[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 37243]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12174]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0068; FRL-10976-01-OCSPP]

Industrial Economics, Inc.; Transfer of Data March 2023

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to Industrial Economics, Inc., in
accordance with the CBI regulations. Industrial Economics, Inc., has
been awarded multiple contracts to perform work for OPP, and access to
this information will enable Industrial Economics, Inc. to fulfill the
obligations of the contract.

DATES: Industrial Economics, Inc., will be given access to this
information on or before June 12, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Northern, Information
Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Program
Support, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the EPA has
not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action.

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

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0068, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under this contract number, the contractor will perform the
following: The Contractor shall perform any IRM-related work under this
contract in accordance with the IRM policies, standards, and procedures
set forth on the Office of Environmental Information policy website.
Upon receipt of a work request (i.e., delivery order, task order, or
work assignment), the Contractor shall check this listing of
directives. The applicable directives for performance of the work
request are those in effect on the date of issuance of the work
request. The 2100 Series (2100-2199) of the EPA's Directive System
contains the majority of the EPA's IRM policies, standards, and
procedures.
    These contracts involve no subcontractors.
    OPP has determined that the contracts described in this document
involve work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA, in that
pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to be
made under this contract. These evaluations may be used in subsequent
regulatory decisions under FIFRA.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under FIFRA sections 3, 4, 6,
and 7 and under FFDCA sections 408 and 409.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), the
contracts with Industrial Economics, Inc., prohibits use of the
information for any purpose not specified in these contracts; prohibits
disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written
approval from the EPA; and requires that each official and employee of
the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from
unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA
Information Security Manual. In addition, Industrial Economics, Inc.,
is required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any
CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized release or
compromise. No information will be provided to Industrial Economics,
Inc., until the requirements in this document have been fully
satisfied. Records of information provided to Industrial Economics,
Inc., will be maintained by EPA Contracting Officer's Representatives
for these contracts. All information supplied to Industrial Economics,
Inc., by EPA for use in connection with these contracts will be
returned to EPA when Industrial Economics, Inc., has completed its
work.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: May 31, 2023.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2023-12174 Filed 6-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21966-21971]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09491]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0136; FRL-9961-88-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; TN: Non-Interference Demonstration for Federal
Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement in Shelby County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a noninterference demonstration that evaluates whether the
change for the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) requirements in Shelby
County (hereinafter referred to as the ``Area'') would interfere with
the Area's ability to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act). Tennessee submitted through the Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on April 12, 2017, a
noninterference demonstration on behalf of the Shelby County Health
Department requesting that EPA change the RVP requirements for Shelby
County. Specifically, Tennessee's

noninterference demonstration concludes that relaxing the federal RVP
requirement from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for
gasoline sold between June 1 and September 15 of each year in Shelby
County would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standards) or with any
other CAA requirement.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0136 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, 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. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What is being proposed today?

    This rulemaking proposes to approve Tennessee's noninterference
demonstration, submitted on April 12, 2017, in support of the State's
request that EPA relax the federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0
psi for gasoline sold between June 1 and September 15 of each year
(i.e., during high ozone season) in Shelby County. The State is
requesting the removal of the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement. As part
of that request, Tennessee has evaluated whether removal of this
requirement would interfere with air quality in Shelby County. To make
this demonstration of noninterference, Tennessee completed a technical
analysis, including modeling, to estimate the change in emissions that
would result from a switch to 9.0 psi RVP fuel in Shelby County.\1\ The
noninterference demonstration is further supported by the June 23, 2016
(81 FR 40816), revised and approved maintenance plan that utilizes an
RVP input parameter of 9.0 psi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As described in Section III of this preamble, Shelby County
was originally part of the Memphis, Tennessee (Memphis, TN) 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area; later, part of the Memphis, Tennessee-
Arkansas (Memphis, TN-AR) 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area; and
finally, part of the Memphis, Tennessee-Mississippi-Arkansas
(Memphis, TN-MS-AR) 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 19, 2016, Tennessee submitted a redesignation request
and maintenance plan for the portion of Tennessee that is within the
Memphis, Tennessee-Mississippi-Arkansas (Memphis, TN-MS-AR) 2008 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
which EPA approved on June 23, 2016 (81 FR 40816). Shelby County is in
the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR area. In the maintenance
plan, Tennessee used EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) to
develop its projected emissions inventory according to EPA's guidance
for on-road mobile sources using MOVES version 2014. Future-year on-
road mobile source emissions estimates for 2017, 2020, and 2027 were
generated with MOVES2014 using an RVP input parameter of 9.0 psi. The
maintenance plan showed compliance with and maintenance of the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS by providing information to support the demonstration
that current and future emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC) remained at or below the 2012 base
year emissions inventory. For more detailed information, see EPA's
April 19, 2016 (81 FR 22948), proposed approval of the maintenance plan
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which was finalized on June 23, 2016
(81 FR 40816).
    It should be noted that when Tennessee requested that Shelby County
be redesignated to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, the
State took a conservative approach for the maintenance demonstrations
and modeled 9.0 psi for the RVP requirements for this Area as opposed
to 7.8 psi. The State did not, at that time, request the removal of the
federal RVP requirements for Shelby County.
    EPA is proposing to find that Tennessee's noninterference
demonstration supports the conclusion that the use of gasoline with an
RVP of 9.0 psi in Shelby County will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of
the CAA.

II. What is the background for the Shelby County area?

    Shelby County, Tennessee (then referred to as the Memphis, TN Area)
was originally designated as a single-county marginal nonattainment
area for the 1-hour ozone standard on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694).
On February 16, 1995 (60 FR 3352), the Memphis, TN Area was
redesignated as attainment for the 1-hour ozone standards, and was
considered to be a maintenance area subject to a CAA section 175A
maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone standard. Tennessee's 1-hour
ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan did not include a
request to relax the 7.8 psi federal RVP standard.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA designated the Memphis, TN-AR
Area, which included Shelby County, as a ``moderate'' 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS nonattainment area under Clean Air Act title I, part D, subpart 2
(``Additional Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas''). On July 15,
2004, pursuant to section 181(a)(4) of the CAA, the State of Tennessee
submitted a petition to EPA, requesting that the classification of
Memphis, TN-AR Area be adjusted downward from ``moderate'' to
``marginal'' for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The petition was based
on the fact that the area's ``moderate'' design value of 0.092 parts
per million (ppm) was within five percent of the maximum ``marginal''
design value of 0.091 ppm. Pursuant to section 181(a)(4), areas with
design values within five percent of the standard may request a
reclassification under specific circumstances. EPA approved the
petition for reclassification, which became effective on November 22,
2004 (69 FR 56697, September 22, 2004). The Tennessee portion of the
Memphis, TN-AR Area (i.e., Shelby County) was redesignated to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in a final rulemaking on
January 4, 2010 (75 FR 56). Tennessee's 1997 8-hour ozone redesignation
request and maintenance plan did not include a request to relax the 7.8
psi federal RVP standard.
    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).

Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less
than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR part 50.15. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness
requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less
than 75 percent data completeness as determined in appendix P of part
50.
    Shelby County, as part of the Memphis, TN-AR-MS Area, was
designated as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS on May 21, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012), using 2008-2010
ambient air quality data. See 77 FR 30088. The Tennessee portion of the
Memphis, TN-AR Area (i.e., Shelby County) was redesignated to
attainment on June 23, 2016 (81 FR 40816). Tennessee's 2008 8-hour
ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan did not include a
request to relax the 7.8 psi federal RVP standard, although the
maintenance plan reflected the 9.0 psi RVP standard. Tennessee is now
requesting that EPA remove the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement for
Shelby County.

III. What is the history of the gasoline volatility requirement?

    On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline
nationwide had become increasingly volatile, causing an increase in
evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment.
Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as VOCs, are
precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the
nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can
reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma or other respiratory
conditions), increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may
contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.
    The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in
evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under section 211(c)
of CAA, EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868),
that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the high
ozone season. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase
nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of
commercial gasoline during the summer ozone control season. On June 11,
1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls
as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements
established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on
the State, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment
designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the high
ozone season).
    The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to
address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate
regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense,
supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone
season. Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility
standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that
EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone
nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II
volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA.
The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP
above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning
in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations
retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55
FR 23658). A current listing of the RVP requirements for states can be
found on EPA's Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards.
    As explained in the December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), Phase II
rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard
is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In
order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an
attainment area, section 107(d)(3) of the Act requires the state to
make a showing, pursuant to section 175A of the Act, that the area is
capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years
after redesignation. Depending on the area's circumstances, this
maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of
maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent
volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may
be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA
will not relax the volatility standard unless the state requests a
relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates, to the satisfaction
of EPA, that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without
the need for the more stringent volatility standard.
    As noted above, Tennessee did not request relaxation of the
applicable 7.8 psi federal RVP standard when Shelby County was
redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Tennessee is therefore
now submitting a noninterference demonstration concluding that relaxing
the federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold
between June 1st and September 15th of each year in Shelby County would
not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.

IV. What are the section 110(l) requirements?

    To support Tennessee's request to relax the federal RVP requirement
in Shelby County, the State must demonstrate that the requested change
will satisfy section 110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) requires that a
revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in
section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. EPA's
criterion for determining the approvability of Tennessee's April 12,
2017, noninterference demonstration, is whether the noninterference
demonstration associated with the relaxation request satisfies section
110(l). The modeling associated with Tennessee's maintenance plan for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is premised upon the future-year emissions
estimates for 2017, 2020, and 2027, which are based on the 9.0 psi RVP.
EPA is proposing approval of the noninterference demonstration based on
an evaluation of current air quality monitoring data and the
information provided in the noninterference demonstration.
    EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on
a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of each SIP
revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in
effect, including those that have been promulgated but for which EPA
has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on any
particular NAAQS in a noninterference demonstration varies depending on
the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed SIP revision.
EPA's analysis of Tennessee's April 12, 2017, noninterference
demonstration pursuant to section 110(l) is provided below.

    EPA notes that in this action, it is only proposing to approve the
State's technical demonstration that the Area can continue to attain
and maintain the NAAQS and meet other CAA requirements after switching
to the sale of gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi in Shelby County during
the high ozone season. Consistent with CAA section 211(h) and the Phase
II volatility regulations, EPA will initiate a separate rulemaking to
relax the current federal requirement to use gasoline with an RVP of
7.8 psi in Shelby County.

V. What is EPA's analysis of Tennessee's submittal?

a. Overall Preliminary Conclusions Regarding Tennessee's
Noninterference Demonstration

    On April 12, 2017, TDEC submitted a noninterference demonstration
to support the State's request to modify the RVP summertime gasoline
requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for the Area. This demonstration
includes an evaluation of the impact that the removal of the 7.8 psi
RVP requirement would have on maintenance of the ozone standards and on
the maintenance of the other NAAQS.\2\ Tennessee focused its analysis
on the impact of the change in RVP to attainment and maintenance of the
ozone, particulate matter (PM),\3\ and NO2 NAAQS because:
RVP requirements do not affect lead, sulfur dioxide (SO2),
or carbon monoxide (CO) emissions; because VOC and NOX
emissions are precursors for ozone and PM; and because NO2
is a component of NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The six NAAQS for which EPA establishes health and welfare
based standards are CO, lead, NO2, ozone, PM, and
SO2.
    \3\ PM is composed of PM2.5 and PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TDEC's noninterference demonstration relied on a previously-
approved maintenance plan (June 23, 2016, 81 FR 40816) in which
Tennessee used EPA's MOVES2014 model to develop its projected emissions
inventory according to EPA's guidance for on-road mobile sources. The
future-year on-road mobile source emissions estimates for 2017, 2020,
and 2027 were generated with MOVES2014 \4\ using a RVP input parameter
of 9.0 psi. The maintenance plan showed compliance with and maintenance
of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by providing information to support the
demonstration that current and future emissions of NOX and
VOC remained at or below the 2012 base year emissions inventory. Tables
1 and 2 show the direct impact on mobile source emissions as a result
of the change for RVP requirements for Shelby County. As summarized
below, NOX and VOC emissions are expected to continue to
decrease with the use of the 9.0 psi RVP standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ MOVES2014a is the latest version of MOVES model. However,
the use of MOVES2014 was acceptable when EPA approved Tennessee's
2008 8-hour ozone maintenance plan because MOVES2014 was the latest
EPA mobile source model available to the State at the time that it
developed the maintenance plan.

   Table 1--On-Road Mobile Source Ozone Season NOX Emissions in Shelby
                                 County
                           [Average tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      9.0 psi RVP                          7.8 psi RVP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       2017               2020              2027              2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      31.30              22.42              12.51             61.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table 2--On-Road Mobile Source Ozone Season VOC Emissions in Shelby
                                 County
                           [Average tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      9.0 psi RVP                          7.8 psi RVP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       2017               2020              2027              2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      11.22               8.75               5.81             19.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These mobile source emissions are used as part of the evaluation of
the potential impacts to the NAAQS that might result exclusively from
changing the high ozone season RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
Therefore, emissions resulting from the change in RVP are not expected
to cause the area to be out of compliance with any NAAQS.

b. Noninterference Analysis for the Ozone NAAQS

    As a previous 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, Shelby County has
been subject to the federal RVP requirements for high ozone season
gasoline. Although implemented for purposes of bringing areas into
attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, these federal RVP requirements
continued to apply in Shelby County because the State did not, until
now, request removal of the federal RVP requirements.
    As described previously, Shelby County was redesignated to
attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Memphis Area is continuing to meet the
1-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS,\5\ based on recent air quality monitoring data.
Additionally, the current design value (DV) is below the most recently
promulgated 2015 ozone NAAQS in the Memphis Area. The 2008 ozone NAAQS
is met when the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
concentration, averaged over 3 years is 0.075 ppm or less. Similarly,
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, as published in a final rule on October 26, 2015
(80 FR 65292), is met when the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average concentration, averaged over 3 years is 0.070 ppm or less.
The trend in DVs for ozone for the Memphis Area is shown in Table 3,
with the current DV in the Area being 0.067 ppm in 2015, below the 2015
standard. EPA also evaluated the potential increase in the VOC and
NOX precursor emissions and whether it is reasonable to
conclude that the requested change to RVP requirements in Shelby County
during the high ozone season would cause the Memphis Area to violate
any ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The air quality design value for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour
ozone concentration. The level of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
0.075 ppm. The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is not met when the design
value is greater than 0.075 ppm.

             Table 3--Memphis Area Ozone Design Value Trends
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Design value
                          Years                                (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005-2007...............................................           0.089
2006-2008...............................................           0.082
2007-2009...............................................           0.078
2008-2010...............................................           0.076
2009-2011...............................................           0.077
2010-2012...............................................           0.079
2011-2013...............................................           0.078
2012-2014...............................................           0.073
2013-2015...............................................           0.067
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 also shows that there is an overall downward trend in ozone
concentrations in the Memphis Area. This decline can be attributed to
federal and state programs that have led to significant emissions
reductions in ozone precursors, such as federal standards in on-road
and non-road mobile source sectors and resultant fleet turnover. See 81
FR 22948, (April 19, 2016). Given this downward trend, the downward
trend in precursor emissions, the current ozone concentrations in the
Memphis Area, and the results of Tennessee's emissions analysis, EPA is
proposing to determine that a change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for Shelby
County would not interfere with the Memphis Area's ability to maintain
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

c. Noninterference Analysis for the PM NAAQS

    Over the course of several years, EPA has reviewed and revised the
PM2.5 NAAQS a number of times. On July 16, 1997, EPA
established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of
24-hour concentrations. See 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997). On September
21, 2006, EPA retained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0
[mu]g/m\3\ but revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/
m\3\, based again on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). On December 14,
2012, EPA retained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/
m\3\ but revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0
[mu]g/m\3\, based again on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
    The main precursor pollutants for PM2.5 are
NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia. As mentioned above,
the federal RVP requirements only result in emissions benefits for VOC
and NOX. Therefore, Tennessee focused on these two
PM2.5 precursors in its analysis of the potential impact of
changing the RVP requirements for Shelby County on the PM2.5
NAAQS. Tennessee asserted in its 110(l) demonstration that relaxing the
RVP standard will have little impact on these precursor emissions in
relation to PM formation and is not expected to negatively impact
attainment or maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS. Moreover,
there have been a number of studies which have indicated that
SO2 is the primary driver of PM2.5 formation in
the Southeast.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Quantifying the sources of ozone, fine
particulate matter, and regional haze in the Southeastern United
States, Journal of Environmental Engineering (June 24, 2009),
available at: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-ofenvironmental-management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the downward trend in precursor emissions (specifically for
NOX and VOC) noted above and given that, as previously
stated, RVP does not affect the most significant PM2.5
precursor (SO2), EPA is proposing to determine that a change
to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for the affected counties would not interfere with
the Area's ability to attain or maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS in
the Area.

d. Noninterference Analysis for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS

    On February 17, 2012, EPA designated all counties in Tennessee as
unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR
9532. Based on the technical analysis in Tennessee's April 12, 2017,
noninterference demonstration, as shown in Table 3, there is an overall
downward trend in ozone concentrations in the Memphis Area, and
NO2, as a component of NOX, is an ozone
precursor. This decline can be attributed to federal and state programs
that have led to significant emissions reductions in ozone precursors,
such as federal standards in on-road and non-road mobile source sectors
and resultant fleet turnover. See 81 FR 22948, (April 19, 2016). Given
this downward trend, the downward trend in precursor emissions, the
current ozone concentrations in the Memphis Area, and the results of
Tennessee's emissions analysis and the current unclassifiable/
attainment designation, EPA is proposing to determine that a change to
9.0 psi RVP fuel for Shelby County would not interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the Area.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's April 12, 2017,
noninterference demonstration supporting the State's request to relax
the RVP standard to 9.0 psi in Shelby County. EPA is also proposing to
find that this change in the RVP requirements for Shelby County will
not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any
other applicable requirement of the CAA.
    EPA is proposing that Tennessee's April 12, 2017, SIP
noninterference demonstration associated with the State's request for
the removal of the federal RVP requirements, are consistent with the
applicable provisions of the CAA. Should EPA decide to remove Shelby
County from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi federal RVP
requirements, such action will occur in a separate, subsequent
rulemaking.

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: April 17, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-09491 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49308-49311]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19508]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70129; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-099]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify NASDAQ Connectivity Options and Fees

August 7, 2013.
    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 July 25, 2013 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify NASDAQ connectivity options and
fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at the Exchange's principal office, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7034(b) regarding connectivity
to NASDAQ. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to establish
connectivity and

installation fees for a 10Gb Ultra low latency fiber connection option,
and provide a waiver of installation fees for subscriptions through
August 31, 2013.
    The Exchange currently offers various bandwidth options for
connectivity to NASDAQ, including a 40Gb fiber connection, a 10Gb fiber
connection, a 1Gb fiber connection, and a 1Gb copper connection.\3\ In
keeping with changes in technology, the Exchange now proposes to
provide a second 10Gb fiber connection offering, which uses new ultra-
low latency switches.\4\ A switch is a type of network hardware that
acts as the ``gatekeeper'' for all of a co-located client's orders sent
to the System \5\ at the NASDAQ co-location facility and orders them in
sequence for entry into the System for execution. Each of NASDAQ's
current connection offerings use different switches between the
offerings, but the switches are of uniform type within each offering.
As a consequence, all co-located client subscribers to a particular
connectivity option receive the same latency in terms of the
capabilities of their switches. The 10Gb Ultra offering uses a new
ultra-low latency switch, which provides faster processing of orders
sent to it in comparison to the current switch in use for co-location
connectivity. As a consequence, co-located clients needing only 10Gb of
bandwidth, but that seek faster processing of those orders as they
enter NASDAQ's co-location facility now have the option to subscribe to
a faster and more efficient connection to the Exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 7034(b).
    \4\ The term ``Latency'' for these purposes is a measure of the
time it takes for an order to enter into a switch and then exit for
entry into the System.
    \5\ As defined by Rule 4751(a).
    \6\ The Exchange is not offering a low latency option for other
bandwidth connections at this time, but may do so in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes a monthly subscription fee of $15,000 for a
10Gb Ultra connection, and a one-time installation fee of $1,500, which
is identical to the 40Gb fiber connectivity option. NASDAQ believes
that the pricing is reflective of the value the option will provide and
the hardware and other infrastructure and maintenance costs to NASDAQ
associated with offering technology that is at the forefront of the
industry. The growth in the size of consolidated and proprietary data
feeds has resulted in demand for faster processing of message traffic,
and ultra-low latency switches meet this demand by decreasing the time
individual orders are processed and market data is transmitted by these
new switches. The Exchange's proposal provides the co-located client
the option for faster switch processing, which is highly-valued among
some market participants. NASDAQ notes that other markets have adopted
low-latency connectivity options for their clients. For example, the
International Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE'') offers a 10Gb low
latency Ethernet connectivity option to its clients, which provides a
``higher speed network to access [ISE's] Optimise trading system.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66525 (March 7,
2012), 77 FR 14847 (March 13, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to provide a waiver of the installation
fees for client orders of 10Gb Ultra fiber connectivity to NASDAQ
completed between the effectiveness of this proposal and August 31,
2013. The Exchange is providing the waiver to assist its co-located
clients in upgrading to lower latency connections to meet the growing
needs of co-located clients' business operations. NASDAQ is adding text
to the rule that makes it clear that the connectivity option also
provides connection to the markets of NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'') and
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx). NASDAQ is deleting text that refers to an
installation fee waiver time period for 10Gb and 40Gb fiber
connections, which has since expired.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\
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 the Exchange operates
or controls. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customer, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act because the fees assessed for 10Gb Ultra fiber
connectivity fee allow the Exchange to cover the costs associated with
the purchase of new, state of the art switches for this new offering.
Because the switches are best in breed, they are priced at a premium,
the cost of which NASDAQ must bear. NASDAQ is offering 10Gb Ultra fiber
connectivity at the same price as 40Gb fiber connectivity. Both the
proposed 10Gb Ultra fiber connectivity and 40Gb fiber connectivity
represent the best performance available to co-located clients. 40Gb
fiber connectivity provides the greatest bandwidth available on NASDAQ,
which is important for co-located clients that have high order flow and
ingest large amounts of market data and demand the greatest bandwidth
possible to handle such message flow. Some co-located clients, however,
do not have bandwidth demands that would require 40Gb fiber bandwidth
but rather put a premium on reducing latency. The 10Gb Ultra fiber
connectivity it designed to meet this demand. As a consequence, both
40Gb and 10Gb Ultra fiber connectivity represent the best connectivity
NASDAQ offers in terms of bandwidth and latency, respectively.
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed one-time installation fee is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act because it is identical to
the installation fees assessed for 40Gb fiber connectivity under the
rule. NASDAQ notes that it will incur the same costs associated with
setting up a subscriber with either 40Gb fiber or 10Gb Ultra fiber
connectivity. As a consequence, NASDAQ believes that it is reasonable
to assess the same installation fee as 40Gb fiber. The Exchange also
believes that its proposal to waive temporarily the 10Gb Ultra fiber
connection installation fee is reasonable because it will assist its
co-located clients in upgrading to lower latency connections to meet
the growing needs of the co-located clients' business operations at a
time in the industry when speed continues to be a driver of the U.S.
securities markets. Moreover, the Exchange notes that it has previously
waived the installation fees for the 10Gb and 40Gb fiber connections
for a limited time after these connectivity options were first
introduced.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66428 (February 21,
2012), 77 FR 11602 (February 27, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-028).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to covering costs, the proposed fees will allow the
Exchange to recoup costs associated with providing the 10Gb Ultra fiber
connection and provide the Exchange a profit while providing customers
the possibility of reducing the number of their connections to the
Exchange. As discussed above, ISE offers different

connectivity options with respect to latency and NYSE Arca, Inc. offers
what NASDAQ believes is a similar connectivity option, yet both options
do not provide the breadth of connectivity at the same latency as
NASDAQ's proposed 10Gb Ultra fiber connectivity option.\12\ NASDAQ
notes that the 10Gb Ultra fiber option provides connectivity to seven
of the NASDAQ OMX Group's U.S. markets (specifically, the cash equities
and options markets operated by NASDAQ, BX, and Phlx, and the NASDAQ
OMX Futures Exchange), whereas the offerings of other exchanges provide
far fewer.\13\ Moreover, as new leading-edge technology, the switches
to be used for 10Gb Ultra fiber connectivity have lower latency than
the switches currently in use by other markets. For these reasons, the
Exchange believes the proposed fees for 10Gb Ultra fiber connectivity
to NASDAQ are reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NYSE Arca charges $10,000 per month for a 10Gb LCN
(Liquidity Center Network) Connection. See https://usequities.nyx.com/sites/usequities.nyx.com/files/nyse_arca_marketplace_fees_1.3.2012.pdf, page 13. Although similar, NASDAQ's
10Gb Ultra connection provides even lower latency connectivity to a
larger number of markets, which represents the premium over the NYSE
Arca 10Gb LCN connectivity option.
    \13\ The ISE connectivity offering provides access to one market
and the NYSE Arca connectivity offering provides connectivity to the
four markets of NYSE Euronext.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed 10Gb Ultra fiber
installation and connectivity fees are equitably allocated in that all
co-located clients that voluntarily select this service option will be
charged the same amount to cover the hardware, installation, testing
and connection costs to maintain and manage the enhanced connection.
The proposed fees allow the Exchange to recoup costs associated with
providing the 10Gb Ultra fiber connection and provide the Exchange a
profit while providing customers with the most efficient connection to
the System in terms of latency. All co-located clients have the option
to select this voluntary co-location connectivity option; however,
NASDAQ is not eliminating any existing connectivity options.
Accordingly, a co-located client may elect not to subscribe to the 10Gb
Ultra fiber connectivity option and retain the option to which it is
currently subscribed.
    The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \14\ in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general to protect investors and the public interest and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customer, issuers,
brokers and dealers. The 10Gb Ultra fiber connectivity option assists
co-located clients in making their network connectivity more efficient
by reducing the time orders take to reach the System once sent from
their co-located server and also the time that market data takes to
reach their co-located server. Speed and efficiency are important
drivers of the U.S. securities markets and NASDAQ is offering a co-
location connectivity solution that promotes these drivers by providing
state of the art technology that is available to all co-located
clients. The Exchange believes the enhanced 10Gb Ultra connection will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system because NASDAQ will provide state
of the art switching technology to market participants, which will
improve the speed and efficiency of processing orders arriving at the
market from clients' co-located servers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the reduction in latencies
attributed to the enhanced 10Gb Ultra connection option serves to
protect investors and the public interest. The reduction in latency
will provide investors with the most efficient means of processing
orders once they reach the Exchange. Higher bandwidth options like
NASDAQ's current 10Gb and 40Gb fiber connectivity and the proposed 10Gb
Ultra fiber option also remove the potential for data spikes and data
gapping issues that result from the transmission of the growing size of
the consolidated and proprietary market data feeds. Such data spiking
and data gapping issues have the potential for disrupting the
marketplace which could negatively impact investors as well as the
public interest.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed installation and
subscription fees for the 10Gb Ultra fiber connectivity option are not
unfairly discriminatory because all clients have the option to
subscribe to co-locate with NASDAQ and subscribe to the 10Gb Ultra
connection. There is no differentiation among co-located clients with
regard to the fees charged for these services. The Exchange believes
the proposal to waive the 10Gb Ultra fiber connection installation fee
is not unfairly discriminatory because the waiver of fees is provided
to all co-located clients that volunteer for this particular service
option during the prescribed timeframe, and there is no differentiation
among co-located clients with regard to the waiver of fees for this
option.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the changes will promote
competition by offering co-located clients an additional connectivity
option that will enhance their trading operations and ultimately bring
greater speed and efficiency to trading in the marketplace.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) by
its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this
filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has met this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the
30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative
immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-
day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest so that NASDAQ can

immediately offer the 10GB Ultra connectivity to those clients that
believe it can enhance the efficiency of their trading.\17\
Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-2013-099 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-099.
This file number should be included on the subject line if email is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2013-099 and should be submitted on or before September 3, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-19508 Filed 8-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 47287]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16929]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2020-50]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; DroneXum,
LLC

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before August 24, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0802
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 30, 2020.
Brandon Roberts,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2019-0802.
    Petitioner: DroneXum, LLC.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  61.3(a)(1)(i); 91.7(a);
91.119(c); 91.121; 91.151(b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) and
(2); 91.417(a) and (b); 137.19(c), (d), (e)(2)(ii), (e)(2)(iii) and
(e)(2)(v); 137.31; 137.33; 137.41(c); and 137.42.
    Description of Relief Sought: DroneXum, LLC seeks an amendment of
Exemption No. 18413, seeking relief from condition and limitation
number 27c in order to operate the HSE-UAV AG V8A+ v2 unmanned aircraft
system, above 55 pounds, closer than 500 feet near: Vessels, vehicles,
and structures.

[FR Doc. 2020-16929 Filed 8-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed rule.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental
health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered
regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate a health or
safety risk.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

J. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NITAA)

    NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this
proposed action because it would not impose any technical standards
requiring Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards. This
regulation proposes the

types of information to be submitted in a self-determination letter or
EPA confirmation request concerning the exemption of PIPs based on
sexually compatible plants created through biotechnology, but does not
propose to require specific methods or standards to generate that
information.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard.

L. FIFRA Review Requirements

    In accordance with FIFRA section 25(a), EPA submitted the draft
proposed rule to the Secretary of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) for
review. A draft of the proposed rule was also submitted to the
appropriate Congressional Committees.

M. Executive Order 13874: Modernizing the Regulatory Framework for
Agricultural Biotechnology Products

    This action is intended to further implement section 4(b) of
Executive Order 13874 (84 FR 27899, June 11, 2019). If this proposal is
made final, the final rule may promote future innovation and
competitiveness by efficiently exempting through regulation qualifying
PIPs based on sexually compatible plants created through biotechnology
that meet the FIFRA and FFDCA standards for exemption.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Plant-incorporated
protectants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:

PART 174--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136-136y; 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
 2. Amend Sec.  174.3 by adding in alphabetical order the following
definitions to read as follows:

Sec.  174.3  Definitions

* * * * *
    Gene, and other grammatical variants such as ``genic,'' means a
functional unit of heritable genetic material that is comprised of the
genetic material necessary for the production of a substance.
* * * * *
    Native allele means a variant of a native gene that is identified
in the genetic diversity of plants sexually compatible with the
recipient plant.
    Native gene means a gene that is identified in the recipient plant
or plants sexually compatible with the recipient plant; and has never
been derived from a source that is not sexually compatible with the
source plant.
* * * * *
    Sexually compatible, when referring to plants, means a viable
zygote can be formed through the union of two gametes through
conventional breeding.
* * * * *
0
 3. Revise Sec.  174.21 to read as follows:

Sec.  174.21  General qualifications for exemptions.

    A plant-incorporated protectant is exempt from the requirements of
FIFRA, other than the requirements of Sec.  174.71, if it meets the
exemption criteria in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
Plant-incorporated protectants that are not exempt from the
requirements of FIFRA under this subpart are subject to all the
requirements of FIFRA.
    (a) The pesticidal substance from the plant-incorporated protectant
meets the exemption criteria listed in at least one of the sections in
Sec. Sec.  174.25 through 174.50.
    (b) When the plant-incorporated protectant is intended to be
produced and used in a crop used as food, the residues of the
pesticidal substance of the plant-incorporated protectant are either
exempted from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA (21 U.S.C. 321
et seq.) as listed in subpart W of this part, or no tolerance would
otherwise be required.
    (c) Any inert ingredient that is part of the plant-incorporated
protectant is listed as an approved inert ingredient in subpart X of
this part.
    (d) For plant-incorporated protectants listed in the subparagraphs
below, the exemption applies only if the developer is compliant with
the general record keeping requirements specified in Sec.  174.73 and
only after compliance with the relevant eligibility determination
procedures specified in Sec.  174.90:
    (1) Plant-incorporated protectant based on a sexually compatible
plant created through biotechnology.
    (2) [Reserved]
0
 4. Amend Sec.  174.25 by:
0
 a. Revising the section heading;
0
 b. Revising the introductory paragraph; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (c).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  174.25  Pesticidal substance from a plant-incorporated protectant
from a sexually compatible plant created through conventional breeding.

    The pesticidal substance from a plant-incorporated protectant from
a sexually compatible plant created through conventional breeding is
exempt if all of the following conditions are met:
* * * * *
    (c) The genetic material is transferred from the source plant to
the recipient plant only through conventional breeding.
0
 5. Add Sec.  174.26 to read as follows:

Sec.  174.26  Pesticidal substance from a plant-incorporated protectant
based on a sexually compatible plant created through biotechnology.

    The pesticidal substance from a plant-incorporated protectant based
on a sexually compatible plant created through biotechnology is exempt
if all of the following conditions are met:
    (a) The pesticidal substance is created through biotechnology from
either an insertion of new genetic material as discussed in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section or a modification of existing genetic material
as discussed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (1) A native gene is engineered into a non-genic location of the
recipient plant genome, resulting in a pesticidal substance identical
to the pesticidal substance identified in the source plant.
    (2)(i) The existing native gene in the recipient plant is modified
to alter the amount of pesticidal substance produced without altering
the identity of the pesticidal substance produced; or
    (ii) The genetic material that encodes the substance of the
existing native gene is modified to result in a pesticidal substance
that is identical to the pesticidal substance encoded by a native
allele of that gene; or
    (iii) The existing genetic material is modified pursuant to both
(i) and (ii).
    (iv) The existing native gene in the recipient plant is modified to
lose function through the reduction or elimination of the substance
encoded by that gene.
    (b) The pesticidal substance is not expressed at higher levels, in
different tissues, or at different developmental stages than identified
in a plant that is sexually compatible with the recipient plant.

    (c) This exemption does not apply until the requirements in subpart
E of this part have been met.
0
 6. Add Sec.  174.73 to read as follows:

Sec.  174.73  General recordkeeping requirements for exemptions.

    For 5 years, starting with the effective date of a plant-
incorporated protectant exemption, any person who produces an exempt
plant-incorporated protectant listed under Sec.  174.21(d) must do both
of the following:
    (a) Maintain documentation of either the letter of self-
determination or the request for EPA confirmation along with all
supporting documentation for the specific exemption listed in subpart
E.
    (b) Make the documentation of exemption eligibility available to
EPA upon request.
0
 7. Amend subpart E to read as follows:

Subpart E--Exemption Eligibility Determination Process and
Requirements

Sec.  174.90  Determining Eligibility for Exemption

    (a) Options for determining eligibility. For a plant-incorporated
protectant listed under Sec.  174.21(d), the developer must do at least
one of the following actions to be eligible for the exemption in Sec.
174.21:
    (1) Self-determination. A developer may submit a letter of self-
determination in accordance with Sec.  174.91.
    (2) Request for EPA confirmation of eligibility. A developer may
submit a request for EPA confirmation of eligibility in accordance with
Sec.  174.93.
    (b) Where to submit a letter of self-determination or request for
EPA confirmation. A letter of self-determination or a request for EPA
confirmation of eligibility must be submitted to the Office of
Pesticide Programs' Document Processing Desk at the appropriate address
as set forth in Sec.  150.17(a) or (b) of this chapter, with the
relevant ``Attention'' line: ``Attention: Plant-Incorporated Protectant
Exemption Self-Determination'' or ``Attention: Plant-Incorporated
Protectant Request for Confirmation of Exemption Eligibility.''
[placeholder for future instructions covering electronic submissions].
    (c) Overlapping determinations of eligibility. A developer may
elect to submit a letter of self-determination as well as a request for
EPA confirmation of eligibility concurrently or at a later time. If the
developer so elects, the letter of self-determination will remain in
effect while EPA evaluates the request for confirmation of eligibility.
    (d) Revisiting eligibility determination. If, at any time after the
letter of self-determination is submitted or EPA issues a confirmation
of eligibility, EPA becomes aware of information indicating that the
exempt plant-incorporated protectant no longer meets the criteria for
exemption (e.g., adverse effects reports submitted under Sec.  174.71)
or that the self-determination was incorrect, EPA will notify the
original submitter in writing of EPA's intention to initiate a review
of eligibility for exemption and may request additional information
from the developer in order to evaluate that eligibility for exemption.
Upon conclusion of its review, EPA will notify the developer in writing
of its determination whether the plant-incorporated protectant meets
the exemption criteria and any actions that will be required should the
plant-incorporated protectant be found to not meet the exemption
criteria. Under those circumstances, the plant-incorporated protectant
may be considered to be noncompliant with FIFRA and subject to possible
enforcement by EPA.
    (e) Extension of exemption to subsequent variations of the plant-
incorporated protectant.
    (1) Plant-incorporated protectant based on a sexually compatible
plant created through biotechnology. A letter of self-determination or
EPA's confirmation that the plant-incorporated protectant based on a
sexually compatible plant created through biotechnology meets the
criteria for exemption applies to subsequent engineering of that plant-
incorporated protectant by the submitter into other varieties of that
same plant species as long as the submitter is doing one of the
following:
    (i) Producing the identical substance as in the exempt plant-
incorporated protectant, so long as no modifications were made to the
regulatory regions.
    (ii) Creating the same phenotype as in the exempt plant-
incorporated protectant by targeting the same nucleic acid sequence in
the regulatory region to result in a mutation via double-strand DNA
break repaired by non-homologous end joining.
    (iii) For subsequent engineering events that do not meet either
criterion (e)(1)(i) or (1)(ii), a letter of self-determination or
request for EPA determination must be submitted.
    (2) [Reserved]

Sec.  174.91  Submitting a letter of self-determination for exemption.

    A developer who elects to self-determine eligibility for the
exemption of a plant-incorporated protectant listed under Sec.
174.21(d) must comply with all of the following requirements.
    (a) When to submit a letter of self-determination. A letter of
self-determination for an exemption must be submitted to EPA prior to
engaging in activities subject to FIFRA.
    (b) Contents of a letter of self-determination. The letter of self-
determination must:
    (1) Provide the name and contact information for the submitter
(including phone and email address), company name, or other
affiliation.
    (2) Identify the plant-incorporated protectant and the following
exemption-specific information for the exemption for which eligibility
is self-determined:
    (i) Plant-incorporated protectant based on a sexually compatible
plant created through biotechnology. Cite the paragraph under
Sec. Sec.  174.26 or 174.541 that is applicable to the PIP (i.e.,
(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (a)(2)(iii), or (a)(2)(iv)).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) Include the following statement of certification, filling in
the information described in italics:

    ``I, [name of submitter], on behalf of [name of company] am
submitting this Plant-Incorporated Protectant Exemption Self-
Determination consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR part 174. I
hereby confirm that the plant-incorporated protectant known as [name
of the plant-incorporated protectant] is eligible under 40 CFR
174.21 to be exempt from the requirements of FIFRA, other than the
requirements of 40 CFR 174.71 and 174.73. I understand that it is a
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001 to willfully make any false statement to
EPA. I further understand that if this self-determination is not
consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR part 174, this plant-
incorporated protectant product may not be exempt from the
requirements of FIFRA, and [name of company] may be subject to
enforcement actions and penalties under FIFRA sections 12, 13, and
14, 7 U.S.C. 136j, 136k, and 136l. Moreover, I also understand that
if this self-determination is not consistent with 40 CFR part 174,
the residues of this plant-incorporated protectant may not be exempt
from the requirement of a tolerance under the FFDCA, and [name of
company], as well as foods containing such residues, may be subject
to enforcement actions and penalties under Chapter III of the FFDCA,
21 U.S.C. 331 et seq.''

    (4) The statement must be dated and signed by an authorized
representative of the developer of the plant-incorporated protectant.
    (c) EPA response. For electronic submissions, EPA will provide
electronic confirmation of receipt immediately. Electronic confirmation
shall be equivalent to written confirmation. For submissions by mail,
written confirmation of receipt within 30 business days of receipt of a
letter of self-determination.

    (d) Effective date of exemption. The exemption does not apply until
EPA confirms receipt of the letter of self-determination.

Sec.  174.93  Obtaining EPA confirmation of eligibility for the
exemption.

    A developer who elects to request EPA confirmation of eligibility
for exemption of a plant-incorporated protectant listed under Sec.
174.21(d) must comply with all of the following requirements.
    (a) When to submit a request for EPA confirmation. Unless the
developer has received confirmation of receipt of a letter of self-
determination, the request for EPA confirmation must be submitted prior
to engaging in activities subject to FIFRA.
    (b) Contents of a request for EPA confirmation of exemption
eligibility. The request must contain information as specified in Sec.
174.91(b) and supporting documentation demonstrating that the plant-
incorporated protectant meets the criteria for the exemption, as
specified in exemption-specific sections of this subpart. Any claims of
confidentiality for information submitted in the request for EPA
confirmation must be made in accordance with the procedures outlined in
Sec.  174.9 of subpart A.
    (c) EPA review and response. Upon receipt of a request, EPA will
review and evaluate the information provided to determine whether the
plant-incorporated protectant meets the exemption criteria in Sec.
174.21. EPA may require additional information to assess whether a
plant-incorporated protectant meets the criteria for exemption. EPA
will notify the submitter in writing of its determination. If EPA
determines that the plant-incorporated protectant does not meet the
criteria for exemption, EPA will notify the submitter in writing of any
actions that will be required.
    (d) Effective date for the EPA confirmed exemption. If the plant-
incorporated protectant is not already exempt pursuant to the self-
determination process under Sec.  174.91, this exemption applies once
EPA notifies the submitter in writing, confirming that the plant-
incorporated protectant meets the criteria for exemption.

Sec.  174.95  Documentation for an exemption for a plant-incorporated
protectant based on a sexually compatible plant created through
biotechnology.

    A developer requesting EPA confirmation of exemption eligibility
for a plant-incorporated protectant from a sexually compatible plant
created through biotechnology pursuant to Sec.  174.93 must submit the
information in the following paragraphs to EPA along with its request
for exemption confirmation. Any developer required to maintain records
under Sec.  174.73 must maintain the following documentation.
    (a) Biology of the plant.
    (1) The identity of the recipient plant, including genus and
species.
    (2) If the plant-incorporated protectant was derived from another
plant species, provide the identity of the source plant including genus
and species and information to demonstrate the recipient plant and the
source plant are sexually compatible.
    (b) Description of the pesticidal trait and how the trait was
engineered into the plant. If the pesticidal substance is a known
mammalian toxin or toxicant (e.g., solanine) describe how conventional
breeding practices are being used to ensure it does not exceed safe
levels in the recipient food plant.
    (c) Molecular characterization of the plant-incorporated
protectant.
    (1) The nucleotide sequence and the amino acid sequence of the
plant-incorporated protectant in the recipient plant, including a
sequence comparison between the recipient plant and the relevant
comparator (i.e., the source plant if a source plant was used or the
unmodified plant if no source plant was used).
    (2) For a plant-incorporated protectant where the regulatory region
of an existing or inserted native gene has been modified, confirmation
that the expression level does not exceed that found in a sexually
compatible plant and the plant-incorporated protectant is not expressed
in tissues or developmental stages outside of that observed in a plant
that is sexually compatible with the recipient plant.
0
 8. Amend Sec.  174.508 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading,
0
b. Revising the introductory paragraph,
0
 c. Designating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d), and
0
d. Adding a new paragraph (c).
    These revisions read as follows:

Sec.  174.508  Pesticidal substance from a plant-incorporated
protectant from a sexually compatible plant created through
conventional breeding; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of a pesticidal substance from a plant-incorporated
protectant from a sexually compatible plant created through
conventional breeding are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance if
all the following conditions are met:
* * * * *
    (c) The genetic material is transferred from the source plant to
the recipient plant only through conventional breeding.
    (d) The residues of the pesticidal substance are not present in
food from the plant at levels that are injurious or deleterious to
human health.
0
 9. Add Sec.  174.541 to read as follows:

Sec.  174.541  Pesticidal substance from a plant-incorporated
protectant based on a sexually compatible plant created through
biotechnology; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of a pesticidal substance from a plant-incorporated
protectant based on a sexually compatible plant created through
biotechnology are exempt if all of the following conditions are met:
    (a) The pesticidal substance is created through biotechnology from
either an insertion of new genetic material as discussed in paragraph
(1) or a modification of existing genetic material as discussed in
paragraph (2).
    (1) A native gene is engineered into a non-genic location of the
recipient plant genome, resulting in a pesticidal substance identical
to the pesticidal substance identified in the source plant.
    (2)(i) The existing native gene in the recipient food plant is
modified to alter the amount of pesticidal substance produced without
altering the identity of the pesticidal substance produced; or
    (ii) The genetic material that encodes the substance of the
existing native gene is modified to result in a pesticidal substance
that is identical to the pesticidal substance encoded by a native
allele of that gene; or
    (iii) The existing genetic material is modified pursuant to both
(i) and (ii).
    (iv) The existing native gene in the recipient plant is modified to
lose function through the reduction or elimination of the substance
encoded by that gene.
    (b) The residues of the pesticidal substance are present only in
tissues and developmental stages identified in a plant that is sexually
compatible with the recipient food plant, and do not exceed levels
found within that plant, as long as those levels are not injurious or
deleterious to human health.
    (c) This exemption does not apply until the requirements in subpart
E of this part have been met.

[FR Doc. 2020-19669 Filed 10-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 85 (Friday, May 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 25124]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10086]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER14-1220-001
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation
    Description: 2014-04-24 Compliance Filing in Docket No. ER14-1220
to be effective 4/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/24/14
    Accession Number: 20140424-5193
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/14

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1325-002
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minneso, Northern
States Power Company, a Wisconsin
    Description: 2014--IA Amended to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/25/14
    Accession Number: 20140425-5209
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/14

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1389-001
    Applicants: Condon Wind Power, LLC
    Description: Amended Change in Status Filing to be effective 4/29/
2014.
    Filed Date: 4/24/14
    Accession Number: 20140424-5176
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/14

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1390-001
    Applicants: Lake Benton Power Partners LLC
    Description: Amended MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 4/29/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/24/14
    Accession Number: 20140424-5177
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/14

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1397-001
    Applicants: Storm Lake Power Partners II, LLC
    Description: Amended MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 4/29/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/24/14
    Accession Number: 20140424-5178
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/14

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1768-000
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Queue Position None; Original SA No. 3793 &
Cancellation of SA No. 2368 to be effective 3/25/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/24/14
    Accession Number: 20140424-5175
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/14

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1769-000
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company
    Description: Notices of Cancellation with Several Interconnection
Customers for Devers-Mirage to be effective 6/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/25/14
    Accession Number: 20140425-5000
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/14

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1770-000
    Applicants: Rhode Island Engine Genco, LLC
    Description: First Revised MBR Tariff to be effective 4/26/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/25/14
    Accession Number: 20140425-5135
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/14

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1771-000
    Applicants: Rhode Island LFG Genco, LLC
    Description: First Revised MBR Tariff to be effective 4/26/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/25/14
    Accession Number: 20140425-5137
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/14

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1772-000
    Applicants: PowerSmith Cogeneration Project, Limited
    Description: Succession & Tariff Revisions to be effective 4/26/
2014.
    Filed Date: 4/25/14
    Accession Number: 20140425-5157
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/14

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1773-000
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-04-25 Attachment P GFA Filing to be effective 6/
24/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/25/14
    Accession Number: 20140425-5179
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/14

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1774-000
    Applicants: PacifiCorp
    Description: Lehi Highland Sub Transmission Line Upgrade
Construction Agreement to be effective 6/25/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/25/14
    Accession Number: 20140425-5180
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/14

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1775-000
    Applicants: SEP II, LLC
    Description: SEP II, LLC FERC Electric Tariff No. 1 Market Based
Rate Tariff to be effective 5/15/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/25/14
    Accession Number: 20140425-5193
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/14

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1776-000
    Applicants: Broken Bow Wind II, LLC
    Description: Broken Bow Wind II, LLC FERC Electric Tariff No. 1
Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 7/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/25/14
    Accession Number: 20140425-5201
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/14

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES14-38-000
    Applicants: DTE Electric Company
    Description: Application for Authorization to Issue Securities and
Request for Exemption from Competitive Bidding Requirements of DTE
Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 4/25/14
    Accession Number: 20140425-5031
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/14
    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH14-10-000
    Applicants: The Laclede Group, Inc.
    Description: The LaClede Group, Inc. submits FERC 65-A Exemption
Notification.
    Filed Date: 4/25/14
    Accession Number: 20140425-5210
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/14
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 25, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-10086 Filed 5-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 24289-24290]
[DOCID:fr02my07-52]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0343; FRL-8127-4]

Soil Fumigant Pesticides; Notice of Public Meetings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is planning to hold
two stakeholder meetings to obtain public input on risk management
options for the soil fumigant pesticides chloropicrin, dazomet, metam
sodium, metam potassium, and methyl bromide. Reregistration for 1,3-
dichloropropene (1,3-D or Telone) was completed in 1998, but it is
included in the review for comparative purposes. The public meetings
will be held in the states of Washington and Florida in late May and
early June 2007. The purpose of the meetings is for the Agency to
obtain first-hand comments on possible human health risk mitigation
options from stakeholders who are most affected by soil fumigant use,
including growers, professional fumigant applicators, farm workers,
neighbors and community members, local officials, and others. EPA also
plans to participate in a stakeholder meeting focusing on risk
mitigation options for the soil fumigants metam sodium and metam
potassium, held by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation in
late May 2007. California and EPA have been working together on soil
fumigant issues during the last several years, and use similar
approaches to reduce exposure. Stakeholders' comments at these meetings
will help inform EPA's decision later this year on the reregistration
eligibility of several soil fumigant pesticides. Through the
reregistration program, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet
current health and safety standards.

DATES: The meeting in Richland, Washington will be held on May 22, 2007
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The meeting in Ft. Myers, Florida will be held on
June 6, 2007 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request. Spanish language translation will be available at
both meetings.

ADDRESSES: The Washington meeting will be held at the Federal Building,
825 Jadwin Avenue, Richland, Washington 99352. The Florida meeting will
be held at the Harborside Event Center, 1375 Monroe Street, Ft. Myers,
Florida 33901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Washington meeting information
contact. Veronique LaCapra, Special Review and Reregistration Division
(7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For Florida meeting information contact. Nathan Mottl, Special
Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact. John Leahy, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected

by this action. 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 Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0343. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard

copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket
Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Background

    EPA is currently reviewing six soil fumigant pesticides. Four of
the six are in review for reregistration, including chloropicrin,
dazomet, metam sodium, metam potassium, and methyl bromide. A fifth
chemical, iodomethane, is being reviewed for registration and is a
possible alternative to methyl bromide. Reregistration for 1,3-
dichloropropene (1,3-D or Telone) was completed in 1998, but is
included in the review for comparative purposes.
    EPA is reviewing the soil fumigant pesticides using the 6-Phase
Public Participation Process described in the Agency's May 14, 2004
Federal Register notice (69 FR 26819)(FRL-7357-9). During Phase 5, the
Agency is issuing for public comment revised risk assessments, benefits
assessments, and a paper outlining risk management options for the soil
fumigants. To obtain additional, first-hand input from stakeholders,
EPA is holding meetings during the Phase 5 public comment period in
areas of high soil fumigant use.
    EPA will begin each public meeting with a brief overview of
predicted risks and benefits of soil fumigant use, as well as possible
measures that the Agency expects will reduce risks. After providing
guidelines for making comments, the Agency will take comments from the
public during the remainder of the day. EPA plans to transcribe the
meetings so that comments received can be placed in the docket where
they will be available to other members of the public.
    EPA also plans to participate in a stakeholder meeting held by the
California Department of Pesticide Regulation on May 30, 2007, focusing
on California's risk management proposals for soil fumigants that
produce MITC, specifically metam sodium and metam potassium. California
and EPA have been working together on soil fumigant issues during the
last several years. Because the mitigation proposals for these
chemicals include similar approaches to reduce exposures, EPA will also
consider public comments provided by stakeholders during this meeting.
Please visit the California Department of Pesticide Regulation website
for more information: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/.

    After considering all information and comments received during
Phase 5 through the public meetings and the docket, EPA plans to
develop risk management decisions for the soil fumigant pesticides
later in 2007.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: April 24, 2007.
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-8277 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S