[Federal Register: November 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 219)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66775-66780]
[DOCID:fr12no08-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0175; FRL-8387-8]

Avermectin; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for
combined residues of the insecticide avermectin B1 and its
delta-8,9-isomer in or on bean, lima, seed. This action is in response
to EPA's granting of an emergency exemption under section 18 of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing
use of the pesticide on large lima beans. This regulation establishes a
maximum permissible level for residues of avermectin in this food
commodity. The time-limited tolerance expires and is revoked on
December 31, 2010.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 12, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 12, 2009,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0175. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available in http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

 B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect
of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections.
The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of
objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You
must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2008-0175 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All
requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the
Hearing Clerk on or before January 12, 2009.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0175, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is establishing a
time-limited tolerance for combined residues of the insecticide
avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer in or on bean, lima,
seed at 0.005 parts per million (ppm). This time-limited tolerance
expires and is revoked on December 31, 2010. EPA will publish a
document in the Federal Register to remove the revoked tolerances from
the CFR.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18
of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding precedents
for the application of section 408 of FFDCA and the new safety standard
to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA allows EPA
to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having received any
petition from an outside party.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Avermectin on Large Lima Beans and FFDCA
Tolerances

    The state of California asserts that large lima bean growers have
few miticides to work with for controlling spider mites. Confirmed
resistance to dicofol has been demonstrated in fields located in
Stanislaus County. In 2006, two-spotted spider mite infestations were
pervasive on some ranches and some growers experienced 30% crop losses
despite use of the available registered alternatives. After having
reviewed the submission, EPA determined that emergency conditions exist
for this State, and that the criteria for an emergency exemption are
met. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of avermectin on
large lima beans for control of spider mites in California.
    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application,
EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of avermectin in
or on large lima beans. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard
in section 408(b)(2) of FFDCA, and EPA decided that the necessary
tolerance under section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA would be consistent with the
safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to
move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent
non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and
lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance without notice and opportunity
for public comment as provided in section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA. Although
this time-limited tolerance expires and is revoked on December 31,
2010, under section 408(l)(5) of FFDCA, residues of the pesticide not
in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on
large lima beans after that date will not be unlawful, provided the
pesticide was applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the
residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by this time-limited
tolerance at the time of that application. EPA will take action to
revoke this time-limited tolerance earlier if any experience with,
scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide
indicate that the residues are not safe.
    Because this time-limited tolerance is being approved under
emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether
avermectin meets FIFRA's registration requirements

for use on large lima beans or whether permanent tolerances for this
use would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not
believe that this time-limited tolerance decision serves as a basis for
registration of avermectin by a State for special local needs under
FIFRA section 24(c). Nor does this tolerance serve as the basis for
persons in any State other than California to use this pesticide on
this crop under FIFRA section 18 absent the issuance of an emergency
exemption applicable within that State. For additional information
regarding the emergency exemption for avermectin, contact the Agency's
Registration Division at the address provided under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue....''
    Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other
relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data
to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate
exposure expected as a result of this emergency exemption request and
the time-limited tolerance for combined residues of avermectin
B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer in or on bean, lima, seed at
0.005 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
establishing the time-limited tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the Level of Concern (LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for avermectin used for
human risk assessment is discussed in a tolerance document entitled
Avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer; Pesticide Tolerance
(70 FR 7876, FRL-7695-7, February 16, 2005).

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to avermectin, EPA considered exposure under the time-limited
tolerance established by this action as well as all existing avermectin
tolerances in (40 CFR 180.449). EPA assessed dietary exposures from
avermectin in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used
food consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of
Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). The following assumptions were made
for the acute exposure assessments: A Tier 3, acute probabilistic
dietary exposure assessment was conducted for all supported food uses
and drinking water. Acute anticipated residues for many foods were
derived using market basket survey and new field trial studies.
Estimated concentrations of avermectin in drinking water were
incorporated directly into the acute assessment.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the DEEM/FCID which incorporates food consumption
data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998
Nationwide CSFII, and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each
commodity. Percent crop treated and anticipated residues refinements
were used. A refined chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted
for the general U.S. population and various population subgroups. The
assumptions of the assessment were anticipated residue estimates, PCT
estimates for most of the commodities, and default DEEM processing
factors when necessary. Estimated concentrations of avermectin in
drinking water were incorporated directly into the chronic assessment.
    iii. Cancer. An aggregate exposure assessment for the purpose of
assessing cancer risk was not performed because avermectin has been
classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of this tolerance.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food

derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.

In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency used PCT information as follows:
    Almonds 21%; avocado 20%; balsam pear 1%; cantaloupe 7%; casabas
1%; chayote fruit 1%; Chinese waxgourd 1%; cotton 3%; cress (garden,
upland) 1%; cucumber 1%; grape 6%; hops 82%; honeydew melon 1%; plum
1%; pumpkin 1%; squash 1%; strawberry 44%; walnut 2%; watermelon 7%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6 years.
EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average
PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available
public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across
all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those
situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases,
1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA
uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT
figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent
6 years of available public and private market survey data for the
existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. As to Conditions b and c, regional
consumption information and consumption information for significant
subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model
for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including
several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's
risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows
the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is
exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency.
Other than the data available through national food consumption
surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the
regional consumption of food to which avermectin may be applied in a
particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for avermectin in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of avermectin. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm. Tier II
screening models PRZM (Pesticide Root Zone Model) and EXAMS (Exposure
Analysis Modeling System) were used to determine estimated surface
water concentrations of avermectin based on the modeled scenario of one
seed treatment to cucumbers followed by 3 aerial applications at a 7-
day interval in Florida. This use of avermectin represents the worst
case potential contribution of avermectin to drinking water when
considering currently registered uses, including this one. The full
PRZM/EXAMS distribution was used for the acute dietary assessment, and
the one in ten year annual mean concentration of 0.190 ppm was used for
chronic dietary estimates. Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Avermectin is currently registered for use on the following
residential non-dietary sites: Residential lawn application for fire
ant control and residential indoor crack and crevice application for
cockroaches and ants. These registered residential uses may result in
short- to intermediate-term exposures; however, based on current use
patterns, long-term exposure (6 or more months of continuous exposure)
to avermectin is not expected. Adults may be exposed through handling
the pesticide and both adults and children may be exposed through
contact with treated areas following application. Accordingly, handler
and post-application exposures were assessed for two major categories
of residential avermectin use which are considered to represent the
reasonable high-end residential exposure potential:
    i. Granular baits used to treat lawns, and
    ii. Indoor crack and crevice dust products.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found avermectin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and avermectin does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
avermectin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements
released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common
mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from
substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional SF when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor. For
avermectin B1 EPA retained the default 10X factor based on
the following combination of factors:

     There is residual uncertainty due to a data gap for a
developmental neurotoxicity study (DNT), as well as data gaps for acute
and subchronic neurotoxicity studies. These studies are required
because avermectin B1 has been shown to be neurotoxic, with
multiple neurotoxic clinical signs (including head and body tremors and
limb splay) seen in multiple studies with multiple species.
     For several species, the dose-response curve appears to be
steep.
     Severe effects were seen at the LOAELs in several studies
(death, neurotoxicity, and developmental toxicity). Although increased
susceptibility of the young was observed in several studies, the degree
of concern with that susceptibility was judged to be low. Increased
susceptibility (qualitative and/or quantitative) was seen in prenatal
developmental toxicity studies in CD-1 mice and rabbits following in
utero exposure to avermectin B1. There was also an increase
in quantitative and qualitative susceptibility in the rat reproductive
toxicity study. The concern for susceptibility seen in the
developmental study with rabbits and in the reproductive toxicity study
in the rat is low because the lowest NOAEL obtained (0.12 mg/kg/day)
was used as the basis for the chronic RfD and other non-dietary risk
assessment scenarios, which is protective of all of the developmental/
offspring effects seen in those studies. Similarly, the concern for
susceptibility seen at the LOAEL in the CD-1 mouse developmental
toxicity study is low, since the NOAEL in the rat reproductive toxicity
study is lower than the dose at which effects were seen in the CD-1
mouse.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to avermectin will occupy 93% of the aPAD for all infants less than 1
year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
avermectin from food and water will utilize 20% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in the unit regarding residential
use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of avermectin is
not expected.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term aggregate
exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background
exposure level).
    Avermectin is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term and intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency
has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure
through food and water with short-term and intermediate-term
residential exposures to avermectin.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined
short-term food, water, and residential exposures aggregated result in
aggregate MOEs of 3,000 for the U.S. population, and 1,700 for children
1-2 years old. These aggregate MOEs are greater than the Agency's level
of concern of 1,000 for aggregate exposure to food, water and
residential uses and therefore acceptable.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Avermectin has been
classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans'' and therefore
is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to avermectin residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There are no CODEX residue limits for residues of avermectin on
bean, lima, seed.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, a time-limited tolerance is established for combined
residues of the insecticide avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-
isomer in or on bean, lima, seed at 0.005 ppm. This time-limited
tolerance expires and is revoked on December 31, 2010.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of
actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final
rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this
final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order
13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance
with sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal

governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order
13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive
Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final
rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty
or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: October 31, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.449 is amended by alphabetically adding a commodity to
the table in paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.449  Avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer;
tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
     (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Expiration/
             Commodity              Parts per million   revocation date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
bean, lima, seed                                0.005           12/31/10
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-26876 Filed 11-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36689-36692]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15284]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0242; FRL-9912-86-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Proposed Approval of Revisions to PSD Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP),
submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to
EPA on March 12, 2014, for parallel processing. The submittal modifies
Wisconsin's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to
identify precursors for particulate matter of less than 2.5 micrometers
(PM2.5), includes the significant emissions rates for
PM2.5 and revises its definitions of PM2.5
emissions and emissions of particulate matter of less than 10
micrometers (PM10). WDNR requested these revisions to
address disapprovals of two submissions meant to address requirements
of the 2008 Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for
PM2.5 and to address a partial disapproval, under section
110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), of what is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. EPA is proposing approval of Wisconsin's March
12, 2014, SIP revision because the Agency has made the preliminary
determination that this SIP revision is in accordance with the CAA and
applicable EPA regulations regarding PSD.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2014-0242, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2014-0242. 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, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Andrea Morgan, Environmental Engineer,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Morgan, Environmental Engineer,
Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for this proposed action?
III. Wisconsin's Submittal for Parallel Processing
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Wisconsin's proposed SIP Revision?
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline.

II. What is the background for this proposed action?

    In May 2008, EPA finalized regulations to implement the NSR
Implementation Rule for PM2.5 in the PSD and Nonattainment
NSR (NNSR) programs (2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule). The regulation
included the creation of the major source threshold, significant
emissions rate and offset ratios for PM2.5 and the
identification of PM2.5 precursors. Additionally, the rule
required states to consider emissions which may condense to form
particulate matter at ambient temperatures, known as condensables, in
permitting decisions by January 1, 2011.
    WDNR submitted revisions to its PSD and NNSR programs that were
intended to address the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule in October 2010.
On October 29, 2012, EPA finalized a narrow disapproval of provisions
of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP submittal that were intended to
identify precursors to PM2.5 and identify PM2.5
and PM10 condensables (see 77 FR 65478), because the
submittal lacked specific references to condensables for
PM2.5 and PM10 for applicability determinations
and permitting emissions limits, consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule.
    On May 12, 2011, and on March 5, 2012, WDNR submitted revisions to
its SIP to comply with the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule. On July 25,
2013, EPA finalized disapproval of Wisconsin's submissions because the
submissions did not explicitly define the precursors of
PM2.5, nor did they contain the prescribed language to
ensure that condensables are to be regulated within the
PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits in Wisconsin's PSD
and NNSR programs. (see 78 FR 44881)
    The infrastructure SIP requirements contained in sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) of the CAA are designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state's air quality management program are adequate
to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. States are required
to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
    Under section 110(a)(2)(C), states are required to include a
program for the regulation of construction of new or modified
stationary sources to meet new NSR requirements under the PSD and NNSR
programs, and EPA evaluates, in determining whether states have
satisfied these requirements, the following: (i) Provisions that
explicitly identify oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor
to ozone in the PSD program; (ii) identification of precursors to
PM2.5 and the identification of PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables in the PSD program; (iii) PM2.5
increments in the PSD program; and, (iv) greenhouse gas permitting and
the ``Tailoring Rule.'' This section also requires states to
demonstrate that their existing SIPs meet current EPA requirements with
respect to the NSR program. For example, states must adopt definitions
that are identical to, or more stringent than, EPA's definitions. Of
the structural PSD elements in the context of infrastructure SIPs,
today's rulemaking only addresses Wisconsin's satisfaction of
provisions that explicitly identify precursors to PM2.5, and
the identification of PM2.5 and PM10
condensables.
    The final disapproval of the submission to address the 2008
PM2.5 NSR Rule and the final partial disapproval of the
infrastructure SIP triggered the requirement under section 110(c) that
EPA promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than two
years from the effective dates of the disapprovals, unless the state
corrects the deficiencies and the Administrator approves the plan or
plan revision before the Administrator promulgates such FIP.

III. Wisconsin's Submittal for Parallel Processing

    On March 12, 2014, WDNR submitted a draft SIP revision request to
EPA to revise portions of its PSD and NNSR programs to address
deficiencies identified in EPA's previous partial infrastructure SIP
disapproval. On April 15, 2014, WDNR submitted a supplement to its
request with

additional information to support its submittal. Since the rules WDNR
submitted on March 12, 2014, are consistent with the Federal PSD rules,
final approval of this SIP revision will resolve the deficiencies
previously identified by EPA in its October 29, 2012, partial
disapproval and July 25, 2013, disapproval. Wisconsin submitted
revisions to its rules NR 400, 405, and 408 of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code. The submittal requests that EPA approve the
following revised rules into Wisconsin's SIP: (1) NR 400.02(123m) and
(124); (2) NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a. and b. and 6; (3) NR 405.02(25i)(a),
(ag) and (ar); (4) 405.02(27)(a)5m; and (5) NR 408.02(20)(e) 5.a and b.
and 6. At this time EPA is only proposing to take action on the
portions that pertain to the identification of precursors to
PM2.5 and identification of PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables. Specifically, today's proposed rulemaking
is limited to the following provisions: (1) NR 400.02(123m) and (124);
(2) NR 405.02(25i)(ag); (3) NR 405.02(25i)(ar)2. and 3.; and, (4)
405.02(27)(a)5m. EPA proposed approval of the remainder of WDNR's
submission as it pertains to NOX as a precursor to ozone and
the definition of major modification in a May 2, 2014 proposed approval
(79 FR 25063).
    Because portions of this draft SIP revision are not yet state-
effective, Wisconsin requested that EPA ``parallel process'' the SIP
revision. Under this procedure, the EPA Regional Office works closely
with the state while developing new or revised regulations. Generally,
the state submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions
to EPA before concluding its rulemaking process. EPA reviews this
proposed state action and prepares a proposed rulemaking action. EPA
publishes this proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and solicits
public comment in approximately the same timeframe during which the
state finalizes its rulemaking process.
    After Wisconsin submits the formal state-effective SIP revision
request, EPA will prepare a final rulemaking action for the SIP
revision. If changes are made to the SIP revision after EPA's proposed
rulemaking, such changes must be acknowledged in EPA's final rulemaking
action. If the changes are significant, then EPA may be obliged to
repropose the action.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Wisconsin's proposed SIP revision?

    EPA has evaluated WDNR's proposed revision to the Wisconsin SIP in
accordance with the Federal requirements governing state permitting
programs. The revisions described in section III above are intended to
update the Wisconsin SIP to comply with the current rules and address
deficiencies identified by EPA in the its previous SIP disapprovals. As
discussed below, EPA is proposing to approve these revisions because
they meet Federal requirements.
    The 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule finalized several new
requirements for SIPS to address sources that emit direct
PM2.5 and other pollutants that contribute to secondary
PM2.5 formation. One of these requirements is for PSD
permits to address pollutants responsible for the secondary formation
of PM2.5, otherwise known as precursors. In the 2008
PM2.5 NSR Rule, EPA identified precursors to
PM2.5 for the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX (unless the state demonstrates to
the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that
NOX emissions in an area are not a significant contributor
to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 2008
PM2.5 NSR Rule also specifies that volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) are not considered to be precursors to
PM2.5 in the PSD program unless the state demonstrates to
the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that emissions of
VOCs in an area are significant contributors to that area's ambient
PM2.5 concentrations.
    The explicit references to SO2, NOX, and VOCs
as they pertain to secondary PM2.5 formation are codified at
40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of
identifying pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5, the
2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule also required states to revise the
definition of ``significant'' as it relates to a net emissions increase
or the potential of a source to emit pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR
51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) define ``significant'' for
PM2.5 to mean the following emissions rates: 10 tons per
year (tpy) of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40
tpy of NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOX
emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's
ambient PM2.5 concentrations). WDNR has revised the
definition of ``regulated NSR air contaminant'' for the PSD program in
405.02(25i)(ar)2. and 3., consistent with EPA's own PSD regulations.
WDNR has also revised its PSD significant emission rates to include
PM2.5 and its precursors in NR 405.02(27)(a)5m, consistent
with EPA's PSD regulations.
    The 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule did not require states to
immediately account for gases that could condense to form particulate
matter, known as condensables, in PM2.5 and PM10
emission limits in PSD permits. Instead, EPA determined that states had
to account for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for
applicability determinations and in establishing emissions limitations
for PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or
after January 1, 2011. This requirement is codified in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). WDNR's revisions,
specifically at NR 400.02(123m) and (124) and NR 405.02(25i)(ag), are
consistent with the PSD requirements obligated by the 2008
PM2.5 NSR Rule as they relate to PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables.
    The 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule also codified requirements for
PM2.5 in the NNSR program. When WDNR initially submitted
revisions to its SIP meant to address the 2008 PM2.5 NSR
Rule, the Milwaukee-Racine area was designated as nonattainment for the
2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS, and WDNR submitted rules
pertaining to NNSR in addition to PSD. Thus, EPA's disapproval of this
submission created an obligation for WDNR to address the deficiencies
identified in both the PSD and NNSR programs. On April 22, 2014, EPA
finalized approval of Wisconsin's request to redesignate the Milwaukee-
Racine PM2.5 area to attainment for the 2006
PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS. As a result there are no areas
designated as nonattainment for PM2.5 located in Wisconsin.
Since there are no areas designated as nonattainment for
PM2.5 in Wisconsin, Wisconsin is no longer obligated to
submit a NNSR plan for PM2.5 and there is no longer a FIP
obligation for nonattainment NSR. Should an area be designated as
nonattainment for PM2.5, Wisconsin will be required to
revise its rules to include a plan to address PM2.5 in NNSR.
    Wisconsin's requested revisions are consistent with the applicable
requirements found in Federal regulations; therefore EPA is proposing
to approve the requested revisions.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to Wisconsin rules NR
400, and NR 405 submitted by the State on March 12, 2014, and April 15,
2014, for approval into the SIP. The revisions submitted, described in
section III, above, are consistent with Federal regulations governing
state permitting programs. See section IV, above. EPA is also
soliciting comment on this proposed approval. If EPA finalizes this
proposed approval of WDNR's requested revisions, the FIP clocks started
by EPA's October 29, 2012, narrow

disapproval and July 25, 2013, disapproval will stop.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this 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
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air 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 rule 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: June 17, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-15284 Filed 6-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44765-44766]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18209]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-2498-000]

EIF Newark, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
EIF Newark, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 18, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 28, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18209 Filed 7-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13875-13878]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06542]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0500; FRL-9976-17--Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Florida; Stationary Sources Emissions
Monitoring

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a portion of a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Florida, through the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on February 1, 2017, for
the purpose of revising Florida's requirements and procedures for
emissions monitoring at stationary sources. Specifically, Florida's
February 1, 2017, SIP submittal includes amendments to three Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.) rule sections, as well as the removal of
one F.A.C. rule section from the Florida SIP, in order to eliminate
redundant language and make updates to the requirements for emissions
monitoring at stationary sources. Additionally, this action includes a
correction to remove an additional F.A.C. rule that was previously
approved by EPA for removal from the SIP but was never removed. This
action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This rule is effective May 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0500. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andres Febres, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Febres can also be reached via
electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What actions is EPA taking today?

    On February 1, 2017, FDEP submitted to EPA for approval a SIP
revision for the purpose of updating Florida's requirements and
procedures for emissions monitoring at stationary sources. Florida's
February 1, 2017, SIP revision includes amendments to three F.A.C. rule
sections and the removal of one F.A.C. rule section from the Florida
SIP. Specifically, these changes to Florida's rules include the
amendments of Rule 62-297.310, F.A.C.--``General Emissions Test
Requirement;'' Rule 62-297.440, F.A.C.--``Supplementary Test
Procedures;'' and Rule 62-297.450, F.A.C.--``EPA VOC Capture Efficiency
Test Procedures.'' In addition, Florida's February 1, 2017, SIP
submittal includes the removal of one of Florida's rule sections from
the SIP. Specifically, Florida requested to remove Rule 62-297.401,
F.A.C.--``Compliance Test Methods'' from the State's implementation
plan because it has been repealed at the state level, and, according to
the submittal, the section is unnecessary, obsolete or duplicative of
other F.A.C. Rules.

    Through this rulemaking, EPA is finalizing approval of the portions
of Florida's February 1, 2017, SIP revision regarding amendments to
Rule 62-297.440, F.A.C., and Rule 62-297.450, F.A.C., as well as the
removal of Rules 62-297.401, F.A.C., from the State's implementation
plan. The portion of the SIP regarding Rule 62-297.310 was previously
approved in a separate rulemaking, which approved several SIP
amendments making administrative and recodification changes to
Florida's SIP. See 82 FR 46682 (October 6, 2017).
    In addition to the removal of Rule 62-297.401, F.A.C., EPA is
removing Rule 62-297.400, F.A.C.--``EPA Methods Adopted by Reference''
from the Florida SIP. The removal of this rule section was previously
approved by EPA, but was never reflected in Florida's SIP-approved
rules table in 40 CFR 52.520(c). For more detail on the approval to
remove Rule 62-297.400, F.A.C., see the June 16, 1999, rulemaking (64
FR 32346).

II. Background

    On October 13, 2017, EPA published a proposed rulemaking (82 FR
47662), which accompanied a direct final rulemaking (82 FR 47636)
published on the same date. The proposed rule proposed to approve the
portion of Florida's February 1, 2017 SIP revision described above. It
also stated that if EPA received adverse comment on the direct final
rule, the direct final rule would be withdrawn and all public comments
received would be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA received 11 comments on the direct final rule, 10 of
which were not relevant to the action. However, one of those comments
was adverse. As a result, the direct final rule was subsequently
withdrawn. After considering the adverse comment, EPA is now taking
final action, based on the proposed rule, on the portion of Florida's
February 1, 2017 SIP revision described above.

III. Analysis of Florida's Submittal

    As stated in the proposed rule (82 FR 47662), a detailed rationale
for EPA's approval of the above-described portions of Florida's
February 1, 2017 SIP revision is set forth in the preamble to the
direct final rule (82 FR 47636). In summary, EPA is approving
amendments to Rule 62-297.440, F.A.C. that remove several subsections
which contain test methods that are either adopted by reference in
other rule sections or are now obsolete. EPA is approving amendments to
Rule 62-297.450, F.A.C. because the changes clarify and simplify the
language in the rule, and are consistent with EPA's VOC capture
efficiency test procedure guidelines, as established in the agency's
GD-035 guideline. EPA is approving the removal of Rule 62-297.401,
F.A.C. from Florida's SIP because the requirements are still in place
in other state rules and is unnecessary. Finally, EPA is removing Rule
62-297.400, F.A.C. from Florida's SIP because removal was previously
approved by EPA, but was never reflected in Florida's SIP-approved
rules table in 40 CFR 52.520(c).

IV. Response to Comments

    Comment: As mentioned above, EPA received one adverse public
comment on the direct final rule published on October 13, 2017. The
comment is available for public viewing as a part of the electronic
docket for this rulemaking.\1\ In summary, the Commenter requested EPA
to take additional public comments on these SIP revisions because the
information in the docket was not fully accessible to the public during
the initial comment period for this action. A second portion of the
comment was not relevant to the action being taken by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0500 at
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: EPA subsequently made the state submittals and related
materials fully accessible to the public in the electronic docket, and
on December 14, 2017 (82 FR 58790), reopened the comment period for the
proposed rule that accompanied the now withdrawn direct final rule. In
the rulemaking reopening the comment period, EPA explained that it
would accept public comments until January 16, 2018, and that it would
address any comments received in a separate final action based on the
proposed action published on October 13, 2017 (82 FR 47662). During the
reopened comment period from December 14, 2017, until January 16, 2018,
EPA received an additional 12 comments, but those comments were not
relevant. The 12 additional comments are included in the electronic
docket for this action.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Rule 62-
297.440, F.A.C., entitled ``Supplementary Test Procedures'' and Rule
62-297.450, F.A.C., entitled ``EPA VOC Capture Efficiency Test
Procedures,'' both state effective on July 19, 2014. EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact
the person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact''
section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these
materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally-
enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective
date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing approval of the above mentioned changes to the
Florida SIP, as submitted to us in Florida's February 1, 2017, SIP
revision. Specifically, EPA is approving the amendments to Rule 62-
297.440, F.A.C., and Rule 62-297.450, F.A.C., both state effective on
July 19, 2014, as well as the removal of Rule 62-297.401, F.A.C., from
Florida's SIP. In addition, EPA is removing Rule 62-297.400, F.A.C.,
from Florida's SIP as approved in a previous rulemaking.\3\ This action
is limited to the two rule revisions and two rule removals mentioned
above and does not act on the portion of the February 1, 2017, SIP
submittal regarding Rule 62-297.310. As mentioned in Section I above,
the changes to Rule 62-297.310, were previously approved in a separate
rulemaking. See 82 FR 46682 (October 6, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Section III of this rulemaking for details on Rule 62-
297.400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735,

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 1, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See Section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 15, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart K--Florida

0
2. In Sec.  52.520 paragraph (c) is amended under ``Chapter 62-297
Stationary Sources--Emissions Monitoring'' by:
0
a. Removing the entries for ``62-297.400'' and ``62-297.401;'' and
0
b. Revising the entries for ``62-297.440'' and ``62-297.450'' to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.520   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Florida Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
     State citation (section)         Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Chapter 62-297 Stationary Sources--Emissions Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
62-297.440.......................  Supplementary Test        7/10/2014  4/2/2018 [Insert     ...................
                                    Procedures.                          citation of
                                                                         publication].
62-297.450.......................  EPA VOC Capture           7/10/2014  4/2/2018, [Insert    ...................
                                    Efficiency Test                      citation of
                                    Procedures.                          publication].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-06542 Filed 3-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


2015 Ozone Transport FIP Meeting Title:Good Neighbor Plan Proposal Comments Submitted by PJM Date/Time: 10/4/2022, 11AM-12PM EST Agenda/Meeting Summary: Stakeholder engagement conducted to discuss the questions and concerns identified in the comment submissions regarding ensuring electric reliability under the proposed rule raised by reliability authorities during the GNP comment period.  Participants/Affiliations: Name Affiliation Corcoran, Katherine EPA Schillo, Bruce EPA Murray, Beth EPA Powers, Garrett EPA Lalani, Imran EPA Carbonell, Tomas EPA Fisher, Brian EPA Evans, DavidA EPA Schreiber, Andrew EPA Profeta, Timothy EPA Stenhouse, Jeb EPA Glazer, Craig PJM Callaghan, Christopher R. PJM Mark, Jeremy EPA Schramm, Daniel EPA Birnbaum, Rona EPA LaCount, Melanie EPA Helm, Gary PJM


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22752-22753]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09432]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74764; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-037]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to HGX and OSX

April 17, 2015.
    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 April 10, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ.
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

    NASDAQ proposes to amend Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
at Section 2, which governs pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing
standardized equity and index options, to remove references to the PHLX
Housing Sector\TM\ (HGX\SM\) and PHLX Oil Service Sector\SM\ (OSX\SM\).
    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated the amendments become operative on May 1, 2015.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. 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 Exchange proposes to amend Chapter XV, Section 2, ``NASDAQ
Options Market--Fees and Rebates'' to remove references to HGX and OSX,
as these indexes will be delisted on or before May 1, 2015.
    Today, the Exchange assesses fees related to these NASDAQ OMX PHLX
LLC (``Phlx'') proprietary indexes which are listed on NOM. The
Exchange assesses the following fees for HGX and OSX:

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

------------------------------------------------
Fee for Adding Liquidity..........        $0.40        $0.89        $0.89        $0.89        $0.40        $0.89
Fee for Removing Liquidity........         0.40         0.89         0.89         0.89         0.40         0.89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Exchange will delist these two proprietary indexes and will no
longer assess the above-referenced fees for HGX and OSX. The Exchange
will continue to assess the above fees for the PHLX Semiconductor
Sector\SM\ (SOX\SM\) index.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which NASDAQ operates or controls, and is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to remove the references and not assess
fees for HGX and OSX is reasonable because the Exchange is seeking to
delist these indexes from NOM as of the delisting.
    The Exchange's proposal to remove the references and not assess
fees for HGX and OSX is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because no market participant will be able to transact options in HGX
or OSX on NOM as of the delisting.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange will delist HGX and OSX on or
before May 1, 2015 and no longer offer market participants the
opportunity to transact options in those indexes, therefore the removal
of the fees does not impose an undue burden on competition. No market
participant will be able to transact options in HGX or OSX on NOM as of
the delisting.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\5\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-037 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-037. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 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-NASDAQ-2015-037 and should be submitted
on or before May 14, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09432 Filed 4-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 212)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57074-57076]
[DOCID:fr04no09-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0353; FRL-8979-9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, California
Air Resources Board Consumer Products Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the California Air
Resources Board portion of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions were proposed in the Federal Register on June
26, 2009 and concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
consumer products. We are approving State rules that regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on December 4, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0353 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4122<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On June 26, 2009 (74 FR 30481), EPA proposed to approve the
following regulations into the California SIP.

                                         Table 1--Submitted Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Adopted/
                  Regulation                            Regulation title              amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Code of Regulations Title 17,        Article 1--Antiperspirants and        05/06/2005      03/27/2008
 Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5--         Deodorants.
 Consumer Products.
California Code of Regulations Title 17,        Article 2--Consumer Products....      09/26/2007      03/27/2008
 Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5--
 Consumer Products.
California Code of Regulations Title 17,        Article 3--Aerosol Coating            09/26/2007      03/27/2008
 Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5--         Products.
 Consumer Products.
California Air Resources Board--Test Method     Method 310--Determination of          05/06/2005      03/27/2008
 310.                                            Volatile Organic Compounds
                                                 (VOC) in Consumer Products and
                                                 Reactive Organic Compounds in
                                                 Aerosol Coating Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve the above regulations because we determined
that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed
action contains more information on the regulations and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. We
received and granted a request to extend the comment period by another
30 days until August 27, 2009 (74 FR 36980, July 27, 2009). During this
period, we received one comment from the following party.
    1. Michael Scheible, California Air Resources Board (CARB), letter
dated August 27, 2009 and received August 27, 2009. CARB requested that
Test Method 310 be removed from the SIP submittal and asked EPA to
continue to act on the remaining Consumer Products regulations.

III. EPA Action

    Based on CARB's request to remove Test Method 310 from the SIP
submittal, we are not acting to approve the method into the SIP. EPA
has previously determined that Test Method 310 is technically adequate
to determine compliance with CARB's Consumer Products Regulations (70
FR 53590, September 13, 2005 and 40 CFR 59, subpart E).
    No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the
submitted regulations comply with the relevant CAA requirements.
Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving California Code of Regulations Title 17, Division 3, Chapter
1, Subchapter 8.5--Consumer Products, Articles 1, 2, and 3 into the
California SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air 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 rule 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 4, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 23, 2009.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(365) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (365) New and amended regulations were submitted on March 27, 2008,
by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by Reference.
    (A) California Air Resources Board.
    (1) Barclays Official California Code of Regulations, Title 17
Public Health, Division 3 Air Resources, Chapter 1 Air Resources Board,
Subchapter 8.5 Consumer Products, Article 1 Antiperspirants and
Deodorants, amendment filed 6-20-2005, operative 7-20-2005.
    (2) Barclays Official California Code of Regulations, Title 17
Public Health, Division 3 Air Resources, Chapter 1 Air Resources Board,
Subchapter 8.5 Consumer Products, Article 2 Consumer Products,
amendment filed 11-8-2007, operative 12-8-2007.

    (3) Barclays Official California Code of Regulations, Title 17
Public Health, Division 3 Air Resources, Chapter 1 Air Resources Board,
Subchapter 8.5 Consumer Products, Article 3 Aerosol Coating Products,
amendment filed 11-8-2007, operative 12-8-2007.
[FR Doc. E9-26417 Filed 11-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P