FILE NAME:   company.wpd   (1/1/2006)

ATTENTION: All commodity terms must comply with the Food and Feed
Commodity Vocabulary database (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foodfeed/).

COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE

(Template Number P25; 1/1/2006)

EPA Registration Division contact: [Barbara Madden;<PHONE_NUMBER>]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance
petition documents.  In cases where the outline element does not apply
please insert (NA-Remove( and maintain the outline.  The comment notes
that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes
designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document.
Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins,
font, or format in your document. Simply replace the instructions that
appear in italics and brackets, i.e., ([insert company name],( with the
information specific to your action.

[5E7007 and 5E6962 ]

Summary of Petitions

	EPA has received pesticide petitions (5E7007 and 5E6962) from
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 681 U.S. Highway #1
South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390; and Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W.
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 proposing, pursuant to
section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for
residues of isoxadifen-ethyl (ethyl
5,5-diphenyl-2-isoxazoline-3-carboxylate) and its metabolite
4,5-dihydro-5,5,diphenyl-3-isoxazolecarboxylic acid when used as an
inert ingredient (safener) in or on the following raw agricultural
commodities: corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.05
parts per million (ppm), corn, sweet, forage at 0.40 ppm, corn, sweet,
stover at 0.40 ppm, corn, pop, grain at 0.02 ppm, corn, pop, stover at
0.40 ppm, corn, field, forage at 0.20 ppm (increased from existing
tolerance of 0.10 ppm), and corn, field, stover at 0.40 ppm (increased
from existing tolerance of 0.20 ppm); and isoxadifen-ethyl and its
metabolites 4,5-dihydro-5,5,diphenyl-3-isoxazolecarboxylic acid and
β-hydroxy-β-benzenepropanenitrile when used as an inert ingredient
(safener) in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: rice,
grain at 0.10 ppm, rice, hulls at 0.50 ppm, and rice, straw at 0.25 ppm
(request removal of the specified limitation in seasonal application
rate from the existing tolerances).  EPA has determined that the
petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth
in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition.  Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

.  The metabolism of isoxadifen-ethyl (ethyl 5,5-diphenyl-2-
isoxazoline-3-carboxylate) in corn and rice has been investigated and is
understood.  Total residue levels in corn commodities were very low. The
initial metabolic transformation of isoxadifen-ethyl in plants is
hydrolysis of the prominent ester function, yielding the carboxylic
acid, AE F129431 (4,5-dihydro-5,5-diphenyl-3-isoxazolecarboxylic acid),
the principal metabolite in forage, grain and stover. The pathway then
proceeds via hydroxylation of the phenyl ring to AE F162241
(4,5-dihydro-5-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-5-phenyl-3-isoxazolecarboxylic acid)
which was also significant in forage and stover. AE F129431 and AE
F162241 were also identified in a rice metabolism and rat metabolism
study.  The Agency determined that for corn only the parent
isoxadifen-ethyl and the major metabolite isoxadifen acid (AE F129431)
were the residues of concern.  In rice grain, the primary metabolite
identified was AE C637375 (3-hydroxy-3,3-diphenylpropane- nitrile),
which was found only in trace amounts. AE F129431 and its hydroxylated
analogue AE F162241 comprised the major metabolic residue in rice straw.
 AE F129431 and AE F162241 were also identified in a rice metabolism and
rat metabolism study.

.  The analytical targets selected were the parent compound,
isoxadifen-ethyl and the major metabolite isoxadifen acid (AE F129431).
In rice, AE C637375 and AE F162241 are also determined.  After
extraction and cleanup, the analytes are determined by either GC/MS or
HPLC/MS.  The limits of quantification (LOQ) are 0.02 ppm in corn grain,
0.05 ppm in corn forage and stover, and 0.02 ppm in rice.

.  Four popcorn and 12 sweet corn field trials (14 'harvest'; 2
'decline') were conducted to measure the magnitude of isoxadifen-ethyl
residues on corn following treatment with a suspension concentrate
formulation nominally containing 1.75 lb isoxadifen-ethyl safener per
gallon (210 g/L).  Each trial contained one control and two treated
plots.  Two foliar spray applications of the product were made at 24
inch and 36 inch corn height to treated plot A at a target rate of 0.041
lb safener/acre/application (46 g ai/ha).  Treated plot B received one
foliar spray application at 36 inch corn height and one drop nozzle
(directed) spray one week later at the same target application rate.
Spray volumes ranged from 13.1 to 17.4 gal/acre (122 to 163 L/ha).  The
achieved total seasonal rates ranged from 0.081 to 0.086 lb safener/acre
(91 to 96 g/ha) for all treated plots at all test sites.

Following two foliar spray applications to sweet corn at 24 inch and 36
inch height (Treatment A) at a total seasonal target rate of 0.082 lb
safener/acre (92 g safener/ha), the total isoxadifen-ethyl derived
highest average field trial (HAFT) residue was <0.02 ppm, 0.07 ppm, and
0.35 ppm for sweet corn grain, forage, and stover, respectively.
Maximum single residues were <0.02 for sweet corn grain, 0.07 ppm for
forage, and 0.35 ppm for stover.  Following the same treatment regimen
to popcorn, the total isoxadifen-ethyl derived HAFT residue was <0.02
for grain and 0.08 ppm for stover.  Maximum single total
isoxadifen-ethyl derived residues were <0.02 for grain and 0.10 ppm for
stover.

Following one foliar and one directed spray application to sweet corn at
36 inch height and one week later (Treatment B) at a total seasonal
target rate of 0.082 lb safener/acre (92 g safener/ha), the total
isoxadifen-ethyl derived HAFT residue was 0.02 ppm, 0.34 ppm, and 0.34
ppm for sweet corn grain, forage, and stover, respectively.  Maximum
single total isoxadifen-ethyl derived residues were 0.02 for sweet corn
grain, 0.35 ppm for forage, and 0.36 ppm for stover.   Following the
same treatment regimen to popcorn, the total isoxadifen-ethyl derived
HAFT residue was <0.02 for grain and 0.08 ppm for stover.  Maximum
single total isoxadifen-ethyl derived residues were <0.02 ppm for grain
and 0.09 ppm for stover.

For two years (1997 and 1998) trials were conducted in field corn on
fifteen sites in the US and Canada to determine the magnitude of
isoxadifen-ethyl residues on corn following treatment with a
water-dispersible granulate formulation containing nominally 50% (w/w)
isoxadifen-ethyl.

Each site comprised one control and four treated plots.  Three treated
plots received an application at 30 g a.i./ha followed by an application
at 60 g a.i./ha.  The application timing ranged from 12 inch corn to 48
inch corn.  The fourth treated plot in the US received a single
application of 120 g a.i./ha to 48 inch corn.  The fourth plot in Canada
was treated with two times 45 g a.i./ha.  Samples of forage were
collected 45 days after the 48 inch applications, ears alone were
sampled 70 days after the 48 inch applications, and ears and stover were
sampled at maturity.  The samples were analyzed for the parent compound
and its metabolites AE F129431 and AE F 162241.

In the 1997 trials isoxadifen derived residues in corn grain were
limited to four observations of AE F129431 at a maximum of 0.03 ppm.
Residues in stover and forage were limited to sporadic observations of
AE F129431 and AE F162241 at or just above the limits of quantitation
(0.05 ppm).  Residues above 0.1 ppm were confined to isolated
observations of AE F129431 following the 160 g a.i./ha treatment.  A
maximum residue was observed at 0.35 ppm in stover and 0.15 ppm in
forage.  Due to the very low residue levels no decline trends could be
observed.

In the 1998 trials isoxadifen derived residues were limited to sporadic
observations of the metabolites AE F129431 and AE F 162241 in stover
together with four observations of the metabolite AE F 129431 in grain.
AE F129431 reached a maximum of 0.19 ppm in stover (treated with 160 g
a.i./ha) and 0.06 ppm in grain (treated with 30+60 g a.i./ha).  AE
F162241 derived residues reached a maximum of 0.1 ppm in stover (treated
with 160 g a.i./ha).  No residues above the limits of quantitation
(0.02) were found in grain treated with 160 g a.i./ha.

B. Toxicological Profile

.  Isoxadifen ethyl has low acute toxicity:  acute rat oral LD50  1740
mg/kg, acute rat dermal LD50 > 2000 mg/kg, 4 hour rat inhalation LC50
was > 5 mg/L.  Isoxadifen ethyl was slightly irritating to rabbit eyes
and non irritating to rabbit skin.  Based on these results, isoxadifen
ethyl was classified as EPA Category III for oral and dermal toxicity
and eye irritation, and EPA Category IV for inhalation toxicity and
dermal irritation.  Technical isoxadifen ethyl was shown to be a dermal
sensitizer in a guinea pig maximization assay, but no evidence of
sensitization has been observed in a Buehler assay when formulated into
a commercial product.

.  Isoxadifen-ethyl was negative in the:Ames and E. coli reverse
bacterial mutation assays,  in vitro mammalian gene mutation assay in
Chinese hamster lung (V79) cells,  in vivo unscheduled DNA synthesis
assay in rat hepatocytes, and mouse micronucleus assay.  In an in vitro
chromosomal aberrations assay in Chinese hamster lung (V79) cells,
isoxadifen-ethyl was negative without metabolic activation, but positive
with activation only at toxic concentrations.  Thus, the overall weight
of evidence indicates that isoxadifen ethyl does not possess significant
genotoxic activity.

.  Isoxadifen-ethyl is not teratogenic or a reproductive toxicant. A rat
developmental toxicity study was conducted at dose levels of  0, 15, 120
and 1000 mg/kg/day.  Maternal toxicity (including one death) was noted
at 1000 mg/kg/day, as was an increase in resorptions.  Bent scapula or
bent scapula costad were observed at a LOAEL of 120 mg/kg/day which was
a NOAEL for maternal toxicity. The maternal LOAEL was 1,000 mg/kg/day
based on mortality, decreased body weight, weight gain, and food
consumption. The developmental NOAEL was 15 mg/kg/day.  Based on this
study, EPA selected a acute Reference Dose (aRfD) for females 13-50 of
0.15 mg/kg/day.

A rabbit developmental toxicity study was conducted at dose levels of 0,
5, 50 and 500 mg/kg/day.  Maternal effects at 500 mg/kg/day consisted of
decreased food consumption, slight weight loss during gestation days 6
8,  one death, and one dam with two emply implantation sites.  Both the
maternal and developmental NOAELs were 50 mg/kg/day based on increased
mortality (dams) and fragmented caudal vertebrae (fetuses) at the same
LOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day (HDT).

In the 2 generation reproduction study in the rat, administration of
isoxadifen ethyl at 4000 ppm, resulted in parental toxicity in the F0
and F1 generation (both sexes) consisting of reduced body weight,  body
weight gain, food intake and an increase in microscopic kidney lesions.
Decreased F1 pup body weight was associated  with a delay in achievement
of vaginal patency and balanopreputial separation at 4000 ppm. The
reproductive NOAEL was $4000 ppm (HDT). The NOEL for both parental and
neonatal toxicity was 200 ppm, equivalent to an overall mean achieved
intake of about 16.4 mg/kg body weight/day.

In a 90 day rat feeding study, isoxadifen ethyl was administered at
dietary concentrations of 0, 20, 200, 2000 and 4000 ppm.  The NOEL for
this study was considered to be 200 ppm (approximately 13.8 mg/kg/day)
based on decreased body weight and body weight gain at 2000 ppm, and
decreased weight gain, increased liver weights and centrilobular
hepatocyte enlargement at 4000 ppm.

In a 90 day feeding study in mice, isoxadifen ethyl was administered at
dietary concentrations of 13, 125, 1250 and 2500 ppm.  At the top 2 dose
levels,  decreased kidney weights, increased liver weights, and
histopathological changes in the liver (centrilobular hepatocyte
enlargement,  vacuolation and fatty deposits) were noted.  The NOEL for
this study was 125 ppm (approximately 19.8 mg/kg/day).

In a 90 day dog feeding study,  isoxadifen ethyl was administered to
beagle dogs at dietary concentrations of 0, 25, 125 and 1000 ppm.
Dietary administration of 1000 ppm isoxadifen ethyl exceeded the maximum
tolerated dose (MTD), and it was concluded that 700 ppm would be a
suitable high dose level for a chronic dog study. The NOEL for this 90
day study was considered to be 25 ppm (approximately 1.2 mg/kg/day)
based on fat deposits in the collecting ducts of the kidney and aspermia
(males) and decreased body weight gain, differences in various
hematological parameters and moderate fat deposits in the collecting
duct of the kidneys (females).

. Chronic toxicity has been assessed in  the rat, mouse and the dogIn
the rat combined chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study the liver was
the target organ as evidenced by increases in liver weight and
centrilobular hepatocyte hypertrophy. The no effect level was 200 ppm
(10 mg/kg/day). In the mouse carcinogenicity study, the NOAEL was 16.6
mg/kg/d in males and 202.5 mg/kg/d in females, based on significantly
decreased survival in males at 169.6 mg/kg/day and females at 407.3
mg/kg/d.  There was no evidence of carcinogenicity. In the chronic dog
study, the NOAEL was 3.3 mg/kg/day (males) and 3.6 mg/kg/day(females).
The LOAEL was 24 mg/kg/d based on increased blood creatinine in females,
decreased urinary specific gravity (both sexes), increased partial
thromboplastin time (both sexes) and increased incidence and severity of
straight tubule vacuolation in the kidney of both sexes.The dog is the
most sensitive species. Based on the dog, EPA selected a chronic
Reference Dose (cRfD) for isoxadifen ethyl of 0.033 mg/kg/day. No
carcinogenic activity was detected in dogs, mice and rats at the Maximum
Tolerated Dose (MTD). Isoxadifen ethyl is not oncogenic in dogs, rats or
mice and is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans.  Isoxadifen ethyl
was classified as a "Not likely to be a human carcinogen@ based on the
lack of carcinogenicity in rats and mice.

. The metabolism of isoxadifen-ethyl has been determined in the rat and
dog. In both species the main metabolic route was hydrolysis of the
ester to yield the free acid AE F129431
(5,5-diphenyl-2-isoxazoline-3-carboxylic acid), which is the same as
observed in plants. This was the only significant metabolic route in the
dog following either gavage or dietary dosing. In the rat there was an
additional metabolic route which led to the formation of a hydroxylated
free acid, AE F162241
(4,5-dihydro-5-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-5-phenyl-3-isoxazolecarboxylic acid),
also a plant metabolite. This was a major metabolic route in male rats,
particular at the low-dose, but was only a minor metabolic route in
female rats. Unchanged isoxadifen-ethyl was only excreted in trace
amounts in the faeces. There were a number of minor (< 3%) polar
metabolites also excreted, which were not identified. A further plant
metabolite AE C637375 ( -hydroxy- -benzenepropanenitrile) was also shown
to be a trace metabolite in the rat.

The metabolism of isoxadifen-ethyl in ruminants is adequately
understood.  A dairy cow was dosed with the compound at a level
equivalent to 11.52 ppm in the diet for 7 days.  Total residue levels
were very low.  Parent compound was seen in fats and milk only. The
carboxylic acid, AE F129431, was the major metabolite identified in all
of the tissues, with traces also being found in the milk.

The metabolism of isoxadifen-ethyl in poultry is also adequately
understood. Laying hens were fed the compound at a level equivalent to
11 ppm in the diet for 14 days.  Residue levels were low in all
commodities.  The vast majority of the dose was excreted as AE F129431,
with smaller amounts of AE F162241 and isoxadifen-ethyl.  AE F129431 was
the major metabolite identified in all of the tissues and yolks.  Trace
amounts of isoxadifen-ethyl and AE F162241 were detected in liver and
eggs with isoxadifen-ethyl also being detected in the muscle. The
metabolic profile of isoxadifen-ethyl in the hen was similar to that
seen in the cow and rat.

. [NA Remove.]

.  No special studies have been conducted to investigate the potential
of isoxadifen-ethyl to induce estrogenic or other endocrine effects.
However, no evidence of estrogenic or other endocrine effects have been
noted in any of the standard toxicology studies that have been conducted
with this product and there is no reason to suspect that any such
effects would be likely.

C. Aggregate Exposure

. Isoxadifen-ethyl will be used as a herbicide safener for use on rice
and corn, including popcorn and sweet corn, as well as on turf.

.  Acute and chronic dietary analyses were conducted to estimate
exposure to potential isoxadifen-ethyl derived residues in/on corn,
including sweet corn and popcorn, and rice.  A Tier One analysis was
conducted using the DEEM-FCID( software and the 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII
food consumption data. It was assumed that residues were at established
and proposed tolerance levels in rice (0.1 ppm), field corn grain (0.1
ppm), popcorn grain (0.05 ppm), and sweet corn grain (0.05 ppm) and that
100% of all crop was treated. Additionally, based on the results from
appropriate studies, it was assumed that there was no concentration into
processed commodities and that contributions from residues in meat, milk
or eggs are not required. An acute RfD of 0.15 mg/kg/day for females
13-50 years old was based on the rat developmental toxicity study and an
100x uncertainty factor.  A chronic RfD of 0.033 mg/kg /day was derived
from the NOEL of 3.3 mg/kg /day in the most sensitive species, dog.
Using these inputs the acute dietary exposure estimate for females 13-50
years old was 0.000381 mg/kg/day or 0.25 % of the aPAD.  The chronic
dietary exposure estimate from residues of isoxadifen-ethyl for the US
Population was 0.000173 mg/kg /day or 0.5% of its cPAD.  For the
sub-population with the highest exposure, children 3-5 years old, the
chronic dietary exposure estimate from residues of Isoxadifen-ethyl was
0.000394 mg/kg /day, or 1.2 % of its cPAD. These values are highly
conservative, having been based on worst case assumptions of tolerance
level residues and 100% of the crop treated.

. US EPA's Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Drinking Water
Exposure and Risk Assessments was used to perform the drinking water
assessment.  This SOP uses a variety of tools to conduct drinking water
assessment.   These tools include water models such as SCI-GROW, GENEEC,
PRZMS/EXAMS, and monitoring data.  If monitoring data are not available
then the models are used to predict potential residues in surface and
ground water and the highest is assumed to be the drinking water
residue.  In the case of isoxadifen-ethyl monitoring data do not exist
therefore model calculations were used to estimate a water residue.  The
calculated drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOC) for acute and
chronic exposures for all subgroups greatly exceed the estimated
drinking water concentrations from the models.  The acute DWLOC for
females 13-50 is 8977 ppb, the chronic DWLOC for adults is 1148 ppb.
The chronic DWLOC for children/toddlers is 326 ppb.  EPA calculated
estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) for surface water of 80
and 40 ppb (acute and chronic values), and for groundwater of 5 ppb (HED
review D2296540 from 02-Dec-2003).

.  Exposure to isoxadifen-ethyl for the mixer/loader/ground boom/aerial
applicator was calculated using the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database
(PHED) for liquid and dry flowable formulations.  It was assumed that
the product would be applied to a maximum of 200 acres per day by ground
boom applicator and 1200 acres per day by aerial applicator at a maximum
use rate of 0.71 pounds ai per acre (equivalent to 80 grams ai per
hectare).  Normal work attire consisting of long sleeved shirt, long
pants, and protective gloves were assumed in the PHED assessments.
Short term margins of exposure (MOEs) for a 70 kg operator were
calculated utilizing an oral NOAEL of 13.8 mg/kg body weight/day from
the 90 day rat feeding study.  Intermediate term MOEs were calculated
utilizing an intermediate term NOAEL of 3.3 mg/kg body weight/day from
the dog chronic toxicity study.  A 14 % dermal absorption value was used
for all dermal exposures.  The combined short term MOEs (inhalation plus
dermal) for persons mixing, loading, and applying isoxadifen-ethyl with
open cab ground boom equipment were 9,600 and 5,400 for liquid and dry
flowable formulations, respectively.  The combined intermediate term
MOEs (inhalation plus dermal) for persons mixing, loading, and applying
isoxadifen-ethyl with open cab ground boom equipment were 2,300 and
1,300 for liquid and dry flowable formulations, respectively.  For
aerial application, where the mixer/loader was assumed to be a different
operator from the pilot, combined short term MOEs for the mixer/loader
were 2,600 and 1,100 for liquid and dry flowable formulations,
respectively.  The combined intermediate term MOEs for the mixer/loader
were 610 and 270 for liquid and dry flowable formulations, respectively.
 Combined short term and intermediate term MOEs for pilots were 15,000
and 3,500, independent of formulation type.  Post-application exposure
to workers reentering corn fields treated with isoxadifen-ethyl was
estimated using a default dislodgeable foliar residue of 20% of the
application rate and a 1000 cm2/hr transfer coefficient for scouting and
irrigation from HED Exposure SAC Policy 3.1.  An 8-hour work day, and a
70 kg worker were assumed.  The short term MOE of 5,400 was calculated
utilizing an oral NOAEL of 13.8 mg/kg body weight/day from the 90 day
rat feeding study and a 14 percent dermal absorption value.  The results
indicate no unacceptable risk for the proposed use of isoxadifen-ethyl.

Isoxadifen-ethyl may also be used on turf, which could result in
residential exposures. EPA (Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 102 /
Wednesday, May 26, 2004, 29882 - 29890) published the following risk
assessment:  The proposed turf use is intended for professional
application to Bermudagrass on golf courses, sod farms, residential and
commercial site lawns, parks, recreational facilities, and similar
sites. It is not intended for use by homeowners or other nonprofessional
applications. Therefore, residential mixer/loader and applicator
exposures are not anticipated. The following short-term post-application
residential exposures are anticipated: Adult (dermal - golf course and
residential lawn), children (dermal -residential lawn), and toddler
(dermal and incidental oral - residential lawn). However, dermal
exposures for golfers are considered to be less than those resulting
from a residential turf application, and were therefore not assessed.
Hand to mouth (HTM), object to mouth (OTM), and soil hand to mouth
short-term incidental oral exposures may occur as a result of the
proposed turf use. However, the soil hand to mouth exposure is
considered to be very small in comparison to the other exposures. MOEs
were estimated to be 790 (for a 15 kg child) and 1,500 (for an adult).
MOEs greater than 100 are not of concern.

D. Cumulative Effects

	There is no information to indicate that isoxadifen-ethyl may share a
common mechanism of toxicity with any other chemical.  Thus, this
assessment was not needed.

E. Safety Determination

. Using the conservative assumptions described above, based on the
completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, it is concluded that
aggregate exposure, in this case food only, to the proposed uses of
isoxadifen-ethyl will utilize at most 0.5% of the reference dose for the
US Population.  The actual exposure is likely to be much less as more
realistic data and models are developed.  EPA generally has no concern
for exposures below 100% of the RfD because the RfD represents the level
at or below which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose
appreciable risk to human health.  Drinking water levels of comparison
based on the dietary exposure are much greater than highly conservative
estimated levels, and would be expected to be well below the 100% level
of the RfD, if they occur at all.  Therefore, there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will occur to the US Population from aggregate
exposure (food and drinking water) to isoxadifen-ethyl.

. No evidence of increased sensitivity to fetuses was noted in
developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits.  There has been no
indication of reproductive effects or indication of increased
sensitivity to the offspring in the 2 generation rat reproduction study.
 No additional safety factor to protect infants and children is
necessary as there is no evidence of increased sensitivity in infants
and children.

Using the conservative assumptions described in the exposure section
above, the percent of the reference dose that will be used for exposure
to residues of isoxadifen-ethyl in food for children 3-5 years old (the
most highly exposed sub group) is 1.2%.  As in the adult situation,
drinking water levels of comparison are much higher than the worst case
drinking water estimated concentrations and are expected to use well
below 100% of the reference dose, if they occur at all.  Therefore,
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to residues of isoxadifen-ethyl.

F. International Tolerances

	There are no Codex Alimentarius Commission (CODEX) maximum residue
levels (MRLs) established for residues of isoxadifen-ethyl.

 PAGE  9

{<HD2>}

{<HD1>}

{<P>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=(03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}


[Federal Register: October 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 52522-52523]
[DOCID:fr13oc09-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60794; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-084]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Potential Payment Amounts Available Under Nasdaq Rule 4626

October 6, 2009.
    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 September 25, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``Nasdaq'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as effecting a change
described under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to modify potential payment amounts available under Nasdaq Rule 4626.
Nasdaq will implement the proposed rule change effective November 1,
2009. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics and proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
4626. Limitation of Liability
    (a) No Change.
    (b) Nasdaq, subject to the express limits set forth below, may
compensate users of the Nasdaq Market Center for losses directly
resulting from the systems' actual failure to correctly process an
order, Quote/Order, message, or other data, provided the Nasdaq Market
Center has acknowledged receipt of the order, Quote/Order, message, or
data.
    [(1) For one or more claims made by a single market participant
related to the use of the Nasdaq Market Center on a single trading day,
Nasdaq's liability shall not exceed the larger of $100,000, or the
amount of any recovery obtained by Nasdaq under any applicable
insurance policy.]
    [(2) For the aggregate of all claims made by all market
participants related to the use of the Nasdaq Market Center on a single
trading day, Nasdaq's liability shall not exceed the larger of
$250,000, or the amount of the recovery obtained by Nasdaq under any
applicable insurance policy.]
    [(3)] (1) For the aggregate of all claims made by all market
participants related to the use of the Nasdaq Market Center during a
single calendar month, Nasdaq's liability shall not exceed the larger
of $500,000, or the amount of the recovery obtained by Nasdaq under any
applicable insurance policy.
    [(4)] (2) In the event all of the claims arising out of the use of
the Nasdaq Market Center cannot be fully satisfied because in the
aggregate they exceed the maximum amount of liability provided for in
this Rule, then the maximum amount will be proportionally allocated
among all such claims arising [on a single trading day, or] during a
single calendar month [, as applicable].
    [(5)] (3) All claims for compensation pursuant to this Rule shall
be in writing and must be submitted no later than [the opening of
trading] 12 p.m. ET on the next business day following the day on which
the use of the Nasdaq Market Center gave rise to such claims. Nothing
in this rule shall obligate Nasdaq to seek recovery under any
applicable insurance policy.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Currently, Nasdaq provides a limited exception to its general
limitation of liability rules that allows for the payment of claims to
users for order processing failures in the Nasdaq Market Center. Nasdaq
proposes to modify its process for allocating such payments and extend
the time period for users to submit such claims. Under the proposal,
Nasdaq will eliminate the $100,000 and $250,000 daily caps on liability
and consider all such claims on a monthly basis subject to the already
existing $500,000 monthly liability cap. If the total amount of all
claims from all users in a calendar month exceeds the $500,000 monthly
liability cap, the $500,000 maximum monthly dollar amount will be
proportionally allocated among all such claims as set forth in the
current rule.
    Nasdaq is also proposing to extend, until 12 noon ET on the next
business day following the day on which the use of the Nasdaq Market
Center gives rise to a claim, the time period during which claims
seeking compensation must be submitted.
    As Nasdaq analyzes total eligible liability claims on a per-month
look-back basis, the proposal, in effect, would allow Nasdaq an
increased capability to compensate a market participant(s) up to the
monthly cap of $500,000 even though the losses occurred on a single day
or were across multiple days for a single participant. The expansion of
time to make such compensation claims likewise increases the ability of
market participants to submit claims in a timely manner. Finally,
Nasdaq notes that other market centers have rules in place to provide

limited compensation for system malfunctions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 13.2 and ISE Rule 705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, 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. As Nasdaq
analyzes total eligible liability claims on a per-month look-back
basis, the proposal, in effect, would allow Nasdaq an increased
capability to compensate a market participant(s) up to the monthly cap
of $500,000 even though the losses occurred on a single day or were
across multiple days for a single participant. The expansion of time to
make such compensation claims likewise increases the ability of market
participants to submit claims in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \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
result in 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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act\7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)\8\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
Nasdaq has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-084 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-084. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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 Nasdaq. 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-084 and should be
submitted on or before November 3, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24515 Filed 10-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16384-16385]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07029]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OEI-2011-0096; FRL-9924-15-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information

collection request (ICR), ``Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule
(Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2002.06, OMB Control No. 2025-0003) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through April 30, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register (79 FR 65391) on November 4, 2014 during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 27,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OEI-2011-0096, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, Office of Environmental
Information, (2823T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-
1175; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The scope of this ICR is the electronic reporting
components of CROMERR, which is designed to: (i) Allow EPA to comply
with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998; (ii) provide a
uniform, technology-neutral framework for electronic reporting across
all EPA programs; (iii) allow EPA programs to offer electronic
reporting as they become ready for CROMERRR; and (iv) provide states
with a streamlined process--together with a uniform set of standards--
for approval of their electronic reporting provisions for all their
EPA-authorized programs. In order to accommodate CBI, the information
collected must be in accordance with the confidentiality regulations
set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Additionally, EPA will ensure
that the information collection procedures comply with the Privacy Act
of 1974 and the OMB Circular 108.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities that report electronically
to EPA and state or local government authorized programs; and state and
local government authorized programs implementing electronic reporting.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a
benefit (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) established to
ensure compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act
(GPEA)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 102,387 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 49,604 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,995,642 (per year), including $1,121,481
in annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 9,841 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase occurred due to a change in the
respondent burden estimation based on data from the previous ICR.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-07029 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 36 (Thursday, February 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11482-11485]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03481]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0014; FRL-10020-56-Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (SJVUAPCD or ``the District'') portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns
emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and particulate matter
(PM) from

indirect sources associated with new development projects as well as
NOX and PM emissions from certain transportation and transit
development projects. We are proposing to approve a local rule to
regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the
Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a
final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0014 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: La Kenya Evans, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                Rule No.           Rule title              Amended            Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..........................            9510  Indirect Source        12/21/17 (effective          05/23/18
                                                     Review.                March 21, 2018).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 23, 2018, the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 was
deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR
part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 9510 into the SIP on May 9,
2011 (76 FR 26609). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved
version on December 21, 2017, and the CARB submitted the revised rule
to the EPA on May 23, 2018. If we take final action to approve the
December 21, 2017 version of Rule 9510, this version will replace the
previously approved version of this rule in the SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

    Emissions of NOX contribute to the production of ground-
level ozone, smog and PM, which harm human health and the environment.
Emissions of PM, including PM equal to or less than 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM2.5) and PM equal to or less than 10 microns in
diameter (PM10), contribute to effects that are harmful to
human health and the environment, including premature mortality,
aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung
function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and
ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit
regulations that control NOX and PM emissions.
    Rule 9510 is an indirect source review (ISR) rule that establishes
a mechanism to reduce or offset emissions of NOX and
PM10 in the San Joaquin Valley from the construction and use
of development projects through design features, on-site measures, and
off-site measures. The rule requires applicants of new development
projects to reduce operational and construction equipment
NOX and PM10 emissions by specific percentages,
as compared to an unmitigated baseline. The rule requires applicants to
incorporate design features and on-site measures into the development
project or pay a mitigation fee for emissions in excess of the
requirement. SJVUAPCD uses the fees to fund off-site emission reduction
projects.
    The SIP-approved version of the rule applies to project applicants
seeking ``final discretionary approval'' for a development project.
However, through implementation of the existing rule, the District has
found that projects subject to final discretionary approval can vary
between public agencies for the same type of project, especially large
development projects. SJVUAPCD modified Rule 9510 to ensure the rule is
applied consistently to all large development projects in the San
Joaquin Valley by adding additional applicability criteria for large
development projects and making clarifying and editorial changes to the
rule. ``Grandfathered Large Development Projects'' and previously
exempt large development projects that received a building permit,
conditional use permit, or other similar approval by March 21, 2018,
remain exempt from this rule. The EPA's technical support document
(TSD) has more information about this rule.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA

requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP
control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent
or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
    The San Joaquin Valley is currently designated and classified as an
Extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment area and an Extreme 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area under the 1997, 2008, and 2015 standards (40 CFR
81.305). CAA section 172(c)(1) requires ozone nonattainment areas to
implement all reasonably available control measures (RACM), including
such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may
be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available
control technology (RACT), as expeditiously as practicable. CAA
sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) specify that implementation of RACT under
CAA section 172(c)(1) is required for all major stationary sources of
NOX in the area.
    Generally, SIP rules must implement Best Available Control Measures
(BACM), including Best Available Control Technology (BACT), in Serious
PM2.5 nonattainment areas (see CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)).
The SJVUAPCD regulates a PM2.5 nonattainment area classified
as Serious for the PM2.5 for the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 standards and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards (40 CFR 81.305). A BACM and BACT evaluation is generally
performed in context of a broader plan. The area is currently
designated attainment for PM10. Accordingly, SJVUAPCD is not
required to implement BACM or BACT for PM10 and
PM10 precursors.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January
11, 1990).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    In our May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26609) final rule approval of Rule 9510
into the SIP, we identified a number of concerns about the
enforceability of the rule's provisions, e.g., provisions that allow
project developers to pay a fee instead of implementing on-site
pollution mitigation plans, and noted that the State would need to
resolve these enforceability issues before relying on this rule for
credit in an attainment plan. The District has not addressed these
concerns in the submitted rule, and we therefore continue to conclude
that the rule does not qualify for emission reduction credit for the
purpose of any attainment or progress demonstration in any area.
    As described above, the District revised the rule applicability to
include large development projects that are not currently subject to
the rule and made editorial and clarifying changes. The revisions are
generally clear and strengthen the rule. In addition to addressing the
enforceability concerns outlined in our prior action, if the District
plans to rely on emission reductions from this rule for attainment or
progress demonstrations, the District should revise section 3.17 to
further clarify which ``Grandfathered Large Development Projects'' are
exempt from the rule by quantifying ``substantial loss'' and include
other specific criteria that would allow for these provisions to be
applied in a consistent and replicable manner.
    With respect to rule stringency, we note that Rule 9510 is an ISR
rule, and that EPA is prohibited by the CAA from requiring states and
local air agencies to include ISR programs in SIPs.\1\ Because EPA
cannot require a state or local air agency to adopt and implement an
ISR program, the EPA cannot require that such a program meet any
particular level of stringency. Therefore, we are not evaluating
amended Rule 9510 for compliance with the RACM/RACT or BACM/BACT
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAA section 110(a)(5)(A)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We conclude the rule is consistent with the relevant requirements,
policy, and guidance regarding SIP relaxations since the rule revisions
add further applicability and strengthen the current SIP-approved rule.
However, we continue to conclude that the rule is not fully consistent
with the relevant requirements, policy, and guidance on enforceability.
While Rule 9510 does not meet all the evaluation criteria for
enforceability, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rule
because it would strengthen the SIP compared to the current SIP-
approved rule. In light of the deficiencies identified in our prior
action and above, we continue to conclude that the rule should not be
credited in any attainment and rate of progress/reasonable further
progress demonstrations. The TSD has more information on our
evaluation.

C. The EPA's Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD includes recommendations for the next time the local agency
modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rule. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal until March 29, 2021. If we take final action
to approve the submitted rule, our final action will incorporate this
rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, 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 the 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 and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 16, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-03481 Filed 2-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32849]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2100-187]

California Department of Water Resources; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Request for temporary change in
recreational trail designation.
    b. Project No.: 2100-187.
    c. Date Filed: July 5, 2018.
    d. Applicant: California Department of Water Resources.
    e. Name of Project: Feather River Project.
    f. Location: Feather River in Butte County, California.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Gwen Knittweis, California Department of
Water Resources, 1416 Ninth Street, P.O. Box 942836, Sacramento, CA
94236,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Hillary Berlin,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is August 3, 2018. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using
the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/doc-sfiling/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2100-187.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission
approval to temporarily re-designate portions of the Brad Freeman,
Bidwell Canyon, Dad Beebe, and Loafer Loop recreational trails to
multi-use until the reopening of the Spillway Recreation Facilities in
2019. The proposed re-designation would allow equestrian use on
portions of specific trails currently designated for bicycle/hiker use
only, and bicyclist use of portions of specific trails currently
designated for equestrian/hiker use only. Any comments relating to
project relicensing are not within the scope of this public notice and
subsequent analysis.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. 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, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Motions to Intervene, or Protests: Anyone may submit
comments, a motion to intervene, or a protest in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, motions to
intervene, or protests must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE, as
applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and
the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person
commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with
the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary
basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of
service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: July 10, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15122 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62549-62550]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21738]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Eleventh RTCA SC-228 Minimum Performance Standards (MPS) for UAS
Plenary Session

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

ACTION: Eleventh RTCA SC-228 Minimum Performance Standards (MPS) for
UAS Plenary Session.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Eleventh RTCA SC-228 Minimum Performance Standards (MPS) for
UAS Plenary Session.

DATES: The meeting will be held October 03-07, 2016 09:00 a.m.-04:30
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Secen at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
202-330-0647, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910,
Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at (202)
833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Eleventh RTCA SC-228 Minimum
Performance Standards (MPS) for UAS Plenary Session The agenda will
include the following:

SC-228 Plenary #11 Agenda

October 3, 2016

Working Group Breakout Sessions

October 4, 2016

Working Group Breakout Sessions

October 5, 2016

Working Group Breakout Sessions

October 6, 2016

Working Group Breakout Sessions

October 7, 2016

Plenary Session
    1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks/SC-228
Participation Guidelines
    a. Reading of the Public Announcement by the DFO
    b. Reading of the RTCA Proprietary References Policy
    2. Agenda Overview
    3. Review/Approval of Minutes From Plenary #10

    4. Review of RTCA Steering Committee Activity
    5. Report From WG-1 for DAA MOPS
    a. DAA MOPS Document Approval
    b. Air-to-Air Radar MOPS Document Approval
    6. Report From WG-2, C2
    7. Report From Phase 2 TOR WG
    8. Action Item Review
    9. Other Business
    10. Date, Place and Time of Next Meeting(s)

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 6, 2016.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17,
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-21738 Filed 9-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P