[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15232-15233]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05587]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2466-037]

Appalachian Power Company; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for
Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2466-037.
    c. Date Filed: February 28, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian).
    e. Name of Project: Niagara Hydroelectric Project (Niagara
Project).
    f. Location: The project is located on the Roanoke River, in
Roanoke County, Virginia. The project occupies 0.9 acre of federal land
managed by the National Park Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jonathan Magalski, Environmental
Supervisor,

Renewables, American Electric Power Service Corporation c/o Appalachian
Power Company, 1 Riverside Plaza, Columbus, OH 43215; Phone at (614)
716-2240 or email at [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Laurie Bauer at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The Niagara Project consists of: (1) A 52-foot-high, 462-foot-
long concrete dam, inclusive of the right non-overflow abutment (70
feet long) and main spillway (392 feet long) with a crest elevation of
885 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29); (2) a 62-
acre impoundment with a gross storage capacity of 425 acre-feet at the
normal pool elevation of 884.4 feet NGVD 29; (3) an 11-foot-diameter,
500-foot-long corrugated metal pipe penstock with associated entrance
and discharge structures; (4) a 1,500-foot-long bypassed reach; (5) a
92-foot-long, 58-foot-wide, 42-foot-high concrete powerhouse containing
two generating units with a total authorized installed capacity of 2.4
megawatts (MW); (6) a 103-foot-long auxiliary spillway with a crest
elevation of 886 feet NGVD 29 located downstream of the upstream
intake; (7) transmission facilities consisting of 50-foot-long, 2.4-
kilovolt (kV) generator leads and a 3-phase, 2.4/12-kV, 2,500-kilovolt
ampere (kVA) step-up transformer; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
    The Niagara Project operates in a run-of-river (ROR) mode under all
flow conditions, where inflow equals outflow, with an average annual
generation of 8,557 megawatt-hours between 2018 and 2021. The project
is operated to maintain the impoundment at or near elevation 884.4 feet
NGVD 29, which is 0.6 foot below the crest of the main spillway. During
extreme flow conditions, such as rapidly changing inflows, Appalachian
operates the project with a minimum impoundment elevation of 883.4 feet
NGVD 29. Appalachian releases a minimum flow of 50 cubic feet per
second (cfs), or inflow to the impoundment, whichever is less, below
the project. Appalachian provides a minimum flow of 8 cfs into the
bypassed reach through the sluice gate or over the spillway.
    Appalachian proposes to continue operating the project in a ROR
mode and to increase the existing minimum flow provided to the bypassed
reach to 30 cfs. In addition to this measure, which is intended to
protect water quality and aquatic resources in the bypassed reach,
Appalachian proposes environmental measures for the protection and
enhancement of terrestrial and recreation resources.
    l. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field, to access the document (P-2466). For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected], or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202)
502-8659 (TTY).
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will
be made as appropriate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Milestone                                               Target date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary).....................  March 2022.
Request Additional Information (if necessary)..............  May 2022.
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for Environmental       January 2023.\1\
 Analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Roanoke Logperch Larval Drift Survey, a sub-study of the
Fish Community Study, is scheduled to be completed in 2022. In the
final license application, Appalachian states that the final study
report will be filed in late 2022.

    Dated: March 10, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05587 Filed 3-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 74119-74121]
[DOCID:fr30no10-143]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63366; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-103]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Amex LLC Company Guide To Adopt Additional Criteria for Listing Special
Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) That Have Indicated That Their
Business Plan Is To Engage in a Merger or Acquisition With an
Unidentified Company or Companies

November 23, 2010.
    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 November 12, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Amex'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``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\ 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 the NYSE Amex LLC Company Guide (the
``Guide'') to adopt additional criteria for listing companies that have
indicated that their business plan is to engage in a merger or
acquisition with an unidentified company or companies (an ``acquisition
vehicle'') and to provide transparency to the criteria the Exchange
will apply in doing so. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange, 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Guide to adopt additional
criteria for listing companies that have indicated that their business
plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an acquisition
vehicle.\3\ The Exchange has permitted certain of such companies to
list on the Exchange under Initial Listing Standards 3 or 4, which do
not require prior operating history, as long as certain protections
were provided to investors in such companies.\4\ In order to provide
greater transparency to the listing criteria that would be applicable
to such companies, the Exchange proposes to adopt new Section 119 of
the Guide.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 101 of the Guide provides the Exchange with broad
discretionary authority over the initial and continued listing of
securities in order to maintain the quality of and public confidence
in its market, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to
protect investors and the public interest, even though the
securities meet all enumerated criteria for initial or continued
listing.
    \4\ As it does with any initial listing, the Exchange will
evaluate the reputation of the company's management pursuant to
Section 101 of the Guide in determining whether listing is
appropriate.
    \5\ New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and The Nasdaq Stock
Market also have adopted standards for listing acquisition
companies. See NYSE Listed Company Manual Section 102.06, Nasdaq IM-
5101-2. Except where otherwise noted, the new Section 119 standards
are the same as Nasdaq's current standards. See infra notes 8 and 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, these companies must meet all applicable initial listing
requirements. Thus, for initial listing, companies seeking to list on
the Exchange must meet NYSE Amex Initial Listing Standard 3 or 4, which
require, among other things, a minimum market value of listed
securities of $50 million or $75 million, respectively.\6\ In addition,
the Exchange has determined to impose the following additional criteria
for listing a company whose business plan is to complete an initial
public offering and

engage in a subsequent, unidentified merger or acquisition: \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Section 101(c) and (d) of the Guide, which sets forth
these market capitalization standards as well as other listing
standards relating to aggregate market value of publicly held
shares, stock price, distribution and other requirements. Note that
given the nature of these companies, they will not satisfy the
initial listing requirements of Initial Listing Standards 1 and 2
because of the prior operating history requirements of those
standards. As noted below, these companies will be required to
satisfy the initial listing requirements following subsequent
business combinations.
    \7\ These criteria originally were derived from protections the
Exchange has observed built into recent transactions and Rule 419
under the Securities Act of 1933, 17 CFR 230.419. See supra n. 3 and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57685 (April 18, 2008), 73 FR
22191 at n. 8 (April 24, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-013). Rule
419(b)(2)(vi), 17 CFR 230.419(b)(2)(vi), permits the registrant to
receive up to 10 percent of the proceeds remaining after payment of
underwriting commissions, underwriting expenses and permitted dealer
allowances, exclusive of interest or dividends, as those proceeds
are deposited into the escrow or trust account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) At least 90% of the gross proceeds from the initial public
offering and any concurrent sale by the company of equity securities
must be deposited in a trust account maintained by an independent
trustee, an escrow account maintained by an ``insured depository
institution,'' as that term is defined in Section 3(c)(2) of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act \8\ or in a separate bank account
established by a registered broker or dealer (collectively, a ``deposit
account'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 12 U.S.C. 1813(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Within 36 months of the effectiveness of its initial public
offering registration statement, or such shorter period that the
company specifies in its registration statement, the company must
complete one or more business combinations having an aggregate fair
market value of at least 80% of the value of the deposit account
(excluding any deferred underwriter's fees and taxes payable on the
income earned on the deposit account) at the time of the agreement to
enter into the initial combination.
    (c) Until the company has satisfied the condition in paragraph (b)
above, each business combination must be approved by a majority of the
company's independent directors.
    (d) Until the company has satisfied the condition in paragraph (b)
above, each business combination must be approved by a majority of the
shares of common stock voting at the meeting at which the combination
is being considered.
    (e) Until the company has satisfied the condition in paragraph (b)
above, public shareholders voting against a business combination must
have the right to convert their shares of common stock into a pro rata
share of the aggregate amount then in the deposit account (net of taxes
payable and amounts distributed to management for working capital
purposes) if the business combination is approved and consummated. A
company may establish a limit (set no lower than 10% of the shares sold
in the initial public offering) as to the maximum number of shares with
respect to which any shareholder, together with any affiliate of such
shareholder or any person with whom such shareholder is acting as a
``group'' (as such term is used in Sections 13(d) and 14(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \9\), may exercise such
conversion rights. For these purposes, ``public shareholder'' would be
defined to exclude officers and directors of the company, the company's
sponsor, the founding shareholders of the company, any family member or
affiliate of any of the foregoing persons, and other concentrated
holdings of 10% or more.\10\ The Exchange proposes to define ``family
member'' as a person's spouse, parents, children and siblings, whether
by blood, marriage or adoption, or anyone residing in such person's
home.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(d) and 78n(d).
    \10\ Nasdaq currently excludes a beneficial holder of more than
10% of the total shares outstanding from its definition of ``Public
Holders'' in Nasdaq's general listing rules. See Nasdaq Rule
5005(a)(34). However, Nasdaq does not exclude concentrated holders
from its definition of ``public Shareholder'' in its acquisition
vehicle rule (IM-5101-2) but has proposed to do so by defining
public Shareholder to exclude the beneficial holder of more than 10%
of the total shares outstanding. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 63239 (November 3, 2010), 75 FR 68846 (November 9, 2010) (SR-
NASDAQ-2010-137). The NYSE's acquisition company rule excludes
concentrated holdings of 10% or more in calculating the number of
publicly-held shares. See Section 102.06(A) of the NYSE Listed
Company Manual. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to exclude
concentrated holdings of 10% or more in calculating the number of
publicly-held shares in proposed Section 119(e).
    \11\ The Guide does not currently define the term ``family
member.'' The Exchange proposes to adopt the definition of ``Family
Member'' used in Nasdaq's Rules. See Nasdaq Rule 5005(a)(17)
(referencing Nasdaq Rule 5605(a)(2)) and IM- 5101-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will also review such a company in connection with
each acquisition to assure that it remains appropriate to continue to
list the company. In that regard, the Exchange will require that the
company meet the initial listing requirements upon conclusion of the
transaction \12\ and will conduct a regulatory review of any
individuals that become newly involved with the company as a result of
the transaction. If the company does not meet the requirements for
initial listing following a business combination or does not comply
with one of the requirements set forth above, the Exchange would
commence delisting proceedings under Section 1010 to delist the
company's securities; the company would not be eligible to follow the
procedures to cure deficiencies outlined in Section 1009 of the
Guide.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Companies will not be required to pay a new listing fee in
connection with such a review. However, if there is a change of
legal entity in connection with the business combination, the
company will have to pay an original listing fee ($7,500). See
Section 142(d) of the Guide. If additional shares are issued in the
transaction, the company will pay initial listing fees on those
shares. See Section 142(a) of the Guide.
    \13\ This aspect of the proposed rule change is based on Section
802.01B of the NYSE Listed Company Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with these
requirements in that it imposes additional requirements on acquisition
vehicles, which are designed to protect investors and the public
interest and prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices on
the part of acquisition vehicles and their promoters. The Exchange also
notes that the provision of conversion rights for public shareholders
that oppose a business combination offers investor protection and is
consistent with SEC Rule 419.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ thereunder
because the proposal does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public

interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it
was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
provided that the Exchange has given the Commission 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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ The Exchange has satisfied the five-day pre-filing notice
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \19\ 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 requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay
period is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Specifically, the Commission notes that the proposal is
substantially identical to Nasdaq's listing standards for special
purpose acquisition companies (``SPACs'') and raises no new or novel
regulatory issues. The Commission notes that the proposal differs from
Nasdaq's rules in three respects. First, the proposal's definition of
``public shareholder'' would exclude any person with concentrated
holdings of 10% or more. The Commission notes that this proposed
definition is consistent with the Exchange's current definition.\20\
Second, the proposal would include a definition of ``family member.''
The Commission notes that while the term ``family member'' is used in
Nasdaq's SPAC rules, it is not specifically defined in those rules
because it is defined elsewhere in Nasdaq's rules. The definition of
``family member'' in the Exchange's proposal, however, is identical to
the definition of ``family member'' as defined in Nasdaq's rules and
referenced in Nasdaq's SPAC listing standards.\21\ Finally, the
proposal would specify that SPACs that do not meet the Exchange's
initial listing standards following a business combination or that do
not comply with one of the SPAC listing standards in proposed Section
119 of the Guide would not be eligible to follow the cure procedures in
Section 1009 of the Guide, which allows listed companies up to 18
months to cure certain continued listing standards deficiencies.
Instead, under the proposal, the Exchange would immediately commence
delisting proceedings pursuant to Section 1010 of the Guide. The
Commission notes that this proposal is identical to NYSE's listing
standards for SPACs and helps to ensure that a SPAC unable to meet
listing standards will not remain listed for an extended period of
time.\22\ Accordingly, based on the above, the Commission designates,
consistent with the protection of investors and public interest, that
the proposed rule change be operative upon filing.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Section 102 of the Guide; see also supra note 10.
    \21\ See supra note 11.
    \22\ See supra note 13.
    \23\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has 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.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2010-103 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-2010-103. 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 such 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-2010-103 and should be submitted on or before December 21,
2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30087 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From:
BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Wednesday, October 7, 2020 9:44 AM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: Suncoke - 10/7- Whole industry QA review of Coke data and calculations

Donna Lee,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and revisions to these files. We have a number of comments to provide, which are included below, along with edits to the spreadsheet, which is attached.

Comment 1: HNR Pushing (SC-Vansant-VA and SC-EastChicago-IN only)
 Pushing emissions for SC-Vansant-VA should apply a control efficiency for a cokeside shed. We recommend using a 74% control efficiency for all applicable pollutants for the cokeside shed (AP-42, Table 12.2-6, filterable PM capture efficiency from coke oven pushing).  The value shown in the spreadsheet uses an average of Middletown and Granite City emission factors for the multiclone.  The Vansant site does not have a multiclone, but instead has a shed enclosure for control; therefore, the Middletown and Granite City factors are not applicable here.
 Pushing emissions for SC-EastChicago-IN should apply a control efficiency for a baghouse. We recommend using a 99% control efficiency for the baghouse for all applicable pollutants (AP-42, Appendix B.2, Figure B.2-1 for fabric filter filterable PM collection efficiency). The value shown in the spreadsheet uses an average of Middletown and Granite City emission factors for the multiclone.  The East Chicago site does not have a multiclone, but instead has a shed enclosure with a baghouse for control; therefore, the Middletown and Granite City factors are not applicable here.
Comment 2: HRSG Main Stacks
Since the main stacks at all facilities operate continuously (up to 8,760 hours per year), except in the case of a flue gas desulphurization (FGD) system outage, main stack emissions are not related to coke production and main stacks emit during periods where charging does not occur, a more accurate method to calculate emissions is to use the measured lb/hour emission rate from the ICR source test and multiply by the annual hours/year to calculate an annual emission rate. Since the main stack activity is not tied to charging activity, using a lb/ton coke emission factor is not representative of the main stack emissions process.  When the FGD system is offline, the emissions are directed through the bypass vent stacks.

Comment 3: HRSG Bypass-Waste Heat
Bypass Vent Stacks (BVS) operate intermittently and their operation is not tied to coke production, therefore annual emissions in tons/year should not be based on annual coke production. We believe that a more accurate method to calculate emissions is to use the measured lb/hour emission rate from the ICR source test and multiply by the number of permitted hours of operation per year.  Applicable site permit limits for venting are shown below:
 SC-GraniteCity-IL: 312 hours per BVS (a total of 1,872 permitted stack and FGD hours per year, divided by 6 bypass stacks) (pg. 21, section 4.1.5)
 SC-FranklinFurnace-OH: 1920 hours for all 10 stacks per year
 SC-Middletown-OH: 312 hours per BVS (a total of 1,560 permitted stack and FGD hours per year, divided by 5 bypass stacks)
 SC-EastChicago-IN: 13% annual venting limit, equal to 0.13*8760 = 1,139 hours total per year (pg. 35, section D.1.0.1)
 SC-Vansant-VA: 8,760 hours (operates continuously)
Comment 4: Specific Spreadsheet Changes
Other comments or changes/additions made to spreadsheets as well as questions on calculation methods:
CokeOvens-Enclosure 12 QA-Whole Industry Test Data-Aug 2020.xls
 Tab A-1
 General comment  -  We see that EPA has tried to create a lb/ton of coke emission factor for all sources by using the total amount of coal charged to each oven during the test.  However, this is not representative of a coking cycle, nor is it accurately calculated, in some cases, because the actual number of ovens pushed/charged doesn't appear to be included in this calculation.  Multiple ovens are pushed/charged during any test run.
 Main Stack EP-6
 As stated above in Comment 2, it makes more sense to use lb/hr factor because the main stack emissions are not directly tied to pushing and charging.
 Error in Column AQ for main stack test and bypass vent stack sources (coal charged during test run in tons/hr)
 For the main stack and bypass vent stack tests, the number shown in column AK (~42 - 46 tons) is the amount of tons charged to each oven, on average.  The calculation does not take into account the actual number of ovens charged.  Regardless, the lb/hr emission factor should be used for these sources as they are not tied to active pushing and charging.
 HRSG BVS EP-7
 Same issue as noted above for EP-6.
 Tab A-3
 The pushing charging machine (PCM) emission factors would be more accurately represented as a lb/ton coal charged as the PCM solely charges coal into the ovens.
 Tab A-4
 Updated total oven count for SC-Vansant (changed from 143 to 142).
 Tab A-5
 Updated battery/oven data as needed.
Thanks,

Katie Batten
Director of Health, Safety and Environmental

SunCoke Energy, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<< CokeOvens-Enclosure 12 QA-Whole IndustryTest Data-Aug 2020 SCE comments final draft.xlsx >>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 4:18 PM
To: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Re: Suncoke - 10/7- Whole industry QA review of Coke data and calculations

OK. We look forward to your comments on 10/7. We appreciate your conscientiousness in reviewing the data.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 1:52 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Whole industry QA review of Coke data and calculations

Donna Lee,

We have been working through reviewing the spreadsheet and found a couple of items that we are still working on correcting (e.g. calculation of lb/ton values).  Could we please have a few extra days to complete our review and return our comments to you by 10/7?

Thank you,

Katie Batten
Director of Health, Safety and Environmental

SunCoke Energy, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 11:32 AM
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Charles Jones'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brenna M Harden<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Robert B Sanch<EMAIL_ADDRESS>BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Whole industry QA review of Coke data and calculations

Hello all - We have finished tabulating all of the test data and developing emissions (lb HAP/ton coke, lb HAP/hr, and/or ton HAP/year) from the test facilities, as well as generating default HAP emission factors (lb HAP/ton coke produced or lb HAP/hr) for facilities that did not test or did not do all tests.

Please review and send your comments back (either in the spreadsheets themselves and/or with attached comments) on or before September 28, 2020 (Monday).

I tried to send this email to at least two people per company for all facilities, to make sure I include at least one correct person who can  distribute this QA review to all their company's facilities. Please let me know if I should substitute or add someone else for future emails about the EPA Coke data or the QA.

The attached files are listed below with a description of their contents:
1.    CokeOvens-Estimates&Assumptions-Aug_2020 (Word file)
 Explains the assumptions and estimates used in the Excel spreadsheets.

2.    CokeOvens-Example Emission Calcs-Aug_2020 (Excel file)
 Example calculations for Antimony (Sb) emissions using test data from facilities who tested, for each source category process (EP-1 through EP-9*). The spreadsheet takes the calculations through a complete calculation sequence as an example of what will be done for all HAP tested.
 Shows the default emission factors developed from the test data that will be used for Antimony, as an example HAP, for facilities without test data for the indicated process, to be done next for all HAP tested.
 Shows the application of the default emission factors for Antimony to all facilities without test data for the indicated process to calculate tons Antimony (Sb)/year, to be done next for all HAP.

 The CU (Capacity Utilization) worksheet shows the production values reported to the EPA and the values estimated by the EPA for use in the emission calculations and estimates, for all coke facilities.
 Erie production values from test data (wet/dry coal charged/pushed, and total coke) and ratios developed from these data, to be used to estimate production for facilities without complete production data.

3.    CokeOvens-Enclosures-1&2-QA-Whole_Industry-Emissions-Test-Data-Aug_2020 (Excel file)
 All of the previously reviewed (by individual facility) run-by-run stack test (air) data for all pollutants from test facilities and the EPA calculations made using the test data to produce lb HAP/hr and lb HAP/ton coke emission factors for all HAP.
 Industry default emission factors to be used as default for all HAP, for facilities without test data, developed as described for Antimony in Example Emissions Calcs file.
 Battery (physical) dimensions to be reviewed by industry facilities.
 Oven and battery count from the ICR and previous EPA report (2001 BID).
 Same CU (Capacity Utilization) and Erie production worksheets, as described above for the Example Emissions Calcs file.
 All other test data submitted in the ICR, such as water and opacity tests, COG tests, material tests, etc., which may not be completely summarized, as yet, by the EPA.

Next step will be for EPA to use the approach shown in the Example Emission file and data in the Whole Industry Emissions file to generate all HAP emissions for all coke facilities.

If you have any questions before 9/28/20, please contact Gabrielle AND me by email, and one of us will get back to you.

  * EP-1 BP Pushing (CD), EP-9 HNR Pushing (CD), EP-3 BP Combustion Stacks, EP-4 BP Boiler Stacks, EP-6 HRSG Main Stacks, EP-7 HRSG Bypass-Waste Heat Stacks, EP-8 HNR Charging (CD), EP-10 Quench Tower.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.


[Federal Register: March 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 41)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9367-9373]
[DOCID:fr04mr09-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0066; FRL-8401-1]

Fluazifop-P-butyl; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fluazifop-P-butyl in or on beans, dry, seed; peanut; peanut, meal and
soybean, seed. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective March 4, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 4, 2009, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0066. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne I. Miller, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: miller.joanne
@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations
at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site
at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the OPPTS Harmonized
Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines
at http://www.epa.gpo/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of 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-2008-0066 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178
on or before May 4, 2009.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0066, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 6, 2008 (73 FR 6964) (FRL-8350-
9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
7F7289) by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro,
NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.411 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide fluazifop-P-
butyl, butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, in or on dry beans at 25 parts per
million (ppm); peanuts at 1.5 ppm; soybean at 2.5 ppm; soybean meal at
2.5 ppm; and soybean refined oil at 0.01 ppm. That notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., the
registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, http://
www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing.
EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the field trial data supporting the petition
and to harmonize with the Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary at http://
www.epa.gov/opphed01/foodfeed/index.htm. EPA has amended the commodity
listing to read: Beans, dry, seed at 50 ppm; peanut at 1.5 ppm; peanut,
meal at 2.2 ppm; and soybean, seed at 2.5 ppm. EPA is also editorially
combining the tolerance sections and correcting the tolerance
expressions to delete references to the unresolved isomer fluazifop-
butyl that is no longer a registered pesticide under FIFRA. Background
information is provided in the docket associated fluazifop-P-butyl;
Tolerance Reassessment Decision. The Notice of Availability was
published in the Federal Register of October 21, 2005 (70 FR 61287)
(FRL-7726-2).

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of fluazifop-P-butyl on beans, dry, seed;
peanut; peanut, meal; and soybean, seed at 50 ppm, 1.5 ppm, 2.2 ppm,
2.5 ppm, respectively. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks
associated with establishing tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    In characterizing the toxicity of fluazifop-P-butyl, EPA considered
data on both fluazifop-P-butyl and fluazifop-butyl. Fluazifop-P-butyl
is the purified (R) enantiomer of the mixed isomeric (RS) fluazifop-
butyl product and the data show them to be toxicological equivalent.
Fluazifop-P-butyl has shows no indication of being an eye or skin
irritant in acute or 21-day dermal studies, and is not a skin
sensitizer. Fluazifop-P-butyl does show similar toxicity by both the
inhalation and oral routes because of its metabolization by blood into
the acid form and excretion in this manner. The liver and kidney have
demonstrated to be its target organs expressed for the most part as
liver toxicity in the presence of peroxasome proliferation and
exacerbation of age related kidney toxicity. In general, there were no
carcinogenicity concerns in any acceptable studies in the rat with
fluazifop-butyl or in the hamster for fluazifop-P-butyl. The hamster
was selected for cancer study because liver

peroxasome proliferation more closely resembled what was found for
human liver cells. There were no mutagenicity concerns evident for
fluazifop-butyl or fluazifop-P-butyl. There were no concerns for
neurotoxicity resulting from fluazifop-P-butyl which were evident at
relevant exposure levels. There was also no evidence of clinical signs
which would indicate neurotoxicity or neuropathology in the available
studies as well. Marginal increases in brain weights at termination
were observed in a sub-chronic toxicity study in rats, and in a
carcinogenicity study performed on hamsters, but only at higher doses.
In all, it was concluded that there is no concern for developmental
neurotoxicity resulting from exposure to fluazifop-butyl or fluazifop-
P-butyl.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fluazifop-p-butyl 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 in the document Fluazifop-P-Butyl. Amended Human
Health Risk Assessment to Support Use on Dry Beans, Peanuts, and the
Post-Bloom Application to Soybeans, page 11 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2008-0066.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the Level of Concern (LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fluazifop-P-butyl used
for human risk assessment is discussed at http://www.regulations.gov in
the document Fluazifop-P-Butyl. Amended Human Health Risk Assessment to
Support Use on Dry Beans, Peanuts, and the Post-Bloom Application to
Soybeans, page 11 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0066..

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fluazifop-P-butyl, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing fluazifop-P-butyl
tolerances in (40 CFR 180.411). EPA assessed dietary exposures from
fluazifop-P-butyl in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed all
foods for which there are tolerances (current and proposed) were
treated (100% crop treated (PCT) assumption)) and contain tolerance-
level residues with ratio adjustments to account for additional
metabolites of concern. PCT and/or anticipated residues were not used
in the acute risk assessment.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed average
residue levels observed in applicable field trials and PCT were used.
    iii. Cancer. The Agency has determined that fluazifop-P-butyl is
``not likely to be a human carcinogen'' based on the lack of evidence
of carcinogenicity in rats and hamsters and no mutagenicity concerns.
Therefore, a quantitative exposure assessment to evaluate cancer risk
is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(F)
of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of
food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA, EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency used PCT information as follows: Almonds 100%, asparagus
1%, carrots 10%, nectarines 1%, onions 15%, peaches 1%, pistachios
100%, pomegranates 100%, soybeans 100%, and watermelons 100%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6 years.
EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average
PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available
public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across
all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those
situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases,
1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA
uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT
figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent
6 years of available public and private market survey data for the
existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.

    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which fluazifop-P-butyl may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fluazifop-P-butyl in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of fluazifop-P-butyl. 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 Pesticide Root Zone Model /Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
fluazifop-P-butyl for acute exposures are estimated to be 23.9 parts
per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.59 ppb for ground water. For
chronic exposures assessments are estimated to be 5.1 ppb for surface
water and 0.59 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 23.9 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 5.1 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Fluazifop-P-butyl is currently registered for the following uses
that could result in residential exposures: Lawns, walks, driveways,
and ornamental planting beds. EPA assessed residential exposure using
the following assumptions: Homeowners that apply fluazifop-P-butyl
products may become exposed for short-term durations via the dermal and
inhalation routes. Fluazifop-P-butyl can be used in a number of
residential areas which may be frequented by the general population
such as on home lawns. This provides the potential for short-term
dermal (adults and children) and incidental oral exposure (children)
following residential applications of fluazifop-P-butyl.
    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 fluazifop-P-butyl to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and fluazifop-P-butyl does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
fluazifop-P-butyl 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 website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicity database for fluazifop-P-butyl includes the rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies and the 2-generation reproduction
toxicity study in rats. There is some evidence of quantitative
susceptibility following oral and dermal exposures to rats. Following
in-utero exposures, developmental effects (characterized as delayed
ossification) were seen in the absence of maternal toxicity in two
strains of rats. There is no evidence (quantitative or qualitative) of
susceptibility following in-utero oral exposure in rabbits or in the 2-
generation reproduction toxicity study in rats. No evidence of
neurotoxicity was seen.
    Although increased prenatal and postnatal quantitative
susceptibility was seen in rats, the Agency concluded that there is a
low degree of concern and no residual uncertainties for prenatal and/or
postnatal toxicity effects of fluazifop-P-butyl because:
    i. The short-term dermal and inhalation endpoint of concern
(delayed ossification) is considered to be a developmental delay rather
than a malformation or variation.
    ii. The developmental endpoint of concern (diaphragmatic hernia)
used for assessing acute dietary risk was only found in one of the five
developmental rat toxicity studies conducted.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for fluazifop-P-butyl is complete except
for a confirmatory immunotoxicity study. EPA began requiring functional
immunotoxicity testing of all food and non-food use pesticides on
December 26, 2007. Since this requirement went into effect well after
the tolerance petition was submitted, these studies are not yet
available for fluazifop-P-butyl. In the absence of specific
immunotoxicity studies, EPA has evaluated the available fluazifop-P-
butyl toxicity data to determine whether an additional database
uncertainty factor is needed to account for potential immunotoxicity.
The slight immunotoxicity findings in the chronic dog study are
unreliable due to the fact the dogs were unhealthy and no immunotoxic
effects were noted in the subchronic dog study where the dogs

were healthy. No other potential immunotoxicity effects were evident in
the toxicity database for fluazifop-P-butyl. The liver and kidney are
the primary target organs and the most sensitive species is the rat
(due to longer retention time of the major metabolite in this species).
Based on these considerations, EPA does not believe that conducting a
special series 870.7800 immunotoxicity study will result in a point of
departure less than the NOAEL of 0.74 milligram/kilogram/day used in
calculating the cPAD for fluazifop-P-butyl; therefore, an additional
database uncertainty factor is not needed to account for potential
immunotoxicity.
    ii. There is no indication that fluazifop-P-butyl is a neurotoxic
chemical at relevant exposure levels and there is no need for a
developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
    iii. There are no residual uncertainties for prenatal and/or
postnatal toxicity.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The chronic dietary food exposure assessments were performed
based on reliable data on average residue levels observed in applicable
field trials and PCT. Chronic exposure will not be underestimated. EPA
made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface
water modeling used to assess exposure to fluazifop-P-butyl 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 fluazifop-P-butyl.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to fluazifop-P-butyl will occupy 12.1% of the aPAD for (females 13-49
years old) the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
fluazifop-P-butyl from food and water will utilize 74.9% of the cPAD
for (children 1-2 years old) the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
fluazifop-P-butyl 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).
    Fluazifop-P-butyl is currently registered for uses that could
result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and
water with short-term residential exposures to fluazifop-P-butyl.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate margins of
exposure (MOEs) of 150 for the general U.S. population, 150 for adult
females and 240 for children; all below EPA's level of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Fluazifop-P-butyl is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Therefore, the
intermediate-term aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from exposure
to fluazifop-P-butyl through food and water, which has already been
addressed, and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to fluazifop-P-butyl residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

    There are no Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) established for
fluazifop residues. Canada has established a 1 ppm tolerance for
fluazifop-butyl calculated as the acid in soybeans, and a Mexico MRL is
established for fluazifop-p-butyl in soya at 1 ppm. The proposed U.S.
tolerances cannot be harmonized with the Canadian or Mexican MRLs for
soybean, because higher residues were observed in the U.S. crop field
trials.

C. Response to Comments

    Public comments were received from B. Sachau who objected to the
proposed tolerances because of the amounts of pesticides already
consumed and carried by the American population. She further indicated
that testing conducted on animals have absolutely no validity and are
cruel to the test animals. B. Sachau's comments contained no scientific
data or evidence to rebut the Agency's conclusion that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to fluazifop-P-butyl, including all anticipated dietary exposures and
all other exposures for which there is reliable information. EPA has
responded to B. Sachau's generalized comments on numerous previous
occasions, 70 FR 1349-1354 (January 7, 2005); 69 FR 63083- 63096
(October 29, 2004).

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fluazifop-P-
butyl, butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and the free and conjugated forms of
the resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid, expressed as fluazifop, in or on
beans, dry, seed; peanut; peanut, meal; and soybean, seed at 50 ppm,
1.5 ppm, 2.2 ppm, and 2.5 ppm, respectively.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory

Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final
rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this
final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order
13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: February 12, 2009.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.411 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.411  Fluazifop-P-butyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide, fluazifop-P-butyl, butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and the free and conjugated forms of
the resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid, expressed as fluazifop, in or on
the following commodities:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Commodity                                            Parts per million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beans, dry, seed......................................                                                        50
Carrot, roots.........................................                                                       2.0
Cattle, fat...........................................                                                      0.05
Cattle, meat..........................................                                                      0.05
Cattle, meat byproducts...............................                                                      0.05
Cotton, oil...........................................                                                       0.2
Cotton, undelinted seed...............................                                                       0.1
Egg...................................................                                                      0.05
Endive................................................                                                       6.0
Fruit, stone..........................................                                                      0.05
Goat, fat.............................................                                                      0.05
Goat, meat............................................                                                      0.05
Goat, meat byproducts.................................                                                      0.05
Hog, fat..............................................                                                      0.05
Hog, meat.............................................                                                      0.05
Hog, meat byproducts..................................                                                      0.05
Horse, fat............................................                                                      0.05
Horse, meat...........................................                                                      0.05
Horse, meat byproducts................................                                                      0.05
Milk..................................................                                                      0.05
Nut, macadamia........................................                                                       0.1
Onion, bulb...........................................                                                       0.5
Peanut................................................                                                       1.5
Peanut, meal..........................................                                                       2.2
Pecans................................................                                                      0.05
Poultry, fat..........................................                                                      0.05
Poultry, meat.........................................                                                      0.05

Poultry, meat byproducts..............................                                                      0.05
Sheep, fat............................................                                                      0.05
Sheep, meat...........................................                                                      0.05
Sheep, meat byproducts................................                                                      0.05
Soybean, seed.........................................                                                       2.5
Spinach...............................................                                                       6.0
Sweet Potato, roots...................................                                                      0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with
regional registrations are established for residues of the herbicide,
fluazifop-P-butyl, butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and the free and conjugated forms of
the resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid, expressed as fluazifop, in or on
the following commodities:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Commodity                                            Parts per million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asparagus.............................................                                                       3.0
Coffee, bean..........................................                                                       0.1
Pepper, tabasco.......................................                                                       1.0
Rhubarb...............................................                                                       0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-4368 Filed 3-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18-19]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33260]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1915

RIN 1218-AB50

General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment; Approval of
Information Collection Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Final rule; notice of Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approval of collection of information requirements.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is announcing that OMB approved the collection of
information requirements contained in the General Working Conditions
Standard under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB approval
number is 1218-0259.

DATES: The rule is effective January 3, 2012. The final rule, published
May 2, 2011 (76 FR 24576), became effective and enforceable on August
1, 2011, except for the provisions in Sec.  1915.89, which became
effective and enforceable on October 31, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney, OSHA, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSHA published a final rule for General
Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment on May 2, 2011 (76 FR 24576),
updating existing requirements to reflect advances in industry
practices and technology, consolidating some general safety and health
requirements into one subpart, and providing hazardous energy
protection not addressed in the existing standard.
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal

Register notice for the General Working Conditions in Shipyard
Employment final rule stated that compliance with the collection of
information requirements was not required until OMB approved these
requirements, and that the Department of Labor would publish a notice
in the Federal Register announcing that OMB approved and assigned a
control number to the requirements. See 76 FR 24695. Under 5 CFR
1320.5(b), an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless: (1) The collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number, and (2) the agency informs those
members of the public who must respond to the collection of information
that they are not required to respond to the collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    On May 2, 2011, OSHA submitted the General Working Conditions in
Shipyard Employment (29 CFR part 1915, subpart F) Information
Collection Request for the final rule to OMB for approval in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). On
October 31, 2011, OMB approved the collections of information contained
in the final rule and assigned this collection OMB Control Number 1218-
0259.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1915

    Occupational safety and health, reporting, Recordkeeping
requirements, Hazards in general working condition in shipyard
employment.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 4-
2010 (75 FR 55355).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on December 22, 2011.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Amendments to Standard

    For the reasons stated in the preamble to the final rule, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration amends 29 CFR part 1915
to read as follows:

PART 1915--[AMENDED]

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
Amend Sec.  1915.8, by adding to the table the entries ``1915.83,
1915.87, 1915.88, and 1915.89'' in the proper numerical sequence as
follows:

Sec.  1915.8  OMB control numbers under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
                     29 CFR citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1915.83.................................................       1218-0259
1915.87.................................................       1218-0259
1915.88.................................................       1218-0259
1915.89.................................................       1218-0259

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

[FR Doc. 2011-33260 Filed 12-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P