nacelles/Pylons.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    In service events have shown that, after implementation of
Dassault Aviation SB (service bulletin) F2000-133 and F2000-166, a
risk of engine cowlings separation from the airplane still exists,
and may cause potential damages to the engine itself and to the
horizontal stabilizer.
    It is suspected that on-ground improper latching may lead to a
radial deformation of engine cowlings in flight and to their
eventual escape out of their locking devices. This situation may
represent a hazard to the aircraft propulsive system and/or its
structural integrity.
    The purpose of this Airworthiness Directive (AD) is to secure
safe closure of engine cowlings and improve the existing locking
devices.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD unless
already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Modify the existing engine cowls locking system in
accordance with the instructions contained in Dassault Service
Bulletin F2000-298, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2007.
    (2) Before or concurrent with the modification required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, modify the engine cowling attachments
in accordance with the instructions contained in Dassault Service
Bulletin F2000-166, Revision 1, dated October 24, 2001 (Modification
M1579).
    (3) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Dassault Service Bulletins F2000-298, Revision 1,

dated October 31, 2006, or Revision 2, dated April 12, 2007; and
F2000-166, dated June 27, 2001; are acceptable for compliance with
the corresponding actions of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2007-0016, dated January 12, 2007; and Dassault Service
Bulletins F2000-166, Revision 1, dated October 24, 2001; and F2000-
298, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2007; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-166, Revision
1, dated October 24, 2001; and Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-298,
Revision 3, dated September 26, 2007; to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey
07606.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-
locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8, 2008.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-14579 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Placeholder for the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Title VI phaseout program titled, “Regulatory Impact Analysis:  Compliance with Section 604 of the Clean Air Act for the Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Chemicals,” July 1992.

This RIA is only available in hard copy.  Please contact Kirsten M. Cappel at

(202) 343-9556 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for a copy of the document.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77178-77182]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31823]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2011-0796, FRL-9504-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York State
Ozone Implementation Plan Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a proposed revision to the New York State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for ozone concerning the control of volatile organic compounds.
The proposed SIP revision consists of amendments to title 6 of the New
York Codes, Rules and Regulations part 228, ``Surface Coating
Processes, Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and Primers,''
part 234, ``Graphic Arts,'' and part 241, ``Asphalt Pavement and
Asphalt Based Surface Coating.'' The intended effect of this action is
to approve control strategies, required by the Clean Air Act, which
will result in emission reductions that will help attain and maintain
the national ambient air quality standards for ozone.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R02-
OAR-2011-0796, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30 excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2011-
0796. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters or any form of--
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all
possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk J. Wieber (wieber.kirk@epa.gov),
Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is required by the Clean Air Act (Act) and how does it apply
to New York?
    A. What is the history and time frame for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submissions?
    B. What are the moderate area requirements?
II. What was included in New York's submittals?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of Part 228, ``Surface Coating
Processes, Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and
Primers?''
    A. Background
    B. What are the requirements of Part 228, ``Surface Coating
Processes, Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and
Primers?''
    C. What is EPA's evaluation?
IV. What is EPA's evaluation of Part 234, ``Graphic Arts?''
    A. Background
    B. What are the requirements of Part 234, ``Graphic Arts?''
    C. What is EPA's evaluation?
V. What is EPA's Evaluation of Part 241, ``Asphalt Pavement and
Asphalt Based Surface Coating?''
    A. Background
    B. What are the requirements of Part 241, ``Asphalt Pavement and
Asphalt Based Surface Coating?''
    C. What is EPA's evaluation?
VI. What is EPA's conclusion?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is required by the Clean Air Act (Act) and how does it apply to
New York?

A. What is the history and time frame for State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submissions?

    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or standard) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per
million averaged over an 8-hour period. EPA set the 8-hour ozone
standard based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes
adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer
periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
standard was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more
protective of human health, especially with regard to children and
adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease, such as asthma.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country

with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became
effective on June 15, 2004. The three 8-hour ozone moderate
nonattainment areas located in New York State are: The New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area; the
Poughkeepsie nonattainment area; and the Jefferson County nonattainment
area. The New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area is composed of the five boroughs of
New York City and the surrounding counties of Nassau, Suffolk,
Westchester and Rockland. This is collectively referred to as the New
York City Metropolitan Area or NYMA. The Poughkeepsie nonattainment
area is composed of Dutchess, Orange and Putnam counties. On December
7, 2009 (74 FR 63993), EPA determined that the Poughkeepsie area
attained the 8-hour ozone standard and on March 25, 2008 (73 FR 15672)
EPA determined that Jefferson County attained the 8-hour ozone
standard.
    These designations triggered the Act's requirements under section
182(b) for moderate nonattainment areas, including a requirement to
submit a demonstration of attainment. To assist states in meeting the
Act's requirements for ozone, EPA released an 8-hour ozone
implementation rule in two phases. EPA's Phase 1 8-hour ozone
implementation rule, published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951) and
referred to as the Phase 1 Rule, specifies that states must submit
these attainment demonstrations to EPA by no later than three years
from the effective date of designation--that is, submit them by June
15, 2007.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On December 22, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated the Phase 1
Rule. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882
(DC Cir. 2006). Subsequently, in South Coast Air Quality Management
Dist. v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1295 (DC Cir. 2007), in response to several
petitions for rehearing, the Court clarified that the Phase 1 Rule
was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had
been successfully challenged. The court upheld the portions of the
Phase 1 Rule relating to EPA's classification system under subpart
2. The portions of the rule that were vacated do not affect this
proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are the moderate area requirements?

    On November 29, 2005, EPA published Phase 2 of the 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (70 FR 71612), referred to as the Phase 2 Rule,
which addressed the control and state plan obligations that apply to
areas designated nonattainment for the 8-hour NAAQS. Among other
things, the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Rules outline the SIP requirements and
deadlines for various requirements in areas designated as moderate
nonattainment. For such areas, reasonably available control technology
(RACT) plans were due by September 2006 (40 CFR 51.912(a)(2)).
    Both rules require that modeling and attainment demonstrations,
reasonable further progress plans, reasonably available control measure
(RACM) analysis, projection year emission inventories, motor vehicle
emissions budgets and contingency measures were all due by June 15,
2007 (40 CFR 51.908(a)).
    The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) developed recommended control
measures into model rules for a number of source categories and
estimated emission reduction benefits from implementing these model
rules. These model rules were designed for use by states in Ozone
Transport Region to develop their own regulations to achieve additional
emission reductions to close emission shortfalls.

II. What was included in New York's submittals?

    On August 19, 2010 and December 15, 2010, the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), submitted to EPA
proposed revisions to the SIP, which included state adopted revisions
to three regulations contained in Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules
and Regulations (6 NYCRR) part 228, ``Surface Coating Processes,
Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and Primers,'' part 234,
``Graphic Arts,'' and Part 241, ``Asphalt Pavement and Asphalt Based
Surface Coating'' with effective dates of September 30, 2010, July 8,
2010 and January 1, 2011, respectively. These revisions are applicable
statewide and will therefore provide volatile organic compound (VOC)
emission reductions statewide and will address, in part, attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the NYMA and towards meeting the RACT
and RACM requirements.

III. What is EPA's evaluation of Part 228, ``Surface Coating Processes,
Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and Primers?''

A. Background

    The OTC states developed a Model Rule entitled ``OTC Model Rule for
Adhesives and Sealants,'' dated 2006, which was based on the 1998
California Air Resources Board RACT determination. This RACT
determination applied to both the manufacture and use of adhesives,
sealants, adhesive primers or sealant primers, in both industrial/
manufacturing facilities and in the field. California air districts
used this determination to develop regulations for this category. The
EPA addressed this source category with a Control Techniques Guideline
(CTG) document for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives dated September
2008. This CTG was developed in response to the Section 183(e)
requirement for EPA to study and regulate consumer and commercial
products included in EPA's March 23, 1995 Report to Congress, ``Study
of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer and Commercial
Products--Comprehensive Emissions Inventory,'' (EPA-4531R-94-006(b).
See 60 FR 15264 (March 23, 1995). The section 183(e) miscellaneous
industrial adhesives category was limited to adhesives and adhesive
primers used in industrial/manufacturing operations and did not include
products applied in the field. Accordingly, the OTC Model Rule and
state efforts in developing individual regulations preceded EPA's CTG
for this source category and were broader in applicability.

B. What are the requirements of Part 228, ``Surface Coating Processes,
Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and Primers?''

    The revisions to part 228 are based on the 2006 OTC model rule for
commercial and industrial adhesives and sealants, which, in turn, is
based on the RACT and best available retrofit control technology
determination developed in 1998 by the California Air Resources Board.
In addition, the revised rule incorporates EPA's recommendations
contained in the CTG document released in 2008 entitled, ``Control
Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives'' (EPA 453/
R-08-005), including adhesive application methods, and work practices
for adhesive-related handling activities and cleaning materials. The
revisions along with the retained provisions to Part 228 include the
following:
     Regulation of the application of commercial and industrial
adhesives, sealants, adhesive primers and sealant primers by providing
options for appliers either to use a product with a VOC content equal
to or less than a specified limit or to use add-on controls;
     Work practices for mixing and handling operations for
adhesives, thinners and adhesive-related waste materials;
     Establishment of a VOC limit for surface preparation
solvents;
     Establishment of an alternative add-on control system
requirement of at least 85 percent overall control

efficiency (capture and destruction efficiency), by weight;
     VOC containing materials to be stored or disposed of in
closed containers;
     Prohibition of the sale of any commercial or industrial
adhesive, sealant, adhesive primer or sealant primer that exceeds the
VOC content limits listed in the rule;
     Manufacturers to label containers with the maximum VOC
content as supplied, as well as the maximum VOC content on an as-
applied basis when used in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations regarding thinning, reducing, or mixing with any other
VOC containing material;
     Prohibition of the specification of any commercial or
industrial adhesive, sealant or primer that violates the provisions of
the rule; and
     An allowance for process-specific RACT determinations that
shall be submitted to EPA for review and approval as SIP revisions.

C. What is EPA's evaluation?

    Part 228 contains the required elements for a federally enforceable
rule: emission limitations, compliance procedures and test methods,
compliance dates and record keeping provisions.
    In contrast to the CTG, part 228 is applicable to all stationary
sources including those applications that occur outside of the factory
setting- that is, applied in the field. In addition, it includes
provisions that apply to the selling, supplying, offering for sale or
manufacture for sale in New York of adhesives, sealants, adhesive
primers and sealant primers, along with container labeling requirements
and product registrations. The VOC content restrictions for these
products apply to both their manufacture and application. Stationary
sources also have the option of using add-on control equipment provided
it achieves 85 percent control. Part 228 also regulates the VOC
content/vapor pressure of surface-preparation and clean-up solvents for
which the CTG did not make recommendations other than including work
practices.
    EPA recommends that states evaluate RACT, as required by section
182(b) when implementing a revised 8-hour ozone standard and that they
review the VOC content limits for wood adhesives. This category of
adhesives is included in the CTG recommended VOC emission limits.
Overall, part 228: (1) Regulates the same adhesives and adhesive
primers as the CTG with the addition of regulating sealants and sealant
primers, (2) applies to additional stationary sources, and (3) provides
for similar exemptions as the CTG recommends.
    EPA has evaluated New York's submittal for consistency with the
Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. EPA has determined that part 228
is as effective in regulating this source category as the CTG and
proposes to approve it as part of the SIP and as meeting the
requirement to adopt a RACT rule for the Miscellaneous Industrial
Adhesives CTG category.

IV. What is EPA's evaluation of Part 234, ``Graphic Arts?''

A. Background

    In September 2006, EPA issued two CTG documents, one for Offset
Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing and a second for
Flexible Package Printing. These CTG's were developed in response to
the section 183(e) requirement for EPA to study and regulate consumer
and commercial products included in EPA's March 23, 1995 Report to
Congress, ``Study of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer
and Commercial Products--Comprehensive Emissions Inventory.'' The first
CTG addresses both the offset lithographic printing industry and the
letterpress printing industry. Although offset lithographic printing
and letterpress printing are two distinct product categories on the
section 183(e) list, they have many similarities in the types of inks
and cleaning materials used, the sources of VOC emissions, and the
controls available to address those emissions. EPA therefore addresses
both categories in this CTG. This CTG provides control recommendations
for reducing VOC emissions stemming from the use of fountain solutions,
cleaning materials and inks in offset lithographic printing and
cleaning materials and inks in letterpress printing.
    The second CTG provides control recommendations for reducing VOC
emissions from inks, coatings, adhesives and cleaning materials used in
flexible package printing operations.

B. What are the requirements of Part 234, ``Graphic Arts?''

    The revisions to part 234 expand the applicability to part 234 to
include letterpress printing and establish RACT requirements on
facilities that engage in flexographic, offset lithographic and
rotogravure printing. They also impose requirements for graphic arts
coatings and adhesives and for cleaning solutions used in letterpress
and offset lithographic printing. The revised part 234 includes the
following:
     Several new definitions, including new definitions for
various types of printing equipment and processes, control equipment,
and cleaning materials.
     Emission control requirements for graphic arts printing
processes, which outline minimum control efficiencies for reducing the
amount of VOCs emitted by graphic arts printing processes. Operators
may choose to use compliant materials with low VOC content or install
and operate emission control equipment.
     Testing and monitoring requirements for graphic arts
facilities that choose to comply with Part 234 by installing and
operating emission control equipment. Also required are continuous
emission control equipment monitors that must be installed and operated
on all printing process emission control equipment at graphic arts
facilities.
     A prohibition of the sale or specification of any
coatings, inks or adhesives that is specifically prohibited by any
provision of part 234. Use or specification of such material is allowed
only when part 234 compliant emission control equipment has been
installed, or the material has been granted a variance by the NYSDEC.
Part 234 also requires that coating, ink and adhesive vendors provide
product specifications to the buyer upon request.
     Handling, storage and disposal of VOC requirements. Owners
and operators of graphic arts printing processes are prohibited from
storing inks, coatings, adhesives, cleaning materials, and cloths or
papers that contain any amount of VOCs in open containers.
     Recordkeeping requirements. Owners and operators of
graphic arts printing processes must retain purchase and use records of
inks, coatings, adhesives, VOCs, solvents, fountain solutions, cleaning
materials and any other information required to determine compliance
with the regulation at the facility for a period of five years. Part
234 also allows NYSDEC to obtain a sample of any material containing
VOC in order to determine compliance with part 234. Facilities that
meet any of the exemption criteria in part 234 must retain records that
demonstrate their qualification for the exemption.
     A requirement that the opacity from any emission source
subject to Part 234 be no more than ten percent.

C. What is EPA's evaluation?

    Part 234 contains the required elements for a federally enforceable
rule: emission limitations, compliance procedures and test methods,

compliance dates and record keeping provisions.
    In contrast to the CTGs, part 234 is generally applicable to all
graphic arts facilities located in a severe ozone nonattainment area,
which includes the NYMA, or to facilities that emit total actual annual
VOC graphic arts emissions of three tons or more on a 12-month rolling
basis, which is consistent with or more stringent than the CTG's.
Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing
    In addition to the general revisions to part 234, the revised
section 234.3 addresses the CTG for Offset Lithographic Printing and
Letterpress Printing. Subsections (b), (c) and (d) were added and
require more stringent emission controls. Subsection 234.3(b) requires
control equipment achieve overall removal efficiencies, i.e., 90
percent if installed prior to July 8, 2010 and 95 percent if installed
on or after July 8, 2010. Subsection 234.3(d) includes the VOC limits
for heatset web, sheet-fed and cold-set offset lithographic printing
processes. Subsection 234.3(c) limits provisions for cleaning materials
to a composite vapor pressure less than 10 mm Hg (millimeters mercury)
or VOC content of less than 70 percent by weight, with some exceptions.
In addition, section 234.6 requires best management practices for
handling, storage and disposal of VOCs, such as keeping VOC and VOC
containing materials in closed containers, keeping VOC containing shop
towels in closed containers, and recordkeeping requirements. These
revisions are consistent with the CTG recommendations issued on October
5, 2006.
    EPA evaluated these provisions for consistency with the Act, EPA
regulations, and EPA policy and proposes to approve them.
Flexible Package Printing
    In addition to the general provisions of part 234, the revised
subsection 234.3(a) addresses the CTG for Flexible Package Printing.
Subsection 234.3(a)(1)(ii) was added and requires more stringent
emission controls for publication rotogravure and other printing
processes. Subsection 234.3(a)(1)(i) contains new maximum allowable VOC
content limits for inks, coatings and adhesives (minus water). Section
234.6 requires best management practices (see above description). These
revisions are consistent with the CTG recommendations issued on October
5, 2006.
    EPA evaluated these provisions for consistency with the Act, EPA
regulations, and EPA policy and proposes to approve them.

V. What is EPA's evaluation of Part 241, ``Asphalt Pavement and Asphalt
Based Surface Coating?''

A. Background

    Asphalt paving is used to pave, seal and repair surfaces such as
roads, parking lots, drives, walkways and airport runways. Asphalt
paving is grouped into three general categories: hot mix, cutback, and
emulsified. Hot mix asphalt paving is sometimes ``cutback'' (thinned)
with volatile organic solvents to ensure the mix can be properly
applied. Since August 21, 1983, the use of cutback asphalt during the
summer months has been prohibited pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR
part 211, ``General Prohibitions.''
    Previously, the maximum amount of VOCs that was allowed to be
contained in asphalt was limited by the provisions of section 211.4(b).
The VOC content of asphalt based surface coatings is subject to the
limit established in part 205, ``Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance (AIM) Coatings,'' for the general category of flat
coatings.
    EPA provided guidance on the reduction of VOC from asphalt, and
included cost information in their ``Control of VOCs from Use of
Cutback Asphalt'' EPA-450/2-77-037.

B. What are the requirements of Part 241, ``Asphalt Pavement and
Asphalt Based Surface Coating?''

    NYSDEC revised 6 NYCRR parts 205 and 211 and promulgated a new part
241 that will provide VOC emission reductions from asphalt pavement and
asphalt based surface coatings as part of the effort to reduce ozone
pollution in the State and reach attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Part 241 is applicable statewide to any entity that applies, supplies,
sells, offers for sale or manufactures any asphalt pavement and any
asphalt based surface coatings.
    Part 241 contains all of the regulatory provisions applicable to
asphalt pavements and asphalt based surface coatings. The revisions to
VOC emission limits from asphalt pavement and asphalt based surface
coatings are expected to have a minimal impact on consumers since
formulations already exist that meet the New York revised limits.

C. What is EPA's evaluation?

    Part 241 contains the regulatory provisions applicable to asphalt
pavements and asphalt based surface coatings. These provisions were
previously regulated under parts 205 and 211. New York revised these
two rules by removing the asphalt provisions and moving them into new
rule part 241.
    New York removed the seasonal limit that allowed the use of cutback
asphalt from October 16th to May 1st. Part 241 only allows the use of
cutback asphalt in two circumstances: when the asphalt is used in the
production of long-life stockpile material for pavement patching and
repair and when the asphalt is used as a penetrating prime coat for the
purpose of preparing a surface to receive asphalt pavement.
    New York included a VOC content limit in Part 241 for asphalt
surface coatings. No asphalt based surface coating may be applied,
sold, offered for sale, or manufactured if it contains more than 100
grams of VOC per liter. This is consistent with the limit that was
previously included in part 205.
    Part 241 also includes limits for emulsified asphalt. No emulsified
asphalt, as classified under ASTM International standard specifications
D 977 or D 2397 may be applied, sold, offered for sale, or manufactured
that contains oil distillate, as determined by ASTM International
standard test method D 6997, in amounts that exceed the following
limits (milliliters of oil distillate per 200 gram sample):
    (a) Three milliliters for ASTM grades RS-1, SS-1, SS-1h, CRS-1,
CSS-1, and CSS-1h;
    (b) Five milliliters for ASTM grades RS-2, CRS-2, and HFRS-2;
    (c) Sixteen milliliters for ASTM grades MS-2, HFMS-2 and HFMS-2h;
and
    (d) Twenty milliliters for ASTM grades CMS-2 and CMS-2h.
    Similar limits were previously included in part 211 but they were
expressed as VOC content limits in percent by weight. The revised
limits included in part 241 are approximately 17-25 percent more
stringent than what was previously included in part 211.
    EPA notes that while the revised limits in part 241 are more
stringent than the previous limits included in part 211, the States of
New Jersey, Delaware and Connecticut have adopted emission limits more
stringent than part 241, specifically during the ozone season months.
EPA recommends that when New York evaluates RACT, as is required by
section 182(b) when implementing a revised 8-hour ozone standard, that
New York consider more stringent asphalt paving limits in line with
those adopted by the neighboring states.
    EPA evaluated the provisions of part 241 for consistency with the
Act, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy and proposes to approve them.

VI. What is EPA's conclusion?

    EPA has evaluated New York's submittal for consistency with the
Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. EPA proposes that the revisions
made to title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR)
part 228, ``Surface Coating Processes, Commercial and Industrial
Adhesives, Sealants and Primers,'' part 234, ``Graphic Arts,'' and new
part 241, ``Asphalt Pavement and Asphalt Based Surface Coating,'' with
effective dates of September 30, 2010, July 8, 2010 and January 1,
2011, respectively, meet the SIP requirements of the Act and fulfill
the recommended controls identified in the applicable CTGs. EPA is
proposing to approve these revisions and is also proposing to approve
the revisions made to 6 NYCRR Part 205, ``Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance (AIM) Coatings'' and Part 211, ``General Prohibitions,''
both effective January 1, 2011, to avoid redundancy and conflict of the
asphalt paving and coating provisions included in new part 241.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: November 22, 2011.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2011-31823 Filed 12-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 4)]
[Notices]
[Page 757-759]
[DOCID:fr07ja09-70]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59191; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-139]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. Amending the Minor Rule Plan To Increase
Certain Sanctions

December 31, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 17, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 10.12 Minor Rule Plan by
increasing certain sanctions contained in the fine schedule. The
Exchange also proposes to make minor technical changes at this time. A
copy of this filing is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://
www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Minor Rule Plan (``MRP'') fosters compliance with applicable
rules and also helps to reduce the number and extent of rule violations
committed by Options Trading Permit (``OTP'') Holders, OTP Firms and
associated persons. The prompt imposition of a financial penalty helps
to quickly educate and improve the conduct of OTP Holders, OTP Firms
and associated persons that have engaged in inadvertent or otherwise
minor violations of the Exchange's rules, particularly those who may
not pay attention to mere warnings that they are violating Exchange
rules. By promptly imposing a meaningful financial penalty for such
violations, the MRP focuses on correcting conduct before it gives rise
to more serious enforcement action.
    Market Makers on NYSE Arca receive certain rights and privileges in
return for meeting certain obligations. These obligations include
adhering to certain rules regarding quoting, in-person trading
requirements, and fulfilling the terms of a Market Maker
Appointment.\3\ Failure to comply with rules these governing Market
Maker obligations may result in a fine pursuant to the MRP. At this
time the Exchange feels the current monetary fine levels contained in
the MRP, for violations of certain rules pertaining to Market Makers,
are too low, given the serious nature of these rules. In order to act
as an effective deterrent against future violations, while also serving
as a just penalty for those who commit these violations, the Exchange
proposes to raise the fine levels for violations related to certain
rules governing Market Maker obligations. A brief description of each
proposed change is shown below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.35--Appointment of Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 10.12(k)(i)25.
    At least 75% of the trading activity of a Market Maker (measured in
terms of contract volume per quarter) must be in classes within the
Market Maker's Appointment. A failure to comply with the 75% contract
volume requirement may result in a fine of $500.00 for a first offense,
$1,000.00 for a second offense and $2,500.00 for a third offense. The
Exchange proposes to raise these suggested fines to $1,000.00 for a
first offense, $2,500.00 for a second offense and $3,500.00 for a third
offense.
    Rule 10.12(k)(i)26.
    At least 60% of a Market Maker's transactions must be executed by
the Market Maker in person or through an approved facility of the
Exchange. A failure to comply with this 60% in-person trading
requirement may result in a fine of $500.00 for a first offense,
$1,000.00 for a second offense and $2,500.00 for a third offense. The
Exchange proposes to raise these

suggested fines to $1,000.00 for a first offense, $2,500.00 for a
second offense and $3,500.00 for a third offense.
    Rule 10.12(k)(i)37.
    Market Makers on NYSE Arca must apply for an appointment in one or
more classes of option contracts. A Market Maker who fails to apply for
an Appointment may be subject to a fine of $500.00 for a first offense,
$1,000.00 for a second offense and $1,500.00 for a third offense. The
Exchange proposes to raise these suggested fines to $1,000.00 for a
first offense, $2,500.00 for a second offense and $3,500.00 for a third
offense.
    Rule 10.12(k)(i)39.
    Market Makers, including Lead Market Makers, have certain
obligations pertaining to quotes and quoting, which are governed by
Rule 6.37B. Market Makers or Lead Market Makers who fail to comply with
the Quotation Requirements of Rule 6.37B may be subject to a fine of
$500.00 for a first offense, $1,000.00 for a second offense and
$2,500.00 for a third offense. The Exchange proposes to raise these
suggested fines to $1,000.00 for a first offense, $2,500.00 for a
second offense and $3,500.00 for a third offense.
    Rule 10.12(k)(i)41.
    Market Makers are required to provide accurate quotes, and quote
markets within the maximum quote spread differentials prescribed in
Rule 6.37. Market Makers who fail to provide accurate quotes within the
maximum quote spread differentials may be subject to a fine of $500.00
for a first offense, $1,000.00 for a second offense and $2,000.00 for a
third offense. The Exchange proposes to raise these suggested fines to
$1000.00 for a first offense, $2,500.00 for a second offense and
$3,500.00 for a third offense.
Other Minor Changes
    Rule 10.12(h)(25) deals with a failure to meet a 75% Primary
Appointment requirement for Market Makers and cites Rules 6.35
Commentary .03 and 6.37(h)(5). The 75 percent Appointment requirement
is actually governed by Rule 6.35(i). The Exchange proposes to make a
change so that the correct rule number is properly referenced. A
similar change is proposed for the corresponding fine schedule in Rule
10.12(k)(i)25.
    Rule 10.12(h)(41) deals with Market Makers who fail to quote
markets within the maximum quote spread differentials or who fail to
disseminate quotes accurately and cites only Rules 6.37(b)(1) and
6.82(c)(1). However, Rule 6.37A(b) also deals with maximum quote spread
differentials, and was inadvertently left out of the MRP. It has always
been the intent of the Exchange to have violations of Market Maker
quoting obligations eligible for disposition under the MRP. This rule
change simply serves to add the previously omitted rule citation at
this time. A similar change is proposed for the corresponding fine
schedule in Rule 10.12(k)(i)41.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \4\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \5\ in particular in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposal is also consistent with Section 6(b)(6) \6\ and
6(b)(7),\7\ which requires that members and persons associated with
members are appropriately disciplined for violations of Exchange rules
and are provided a fair procedure for disciplinary procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which Amex consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change; or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-139 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-2008-139.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 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-2008-139 and should be submitted on or before
January 28, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16 Filed 1-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34637-34638]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14936]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA 820R15100, EPA 820R15101, EPA 820R15102, EPA 820R15103, EPA
820R15104; EPA-815R15010; FRL-9929-28-OW]

Availability of Health Effects Support Documents and Drinking
Water Health Advisories for Cyanobacterial Toxins; and a Support
Document Containing Recommendations for Managing Cyanotoxins in
Drinking Water

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the
release of Ten-Day Health Advisories (HAs) for two cyanobacterial
toxins, microcystins and cylindrospermopsin. EPA also announces the
release of Health Effect Support Documents (HESDs) for three
cyanobacterial toxins: Microcystins, cylindrospermopsin, and anatoxin-
a. The HESDs constitute a comprehensive review of the published
literature on the chemical and physical properties of these toxins, the
toxin synthesis and environmental fate, occurrence and exposure
information, and health effects. The HESDs are used to develop HAs.
Based on the reported occurrence, toxicology, and epidemiology data,
EPA found there are adequate data to develop HAs for microcystins and
cylindrospermopsin, but inadequate data to develop an HA for anatoxin-
a. EPA's HAs provide states, drinking water utilities and the public
with information on health effects of microcystins and
cylindrospermopsin, analytical methods to test for cyanotoxins in water
samples, and treatment technologies to remove

cyanobacterial toxins in drinking water. Additionally, EPA announces a
support document for states and utilities to assist them as they
consider whether and how to manage cyanobacterial toxins in drinking
water. The recommendations in this document are intended to assist
public drinking water systems (PWSs) manage the risks from
cyanobacterial toxins in drinking water, including information and a
framework that PWSs can consider in their cyanotoxin risk management
efforts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the HAs or
HESDs: Lesley D'Anglada, Office of Water, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division (4304T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
566-1125; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
regarding recommendations for cyanotoxin management in drinking water:
Hannah Holsinger, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water (4607M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    1. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically from the Government Printing Office under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at FDSys (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR). The Health Effects Support
Documents and the Health Advisories for the cyanobacterial toxins are
available on EPA's Web site at http://water.epa.gov/drink/standards/hascience.cfm. The Recommendations for Public Water Systems to Manage
Cyanotoxins in Drinking Water document is available on EPA's Web site
at http://www2.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/guidelines-and-recommendations.

II. What are cyanobacterial toxins and how are they produced?

    Algae and cyanobacteria are natural components of fresh water;
however, under favorable conditions, they can rapidly multiply causing
``blooms.'' Some cyanobacterial species can produce toxins
(cyanotoxins) at levels that may be of concern for human health. These
cyanobacterial toxins are of particular concern because of their
potential impacts on drinking water and the potential to affect human
health.

III. What are EPA's Health Advisories?

    Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA may publish Health
Advisories (HAs) for contaminants that are not subject to any national
primary drinking water regulation. 42 U.S.C. 300 g-1(b)(1)(F). EPA
develops HAs to provide information on the chemical and physical
properties, occurrence and exposure, health effects, quantification of
toxicological effects, other regulatory standards, analytical methods,
and treatment technology for drinking water contaminants. HAs describe
concentrations of drinking water contaminants at which adverse health
effects are not anticipated to occur over specific exposure durations
(e.g., one-day, ten-days, several years, and a lifetime). HAs also
contain a margin of safety to address database uncertainties. HAs serve
as informal technical guidance to assist federal, state and local
officials, as well as managers of public or community water systems in
protecting public health when emergency spills or contamination
situations occur. They are not regulations and should not be construed
as legally enforceable federal standards. HAs may change as new
information becomes available.

IV. Information on EPA's Ten-Day Health Advisories for the
Cyanobacterial Toxins, Cylindrospermopsin and Microcystins

    Today, EPA is making available the HA values for the cyanobacterial
toxins microcystins and cylindrospermopsin. EPA recommends 0.3
micrograms per liter for microcystins and 0.7 micrograms per liter for
cylindrospermopsin as levels not to be exceeded in drinking water for
bottle-fed infants and young children of pre-school age. For school-age
children through adults, the health advisory values for drinking water
are 1.6 micrograms per liter for microcystins and 3 micrograms per
liter for cylindrospermopsin. The HA values are based on exposure for
ten days.

V. Information on EPA's Support Document To Assist States and Utilities
in Managing Cyanobacterial Toxins

    EPA also announces the release of a cyanotoxin management document
that is a companion to the HAs for microcystins and cylindrospermopsin.
The document is intended to assist PWSs that choose to develop system-
specific plans for evaluating their source waters for vulnerability to
contamination by microcystins and cylindrospermopsin. It provides
information and a framework that PWSs and others (as appropriate) can
consider to inform their decisions on managing the risks from
cyanotoxins to drinking water.

    Dated: June 10, 2015.
Kenneth J. Kopocis,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2015-14936 Filed 6-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P