[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 1428]
[FR Doc No: 2011-178]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC11-13-000]

Empire Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Filing

December 30, 2010.
    Take notice that on December 1, 2010, Empire Pipeline, Inc.
submitted a request for a waiver of the reporting requirement to
provide its certified public accountant (CPA) certification statement
for the FERC Form No. 2 for 2010 on the basis of the calendar year
ending December 31, 2010, because it utilizes a fiscal year ending
September 30, 2010.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: January 31, 2011.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-178 Filed 1-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22107-22111]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09050]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0209; FRL-9926-47-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North
Carolina; Charlotte; Base Year Emissions Inventory and Emissions
Statement for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) on July 7,
2014, to address the base year emissions inventory and emissions
statement requirements for the State's portion of the Charlotte-
Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ``bi-state Charlotte Area'' or ``Area'').
Annual emissions reporting (i.e., emission statement) and a base year
emissions inventory are required for all ozone nonattainment areas. The
Area is comprised of the entire county of Mecklenburg and portions of
Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties in North
Carolina; and a portion of York County in South Carolina. EPA will
consider and take action on the South Carolina submission for the
emissions inventory and emissions statement for its portion of this
Area in a separate action.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective June 22, 2015 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 21, 2015. If
EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0209, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0209,'' Air Regulatory Management
Section, (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning
and

Implementation Branch (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, 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. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2015-0209. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Spann, 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. Ms.
Spann can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER> and via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.075 parts per million (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. 40 CFR 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 I of part
50.
    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is
violating the NAAQS based on the three most recent years of ambient air
quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The bi-state
Charlotte Area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS on April 30, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012) using 2009-2011
ambient air quality data. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). At the time
of designation, the bi-state Charlotte Area was classified as a
Marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On
February 13, 2015, EPA finalized a rule entitled ``Implementation of
the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State
Implementation Plan Requirements'' (SIP Requirements Rule) that
establishes the requirements that state, tribal, and local air quality
management agencies must meet as they develop implementation plans for
areas where air quality exceeds the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\ See 80 FR
12264 (March 6, 2015). This rule establishes ozone nonattainment area
attainment dates based on Table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA,
including an attainment date three years after the July 20, 2012,
effective date for areas classified as marginal areas for the 2008 8-
hour NAAQS. Therefore, the attainment date for the bi-state Charlotte
Area is July 20, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The SIP Requirements Rule addresses a range of nonattainment
area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including
requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable
further progress (RFP), reasonably available control technology,
reasonably available control measures, major new source review,
emission inventories, and the timing of SIP submissions and of
compliance with emission control measures in the SIP. The rule also
revokes the 1997 ozone NAAQS and establishes anti-backsliding
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the nonattainment designation, North Carolina was required
to develop a nonattainment SIP revision addressing certain CAA
requirements. Specifically, pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and
section 182(a)(1), North Carolina was required to submit a SIP revision
addressing emissions statements and emissions inventory requirements,
respectively.
    Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is
created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence
of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities and electric
utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical
solvents are some of the major sources of NOX and VOC.
Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires each state with ozone
nonattainment areas to submit a SIP revision requiring annual emissions
statements to be submitted to the state by the owner or operator of
each NOX or VOC stationary source \2\ located within a
nonattainment area showing the actual emissions of NOX and
VOC from that source. The first

statement is due three years from the area's nonattainment designation,
and subsequent statements are due at least annually thereafter. Section
182(a)(1) of the CAA requires states with areas designated
nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to submit a SIP revision providing a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from
all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A state may waive the emission statement requirement for any
class or category of stationary sources which emit less than 25 tons
per year of VOCs or NOX if the state meets the
requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 7, 2014, North Carolina submitted a SIP revision containing
a base year emissions inventory and addressing emissions statement
requirements related to its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. EPA
is now taking action to approve this SIP revision as meeting the
requirements of sections 110, 182(a)(1), and 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA.
More information on EPA's analysis of North Carolina's SIP revision is
provided below.

II. Analysis of State's Submittal

(a) Base Year Emission Inventory

    As discussed above, section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to
submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in
each ozone non-attainment area. The section 182(a)(1) base year
inventory is defined in the SIP Requirements Rule as ``a comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from sources of VOC and
NOX emitted within the boundaries of the nonattainment area
as required by CAA section 182(a)(1).'' See 40 CFR 51.1100(bb). The
inventory year must be selected consistent with the baseline year for
the RFP plan as required by 40 CFR 51.1110(b),\3\ and the inventory
must include actual ozone season day emissions as defined in 40 CFR
51.1100(cc) \4\ and contain data elements consistent with the detail
required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. See 40 CFR 51.1115(a), (c), (e).
In addition, the point source emissions included in the inventory must
be reported according to the point source emissions thresholds of the
Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) in 40 CFR part 51, subpart
A. See 40 CFR 51.1115(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 40 CFR 51.1110(b) states that ``at the time of designation
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS the baseline emissions inventory shall be
the emissions inventory for the most recent calendar year for which
a complete triennial inventory is required to be submitted to EPA
under the provisions of subpart A of this part. States may use an
alternative baseline emissions inventory provided the state
demonstrates why it is appropriate to use the alternative baseline
year, and provided that the year selected is between the years 2008
to 2012.''
    \4\ ``Ozone season day emissions'' is defined as ``an average
day's emissions for a typical ozone season work weekday. The state
shall select, subject to EPA approval, the particular month(s) in
the ozone season and the day(s) in the work week to be represented,
considering the conditions assumed in the development of RFP plans
and/or emissions budgets for transportation conformity.'' See 40 CFR
51.1100(cc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina selected 2011 as the base year for the section
182(a)(1) emissions inventory which is the year corresponding with the
first triennial inventory under 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. This base
year is one of the three years of ambient data used to designate the
Area as a nonattainment area and therefore represents emissions
associated with nonattainment conditions. The emissions inventory is
based on data developed and submitted by NC DENR and Mecklenburg County
Air Quality to EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and it
contains data elements consistent with the detail required by 40 CFR
part 51, subpart A.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Data downloaded from the EPA EIS from the 2011 NEI was
subjected to quality assurance procedures described under quality
assurance details under 2011 NEI Version 1 Documentation located at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html#inventorydoc.
The quality assurance and quality control procedures and measures
associated with this data are outlined in the State's EPA-approved
Emission Inventory Quality Assurance Project Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina's emissions inventory for its portion of the Area
provides 2011 typical average summer day emissions data for
NOX and VOCs for the following general source categories:
stationary point, area, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile. A detailed
discussion of the inventory development is located in Appendix B to
North Carolina's submittal which is provided in the docket for this
action. The table below provides a summary of the emissions inventory.

                           Table 1--2011 Point and Area Sources Emissions for the North Carolina Portion of the Charlotte Area
                                                                  [Tons per summer day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Point                     Area                 Non-road mobile           On-road mobile
                     County                      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      NOX          VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX          VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cabarrus*.......................................         1.10         0.89         0.44         4.53         2.43         1.62        11.85         6.32
Gaston*.........................................        26.44         1.74         0.55         4.94         2.30         1.83        13.39         6.93
Iredell*........................................         4.63         0.97         0.22         1.95         0.96         0.84         5.45         2.62
Lincoln*........................................         0.43         1.23         0.12         1.72         0.88         0.83         4.33         2.49
Mecklenburg.....................................         7.76         1.53         4.48        23.47        16.31        14.76        57.01        26.06
Rowan*..........................................         6.21         3.81         0.40         3.95         1.94         1.96        10.78         5.74
Union*..........................................         0.60         1.20         0.47         6.13         3.93         2.56         9.32         5.19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates emissions for the nonattainment portion of the county.

    The emissions reported for Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln,
Rowan, and Union Counties reflect the emissions for only the
nonattainment portion of the counties. The inventory contains point
source emissions data for facilities located within the North Carolina
portion of the Area based on Geographic Information Systems mapping.
For the remaining emissions categories, emissions for the North
Carolina portion of the Area were determined based on the population of
the nonattainment townships within each partial county. For Mecklenburg
County, the emissions for the entire county are provided. More detail
on the inventory emissions for individual sources categories is
provided below and in Appendix B to North Carolina's SIP submittal.
    Point sources are large, stationary, identifiable sources of
emissions that release pollutants into the atmosphere. The point source
emissions inventory for North Carolina's portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area was developed using facility-specific emissions data.
The point source emissions inventory for North Carolina's portion of
the bi-state Charlotte Area data is located in the docket for today's
action. The point source emissions data meets the point

source emissions thresholds of 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.
    Area sources are small emission stationary sources which, due to
their large number, collectively have significant emissions (e.g., dry
cleaners, service stations). Emissions for these sources were estimated
by multiplying an emission factor by such indicators of collective
emissions activity as production, number of employees, or population.
These emissions were estimated at the county level. North Carolina
developed its inventory according to the current EPA emissions
inventory guidance for area sources.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This guidance includes: Procedures for the Preparation of
Emission Inventories of Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone,
Vol. 1, EPA-450/4-91-016 (May 1991) and Emissions Inventory
Improvement Program (EIIP) Technical Report, Vol. 3, Area Sources
(Revised January 2001, updated April 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On-road mobile sources include vehicles used on roads for
transportation of passengers or freight. North Carolina's developed its
on-road emissions inventory using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions
Simulator (MOVES) model for each ozone nonattainment county.\7\ County
level on-road modeling was conducted using county-specific vehicle
population and other local data. North Carolina developed its inventory
according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for on-road
mobile sources.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ North Carolina used MOVES version 2010b because this was the
latest version available at the time that the State submitted its
SIP revision.
    \8\ This guidance includes: Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, EPA-454/R-
05-001 (August 2005, updated November 2005); Policy Guidance on the
Use of MOVES2010 for State Implementation Plan Development,
Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes, EPA-420-B-09-046
(December 2009); and Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for
Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and
Transportation Conformity, EPA-420-B-10-023 (April 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Non-road mobile sources include vehicles, engines, and equipment
used for construction, agriculture, recreation, and other purposes that
do not use roadways (e.g., lawn mowers, construction equipment,
railroad locomotives, and aircraft). North Carolina calculated
emissions for most of the non-road mobile sources using EPA's
NONROAD2008a model \9\ and developed its non-road mobile source
inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for
non-road mobile sources.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For consistency with the NEI, North Carolina included
emissions data for locomotives at rail yards and aircraft (where
they are reported to occur at the locations of the airports where
they are generated) with the point source data in the base year
inventory. See Appendix B.1 and Appendix B.4 of the State's SIP
revision for a detailed discussion of the methodology used to
calculate aircraft and locomotive emissions.
    \10\ This guidance includes: Procedures for Emission Inventory
Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources, EPA-450/4-81-026d (July
1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA has determined that North
Carolina's emissions inventory meets the requirements under CAA section
182(a)(1) and the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.

(b) Emissions Statements

    Pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B), states with ozone nonattainment
areas must require annual emissions statements from NOX and
VOC stationary sources within those nonattainment areas. This
requirement applies to all ozone nonattainment areas regardless of
classification (e.g., Marginal, Moderate).
    North Carolina regulation 15A North Carolina Administrative Code
(NCAC) 02Q.0207 requires all owners or operators of stationary sources
with actual emissions of 25 tons per year or more of VOC or
NOX located in the counties listed therein to submit a
statement to the State by June 30 of each year identifying actual
NOX and VOC emissions for the previous calendar year. In
1995, EPA approved North Carolina's regulation and incorporated it into
the SIP. See 60 FR 22283 (May 5, 1995). At that time, the regulation
applied to stationary sources within Davidson County, Durham County,
Forsyth County, Gaston County, Guilford County, Mecklenburg County,
Wake County, the Dutchville Township portion of Granville County, and
that part of Davie County bounded by the Yadkin River, Dutchman's
Creek, North Carolina Highway 801, Fulton Creek, and back to the Yadkin
River. North Carolina subsequently amended the regulation to expand its
coverage to include Cabarrus, Lincoln, Rowan, and Union Counties in
their entireties and Davidson Township and Coddle Creek Township in
Iredell County. EPA concluded that the amended regulation met the
requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
and incorporated the amendments into the SIP in 2012. See 77 FR 24382
(April 24, 2012). In its July 7, 2014 SIP revision, North Carolina
noted that it continues to operate under 15A NCAC 02Q.0207 as approved
into the SIP in 2012. EPA has reviewed this SIP-approved regulation and
determined that it covers the entire North Carolina portion of the Area
and meets the requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As discussed in the preamble to the SIP Requirements Rule,
a state may rely on emissions statement rules in force and approved
by EPA for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 1-hour ozone NAAQS provided
that the rules remain adequate and cover all portions of the 2008
ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas. See 80 FR 12291.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the SIP revision submitted by North Carolina on
July 7, 2014, addressing the base year emissions inventory and
emissions statement requirements for the State's portion of the bi-
state Charlotte Area. EPA has concluded that the State's submission
meets the requirements of sections 110 and 182 of the CAA. EPA is
publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views
this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse
comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 22, 2015 without
further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by May 21,
2015.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed
in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on June 22, 2015 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, the Agency may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. 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. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:

     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 22, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 9, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. In Sec.  52.1770, paragraph (e) is amended by adding two entries for
``North Carolina portion of bi-state Charlotte; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Base
Year Emissions Inventory'' and ``North Carolina portion of bi-state
Charlotte; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Annual Emission Reporting (Emission
Statement)'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    State
           Provision              effective   EPA approval date   Federal Register           Explanation
                                     date                              notice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
North Carolina portion of bi-     07/07/2014  April 21, 2015...  [Insert citation   ............................
 state Charlotte Area; 2008 8-                                    of publication].
 Hour Ozone Base Year Emissions
 Inventory.
North Carolina portion of bi-     07/07/2014  April 21, 2015...  [Insert citation   ............................
 state Charlotte Area; 2008 8-                                    of publication].
 Hour Ozone Annual Emissions
 Reporting (Emissions
 Statements).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-09050 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29049-29055]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11858]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0852; FRL-9385-3]

Streptomycin; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for
residues of streptomycin in or on grapefruit and grapefruit, dried
pulp. This action is in response to EPA's granting of an emergency
exemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide on grapefruit. This regulation
establishes maximum permissible levels for residues of streptomycin in
or on these commodities. The time-limited tolerances expire on December
31, 2015.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 17, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 16, 2013 and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0852, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 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 (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect
of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2011-0852 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 16, 2013. Addresses for
mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided
in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0852, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections
408(e) and 408(l)(6) of, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is
establishing time-limited tolerances for residues of streptomycin, 5-
(2,4-diguanidino-3,5,6-trihydroxy-cyclohexoxy)-4-[4,5-dihydroxy-6-
(hydroxymethyl)-3-methylamino-tetrahydropyran-2-yl] oxy-3-hydroxy-2-
methyl-tetrahydrofuran-3-carbaldehyde, in or on grapefruit at 0.15
parts per million (ppm) and dried grapefruit pulp at 0.40 ppm.
Streptomycin is an antibiotic of the aminoglycoside class and is
produced by the bacteria streptomyces. The active pesticide ingredient,
streptomycin sulfate, dissociates in water to streptomycin, but
otherwise is relatively stable in crops, animals, and humans.
Therefore, compliance with the tolerance levels is determined by
measuring the residues of streptomycin only and there are no
toxicologically significant metabolites and/or degradates. Streptomycin
and streptomycin sulfate are considered equivalent in this document and
both are referred to as streptomycin. These time-limited tolerances
expire on December 31, 2015.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA
section 18. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding
precedents for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the safety
standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having
received any petition from an outside party.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Streptomycin on Grapefruit and FFDCA
Tolerances

    The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS)
requested an emergency exemption for use of streptomycin on up to
54,000 acres of fresh-market grapefruit to combat citrus canker, a
disease caused by the bacteria Xanthomonas citri. Citrus canker was
once limited to localized areas in Florida, but several recent severe
hurricane seasons have spread the disease throughout the citrus growing
areas and widespread treatment to control the disease throughout the
season has become necessary. The FDACS requested a maximum of 2
applications of streptomycin, by ground equipment only, at a rate of
0.448 pounds of active ingredient per acre per application, during the
hottest part of the season when the risk of fruit injury from the
alternative controls is the greatest. After having reviewed the
submission, EPA determined that an emergency condition exists for this
State, and that the criteria for approval

of an emergency exemption are met. EPA has authorized a specific
exemption under FIFRA section 18 for the use of streptomycin on
grapefruit for control of citrus canker in Florida.
    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application,
EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of streptomycin
in or on grapefruit. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary tolerance
under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety
standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move
quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent non-
routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and
lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance without notice and opportunity
for public comment as provided in FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Although
these time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2015, under FFDCA
section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the
amounts specified in the tolerances remaining in or on grapefruit and
grapefruit, dried pulp after that date will not be unlawful, provided
the pesticide was applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and
the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by these time-
limited tolerances at the time of that application. EPA will take
action to revoke these time-limited tolerances earlier if any
experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on
this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.
    Because these time-limited tolerances are being approved under
emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether
streptomycin meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on
grapefruit or whether permanent tolerances for this use would be
appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that this
time-limited tolerance decision serves as a basis for registration of
streptomycin by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section
24(c). Nor does this tolerance by itself serve as the authority for
persons in any State other than Florida to use this pesticide on the
applicable crops under FIFRA section 18 absent the issuance of an
emergency exemption applicable within that State. For additional
information regarding the emergency exemption for streptomycin, contact
the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Specific information on the studies reviewed and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by streptomycin as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov, under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0852, in
the document titled ``Streptomycin sulfate. Section 18 Petition by the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for use on
Grapefruit.''
    Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other
relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data
to assess the hazards of, and to make a determination on, the aggregate
exposures expected as a result of this emergency exemption request and
the time-limited tolerances for residues of streptomycin in or on
grapefruit at 0.15 ppm, and grapefruit, dried pulp at 0.40 ppm. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the
time-limited tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates non-threshold risk in terms of the probability of an
occurrence of the adverse effect during a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for streptomycin used for
human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.

      Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Streptomycin for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Point of departure and
          Exposure/scenario               uncertainty/safety     RfD, PAD, LOC for risk  Study and toxicological
                                               factors                 assessment                effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary........................  NA.....................  NA.....................  Toxicity from single
(Any population).....................                                                     dose exposure not
                                                                                identified.
Chronic dietary......................  NOAEL= 5 mg/kg/day.....  Chronic RfD = 0.05 mg/   Two-year feeding study
(All populations)....................  UFA = 10...............   kg/day.                  in rats.
                                       UFH = 10...............  cPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/day..  LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day
                                       FQPA SF = 1X...........                            based on reduced body
                                                                                weight gain.
Cancer...............................               NA--EPA Waived its toxicology data requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UFA = extrapolation from
  animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population
  (intraspecies).

    The human risk assessment for this action can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document ``Streptomycin sulfate. Section 18
Petition by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
for Use on Grapefruit'' in the docket for ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0852.

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to streptomycin, EPA considered exposure under the time-
limited tolerances established by this action as well as all existing
streptomycin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.245. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from streptomycin in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. No such acute adverse effects were identified in
the toxicological studies for streptomycin; therefore, a quantitative
acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue
levels in food, EPA used tolerance level residues for all registered
commodities, and the proposed tolerance levels of 0.15 ppm for
grapefruit and grapefruit juice. In addition, default processing
factors were used for all commodities except grapefruit juice. One
hundred percent crop treated (PCT) was assumed for all crops.
    iii. Cancer. No concern for carcinogenicity is expected for
streptomycin based on the weight of evidence of available information.
Streptomycin has been used for decades as a human drug at doses much
higher than those expected from pesticidal uses, without findings of an
association with cancer. Based on this information combined with the
lack of tumors reported in the 2-year rat study assessed by FDA, and
the properties of the molecule (e.g., minimal metabolism and large
molecular size restricting interaction of the chemical with typical
carcinogenic receptors) EPA has waived its toxicological data
requirements for streptomycin. EPA has concluded that streptomycin does
not pose a cancer risk to humans and a quantitative data requirements
for streptomycin dietary exposure assessment for assessing cancer risk
was not conducted.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for streptomycin. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for
all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for streptomycin in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of streptomycin. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST), and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, for surface
and ground water, respectively, the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of streptomycin for ground and surface water
were calculated as 1.2 parts per billion (ppb) and 51.4 ppb,
respectively. The EDWCs are based on aerial application to apple
orchards, which is the highest rate allowed by the label.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the EDWC value of 51.4 ppb for surface water was used to
assess the dietary exposure contribution from drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Streptomycin is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Use in residential areas on
trees and shrubs to control the same diseases (e.g., blight, various
rots) for which it is used in commercial greenhouse and agricultural
settings.
    EPA assessed residential nondietary exposure using the following
assumptions: Since streptomycin is not significantly absorbed through
dermal route, only inhalation exposures were assessed for residential
scenarios of homeowner application to fruit trees and shrubs using a
low pressure handwand. Although a quantitative residential post-
application inhalation exposure assessment was not performed, an
occupational inhalation exposure assessment for handlers was performed
which is representative of a higher-end, more intensive inhalation
exposure. Thus, this assessment is also protective for evaluating any
potential residential post-application inhalation exposure. Further
information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for
residential exposures may be found at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found streptomycin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and streptomycin does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
streptomycin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision,
EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional SF when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In a rabbit developmental
toxicity study, no teratogenic effects were observed at the highest
dose tested (10 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) orally). However,
women receiving clinical treatment at doses of approximately 15 mg/kg/
day by intramuscular injection of streptomycin during pregnancy have
been known to give birth to children with hearing loss or vestibular
problems; no other teratogenic effects have been attributed to
streptomycin treatment. Because only about 1% of an oral dose of
streptomycin is absorbed by the body, that intramuscular injection
corresponds to approximately 1,500 mg/kg/day by the oral route. Thus
the pharmacological dose at which these prenatal effects have been
observed is about 150 times higher than the no observed adverse effect
level in the rabbit developmental toxicity study, and

approximately 30,000 times higher than the dose that produced the
reduced weight gain endpoint used in establishing the chronic RfD, EPA
is confident that the RfD will protect against teratogenic effects.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. An extensive database exists from drug use of streptomycin in
humans and animals, and all guideline toxicity data requirements for
streptomycin have been waived. The toxicity of streptomycin was
assessed using toxicity reviews provided by the FDA and from the
published literature on drug use. Because the dose selected for risk
assessment from agricultural use (based upon anticipated maximum
exposures) is based upon a toxicity endpoint (decreased weight gain in
test animals) that occurs at a much lower oral dose than the injected
dose at which prenatal effects occur in humans, there are no residual
concerns and the FQPA safety factor was reduced to 1x.
    ii. There is some indication that streptomycin may be neurotoxic at
the very high doses when injected as a drug. Injury to the 8th cranial
nerve has been noted in some patients receiving streptomycin
injections. However, this injury occurs because streptomycin
accumulates in the inner ear and is not indicative of systemic injury
to the nervous system. Other rare conditions reported in patients
treated with streptomycin injections at clinical doses include
neuromuscular blockade associated with anesthesia, enlarged blind spots
of the eye, and paresthesia or abnormal sensations. Again, these
responses are rare and occurred with large pharmacological doses at
approximately 30,000 times higher than the RfD for streptomycin. A
developmental neurotoxicity study is therefore not recommended, and
there is no need for additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There was no evidence that in utero rabbits have increased
susceptibility to streptomycin in the prenatal developmental study. A
reproductive toxicity study has been waived and is therefore not
available. Some children of mothers treated during pregnancy with
streptomycin have been born with hearing deficits, which may indicate
that the developing fetus is more sensitive than the mother to
streptomycin-induced inner ear toxicity. However, these effects
occurred after treatment with a directly injected pharmacological dose
which is comparable to a dose about 150 times higher than the no
observed adverse effect level in the rabbit developmental toxicity
study, and approximately 30,000 times the chronic RfD EPA has selected
for risk management purposes. At the much lower dose that EPA is using
for risk management, there are no residual concerns. Therefore there
are no concerns for prenatal effects.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases; all guideline toxicity data requirements were waived because
of the extensive clinical information available for streptomycin from
decades of use as a drug in humans and animals. The dietary food
exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-
level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the
ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
streptomycin in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative
assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as
incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by streptomycin.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of experiencing cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary adverse effect endpoint was
identified. Therefore, streptomycin is not expected to pose an acute
risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic dietary
exposure to streptomycin from food and water will utilize 13% of the
cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in the unit regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
streptomycin is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Streptomycin
is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure. However, no such effects were identified in the
studies for streptomycin. The Agency has determined that the chronic
risk assessment is adequately protective for short-term exposures, and
it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
(considered background exposure) with short-term residential exposures
to streptomycin. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit
for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term
food, water, and residential exposures from the highest exposure
scenario result in an aggregate MOE of 2,100. Because EPA's level of
concern for streptomycin is an MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of
concern. Although a quantitative residential post-application
inhalation exposure assessment was not performed, the occupational
inhalation exposure assessment performed for handlers is representative
of a worse case inhalation exposure and therefore protective of any
potential post-application inhalation exposure in residential
scenarios. The lowest MOE from the occupational assessments was 560,
and assumed no use of protective equipment such as a respirator. Since
this is higher than EPA's level of concern of an MOE of 100 or below it
is not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term non-dietary, non-occupational
exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a
background exposure level). Streptomycin is not registered for any use
patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure
and no intermediate-term adverse effects have been identified. Because
there is no intermediate-term residential exposure or adverse effects
identified, and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed
under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating
intermediate-term risk for streptomycin.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. A quantitative cancer

assessment is unnecessary. Available data suggest there are no concerns
for cancer from exposure to streptomycin, and EPA has concluded that
streptomycin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Antibiotic resistance risk. EPA estimated the potential for
development of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria, in
consideration of factors recommended by public health experts to
sustain the effectiveness of antibiotic materials. EPA conducted a
qualitative analysis of this use as outlined in FDA's Guidance for
Industry (GFI) 152. FDA's GFI 152 addresses expansion
of antibiotic uses outside clinical settings with respect to potential
impact on resistance development. Existing resistance to streptomycin
has diminished its use in clinical settings, although it is still used
as a second line treatment for tuberculosis and used for several other
bacterial diseases. However, based upon the limitations of the use
under an emergency exemption, both in terms of rate and geographic
area, EPA concluded that the use is expected to result in low risks of
release into the environment, and subsequently low exposures. Thus, EPA
determined that the overall rating for risks of resistance development
from this emergency exemption use under an emergency exemption is
``low.'' The analysis, ``Review of Florida Department of Agriculture/
AgroSource's Analysis of Streptomycin's Safety with Regard to Its
Microbiological Effect on Bacteria of Human Health Concern (FDA/CVM
Guidance to Industry 152)'', as well as FDA's GFI
152, may be found at http://www.regulations.gov, under docket
ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0852.
    7. Pharmaceutical aggregate risk. Section 408 of the FFDCA requires
EPA to consider potential sources of exposure to a pesticide and
related substances in addition to the dietary sources expected to
result from a pesticide use subject to the tolerance. In order to
determine whether to maintain a pesticide tolerance, EPA must
``determine that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm.'' Under
FFDCA section 505, the Food and Drug Administration reviews human drugs
for safety and effectiveness and may approve a drug notwithstanding the
possibility that some users may experience adverse side effects. EPA
does not believe that, for purposes of the section 408 dietary risk
assessment, it is compelled to treat a pharmaceutical user the same as
a non-user, or to assume that combined exposures to pesticide and
pharmaceutical residues that lead to a physiological effect in the user
constitutes ``harm'' under the meaning of section 408 of the FFDCA.
    Rather, EPA believes the appropriate way to consider the
pharmaceutical use of streptomycin in its risk assessment is to examine
the impact that the additional nonoccupational pesticide exposures
would have to a pharmaceutical user exposed to a related (or, in some
cases, the same) compound. Where the additional pesticide exposure has
no more than a minimal impact on the pharmaceutical user, EPA could
make a reasonable certainty of no harm finding for the pesticide
tolerances of that compound under section 408 of the FFDCA. If the
potential impact on the pharmaceutical user as a result of co-exposure
from pesticide use is more than minimal, then EPA would not be able to
conclude that dietary residues were safe, and would need to discuss
with FDA appropriate measures to reduce exposure from one or both
sources.
    Injected drug doses are approximately 15 mg/kg/day. Because the
oral absorption of streptomycin is <1%, this corresponds to an oral
equivalent dose of 1,500 mg/kg/day. This oral equivalent dose is
approximately 375,000 times the highest dietary exposure estimate of
0.004 mg/kg/day (the food and water exposure estimate for the highest-
exposed population (children 1-2 years old)). Therefore, dietary
exposure from pesticide uses of streptomycin is negligible compared to
drug exposure and would not contribute to drug toxicity, so there are
no concerns for risks from dietary contribution of streptomycin
exposure from pesticide use, in patients receiving streptomycin drug
injections. Because the pesticide exposure has no more than a minimal
impact on the total dose to a pharmaceutical user, EPA believes that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the
potential dietary pesticide exposure of a user being treated
therapeutically with streptomycin.
    8. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to streptomycin residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate enforcement methodology, ``Confirmation of
Aminoglycosides by HPCL-MS/MS''; United States Department of
Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Office of Public
Health Science, SOP No: CLG-AMG1.02, using high performance liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry for detection (HPLC-MS/
MS), is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established an MRL for streptomycin on
grapefruit.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, time-limited tolerances are established for residues of
streptomycin, in or on grapefruit at 0.15 ppm and grapefruit, dried
pulp at 0.40 ppm. These tolerances expire on December 31, 2015.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e)
and 408(l)(6). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted
these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866,
entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not

contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance
with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 9, 2013.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.245 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.245  Streptomycin; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances are
established for residues of streptomycin, in or on the agricultural
commodities, as specified in the following table, resulting from use of
the pesticide pursuant to FIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions.
Compliance with the tolerance levels listed in the following table is
to be determined by measuring the levels of streptomycin only, in or on
the commodities listed in the table. The tolerances expire on the dates
specified in the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Parts per    Expiration
                   Commodity                      million        date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grapefruit....................................         0.15   12/31/2015
Grapefruit, dried pulp........................         0.40   12/31/2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-11858 Filed 5-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 20063]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09617]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. PR17-60-001; PR17-60-002]

Notice of Technical Conference: Atmos Pipeline--Texas

    Take notice that an informal technical conference concerning the
above-captioned proceedings will be convened by phone on May 23, 2018,
at 2:00 p.m. (EDT). The purpose of the teleconference will be to
discuss comments filed in the proceeding.
    All interested parties are invited to participate by phone. Please
email Deirdra Archie at [email protected] or call<PHONE_NUMBER>
by Tuesday, May 22, 2018, to RSVP and to receive specific instructions
on how to participate.

    Dated: May 1, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09617 Filed 5-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 155)]
[Notices]
[Page 48985]
[DOCID:fr12au10-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1922-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Montana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Montana (FEMA-1922-DR), dated July 10, 2010, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 28, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Montana is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of July 10, 2010.

    Chouteau County for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-19887 Filed 8-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68657-68658]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28183]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63228; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-102]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Amex LLC To Increase the
Maximum Order Size Accepted by Floor Broker Systems From 25,000,000
Shares to 99,000,000 Shares

November 2, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on November 1, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 1000
regarding the maximum order size accepted by Floor broker systems from
25,000,000 shares to 99,000,000 shares. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at the Exchange, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
http://www.nyse.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000 to provide that Floor
broker systems shall accept a maximum order size of 99,000,000, an
increase from the current 25,000,000 share limit.
a. Background
    Floor brokers receive orders from customers via telephone and
electronic delivery to Floor broker systems. Details of orders
delivered to Floor broker systems are automatically transmitted to a
designated Exchange database as required by NYSE Amex Equities Rule
123(e). Orders delivered telephonically must be manually entered by the
broker (or clerk) into Exchange systems in order to capture the order
details in the designated Exchange database pursuant to Rule 123(e)
before the broker can

represent these orders on the Exchange. Exchange systems currently
accept orders up to 25,000,000 shares. Exchange systems include Display
Book[supreg], which is the Exchange's matching engine, and Floor broker
systems, which are the systems made available to Floor brokers to
accept orders from customers and if warranted, enter such orders into
the Display Book. There is no limit on the size of orders that can be
transmitted to a Floor broker telephonically. Customers who wish to
send orders in excess of 25,000,000 million shares must break these
orders into smaller sizes to send electronically or submit these orders
by telephone to the broker. The broker (or clerk) must then enter these
telephonic orders in smaller quantities into Exchange systems.
b. Proposed Amendment to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 1000
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000 to state that Floor broker
systems shall accept a maximum order size up to 99,000,000 shares. This
enhancement would allow more efficient electronic processing of very
large orders sent to Floor brokers.
    Orders sent to Display Book by Floor brokers are subject to the
same maximum order size of 25,000,000 shares as all other market
participants.
    The Exchange notes that parallel changes are proposed to be made to
the rules of the New York Stock Exchange LLC.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SR-NYSE-2010-71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will implement the systemic changes on or about
December 10, 2010 and will notify Floor brokers when the Floor broker
systems have been modified to accept a maximum order size up to
99,000,000 shares.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
\5\ for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section
6(b)(5) \6\ that an exchange have rules that are designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change accomplishes these
goals by providing efficient methods for customers to transmit orders
to Floor brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's 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 satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-102 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-NYSEAmex-2010-102. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEAmex-2010-102 and should be submitted on or before November 29,
2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28183 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P