[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 104 (Friday, May 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32377-32378]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2894-013]

Flambeau Hydro, LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 Federal Register
47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for
a subsequent license for the Black Brook Hydroelectric Project (FERC
Project No. 2894-013), located on the Apple River in Polk County,
Wisconsin. The project does not occupy federal land.
    The environmental assessment (EA) analyzes the potential
environmental effects of continuing to operate the project, and
concludes that issuing a subsequent license for the project, with
appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major
federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    The Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's Home
Page (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. At this time, the Commission has
suspended access to Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13,
2020. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. 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.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please
file comments 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/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, please contact Michael Davis by phone at
(202) 502-8339, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 22, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-11581 Filed 5-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 48259]
[DOCID:fr22se09-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1329-000]

NaturEner Power Watch, LLC; Notice of Filing

September 15, 2009.
    Take notice that, on September 11, 2009, NaturEner Power Watch, LLC
filed to supplement its filing in the above captioned docket with
information required under the Commission's regulations. Such filing
served to reset the filing date in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 2, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22705 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38333-38334]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14513-003]

Idaho Irrigation District, Sweden Irrigation District; Notice of
Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and
Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments,
Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary
Fishway Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: 14513-003.
    c. Date filed: September 29, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Idaho Irrigation District, New Sweden Irrigation
District (Districts).
    e. Name of Project: County Line Road Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed project would be located on the Snake
River in Jefferson and Bonneville Counties, Idaho. The project would
not affect federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Nicholas Josten, 2742 Saint Charles Ave.,
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83404;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Matt Cutlip,<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary
prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply
comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary
terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the
Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eFiling.aspx. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/Quick Comment.aspx. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-14513-003.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. Project Description: The proposed project would utilize water
diverted from the Snake River at an existing diversion dam located 10
miles upstream of Idaho Falls. Currently the diversion dam diverts
irrigation water for agricultural purposes into the existing Idaho
Canal on the east side of the river and Great Western Canal on the west
side of the river. Under the proposed project, the Districts would
enlarge the canals by raising the banks of each by an additional 1 to 3
feet to increase their capacity and then divert up to 1,000 cubic feet
per second (cfs) of additional flow into each canal for power
generation. On the east side of the Snake River, flows for power
generation would be diverted into the Idaho Canal and conveyed about
3.1 miles to a new East Side Powerhouse and then discharged back to the
Snake River. On the west side of the Snake River, flows for power
generation would be diverted into the Great Western Canal and conveyed
about 3.5 miles to a new West Side Powerhouse and then discharged back
to the Snake River. The Districts propose to maintain a 1,000-cfs
minimum flow in the 3.5-mile-long segment of the Snake River bypassed
by the project whenever the project is operating. The total capacity of
both powerhouses would be 2.5 megawatts (MW), with a 1.2-MW capacity
for the single Kaplan turbine in the East Side Powerhouse and a 1.3-MW
capacity for the single Kaplan turbine in the West Side Powerhouse. The
average annual generation is expected to be 18.3 gigawatt-hours. The
project would also include two new 12.5-kilovolt transmission lines,
extending 2,500 feet and 400 feet from the East Side and West Side
Powerhouses, respectively, to the interconnection points with the
existing electrical distribution system.
    m. The Commission provides all interested persons with an
opportunity to view and/or print the application via the internet
through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this
time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),

issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .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, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (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 protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application 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 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
    o. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following
revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made
as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of recommendations,             September 2021.
 preliminary terms and conditions,
 and preliminary fishway
 prescriptions.
Commission issues Draft EA or EIS....  April 2022.
Comments on Draft EA or EIS..........  May 2022.
Modified Terms and Conditions........  July 2022.
Commission Issues Final EA or EIS....  October 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) A copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification. Please note
that the certification request must comply with 40 CFR 121.5(b),
including documentation that a pre-filing meeting request was submitted
to the certifying authority at least 30 days prior to submitting the
certification request. Please also note that the certification request
must be sent to the certifying authority and to the Commission
concurrently.
    q. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application
must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention
deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of
intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of
intent allows an interested person to file the competing development
application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention
deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be
accepted in response to this notice.
    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address,
and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an
unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A
notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this
public notice.

    Dated: July 14, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15404 Filed 7-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 178)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47440-47445]
[DOCID:fr16se09-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0624; FRL-8431-1]

Boscalid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
boscalid in or on coffee, green bean imported and amends the tolerance
for banana, imported. BASF, Inc., requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This regulation is also a
removing tolerance for cucumber, and one tolerance for vegetable, root,
subgroup 1A, except sugar beet, garden beet, radish, and turnip which
are superceded with higher tolerances formerly published in the Federal
Register of March 28, 2008 (73 FR 16553) (FRL-8354-4).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 16, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 16, 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-2008-0624. 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: Bryant Crowe, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to 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 cite at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

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-2008-0624 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 November 16, 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-2008-0624, 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 Tolerances

    In the Federal Register of November 5, 2008 (73 FR 65849) (FRL-
8385-1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP
8E7366, PP 8E7367) by BASF Corporation, P.O. Box 13528, 26 Davis Drive,
Research Triangle, NC 27709. The petitions requested that 40 CFR
180.589 be amended by increasing the tolerance for residues of the
fungicide boscalid, 3-pyridinecarboxamide, 2-chloro-N-(4'-chloro(1,1'-
biphenyl))-2-yl, in or on banana from 0.2 parts per million (ppm) to
0.5 ppm (PP 8E7366), and establishing a tolerance for coffee, green
bean at 0.05 ppm (PP 8E7367). That notice referenced a summary of the
petitions prepared by BASF Corporation, the registrant, which is
available to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One
comment was received from a private citizen. EPA's response to comment
is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Additionally, in this action EPA is correcting an error in a prior
tolerance rulemaking for boscalid (73 FR 16553) (March 28, 2008). In
that action, EPA amended the boscalid tolerances for cucumber and
vegetable, root, subgroup 1A , except sugar beet, garden beet, radish,
and turnip by increasing the level of each of those tolerances.
Inadvertently, however, the revised tolerance levels were added to the
CFR without removing the prior tolerances. This action removes the
prior tolerances.

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 boscalid on banana, imported at 0.40 ppm,
and coffee, green bean, imported at 0.05 ppm. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with establishing tolerances follow.

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.
    Boscalid has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes of exposure and is not an eye or skin irritant.
Dermal sensitization could not be determined because the skin
sensitization study was inadequate. The target organs for boscalid are
the thyroid and liver.
    An acute endpoint was not selected because no adverse effects
attributable to a single exposure to boscalid were seen in the
database, including the developmental toxicity studies. The chronic
dietary, incidental oral, dermal, and inhalation endpoints were all
selected from three co-critical studies: The chronic rat study, the rat
carcinogenicity study, and a 1-year feeding study in dogs. The dose
selected for regulation of oral, dermal, and inhalation risk at all
durations, for all populations, is the ``no- observed-adverse-effect
level'' of 21.8 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) based on thyroid
and hepatic toxicity seen in rats and dogs at higher dose levels.
    Boscalid is classified as exhibiting ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenicity.'' Evidence of carcinogenicity was seen in males
(significant trend, and pair-wise at the high dose) and in females
(trend only) in rats or mice or both; however, in both sexes no
malignancies were seen. Only benign tumors were observed, and these
occurred at dose levels above the dose level used to establish the
chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). Additionally, there is no
concern for mutagencity. EPA has concluded that the cPAD is protective
of any tumor response seen in the boscalid cancer studies.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by boscalid 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 ``Boscalid - Human Health Risk
Assessment of the Proposed Food Use of the Fungicide on Imported
Coffee'' on pages 16-21 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0624.

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 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; http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/
science, and http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/aggregate.pdf.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for boscalid used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the
``Boscalid - Human Health Risk Assessment of the Proposed Food Use of
the Fungicide on Imported Coffee'' on pages 6-7 in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0624.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to boscalid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing boscalid tolerances in (40 CFR part
180.589). EPA assessed dietary exposures from boscalid 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. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for boscalid; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment was not conducted.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys
of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII), and accumulated exposure to the
chemical for each commodity. As to residue levels in food, EPA made the
following assumption for the chronic exposure assessments: The
assessment was based on tolerance level residues for existing uses,
recommended tolerance levels for banana and coffee, and 100% crop
treated assumptions.
    iii. Cancer. For the reasons set forth in Unit II.A., EPA has
concluded that the cPAD is protective of any cancer effects with
boscalid. EPA's estimate of chronic exposure as described above is
relied upon to evaluate whether any exposure could exceed the cPAD and
thus pose a cancer risk.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for boscalid in drinking water. These simulation models take
into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of boscalid. 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.
    The current requests for an increased tolerance in banana, and a
new use on coffee, do not affect the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) because both requests are for tolerances on
imported commodities. As a result, the EDWCs used in the previous
assessment ``Boscalid - Human Health Risk Assessment to support
proposed new uses on fresh herbs (herbs subgroup 19A), avocado, black
sapote, canistel, mamey sapote, mango, papaya, sapodilla, star apple
and cotton'' on page 15 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0624 at
http://www.regulations.gov were used in this assessment as well. The
EDWCs were based on the turf use.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST), and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the EDWCs of
boscalid for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated
to be 29.6 ppb for surface water and 0.63 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 0.029 ppm 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).
    Boscalid is currently registered for the following uses that could
result in residential exposures: Golf course turf, strawberries,
caneberries, and tree fruit grown at ``U-pick'' farms and orchards. EPA
assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Dermal
post-application exposure for golfers exposed to treated turf. The
duration of exposure is anticipated to be short-term.
    Based on the low vapor pressure of boscalid (7 x 10-9 hPa), the
outdoor nature of the uses, and the weight of evidence from available
residue studies, the Agency does not anticipate post-application
inhalation exposures from the currently approved uses of boscalid.
    In addition, U-pick activities are considered to be one-time (<1
day) events. As no adverse effects were seen in the boscalid toxicity
database resulting from a single exposure to the chemical a post-
application exposure assessment is not required for this scenario.
    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 boscalid to share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and boscalid does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that boscalid 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. In the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats, body weight effects were seen in the mid-
and-high doses in the second generation male pups. However, the degree
of concern is low for the quantitative evidence of susceptibility seen
in this study, since the body weight effects were seen in only one sex
and only after dosing for two generations. There is a clear NOAEL for
the body weight effects seen in the rat 2-generation reproduction study
and EPA is regulating based on a POD below where these effects are
seen.
    In the developmental neurotoxicity study, transient body weight
effects were seen in one sex at postnatal days 1-4 with the animals
recovering by postnatal day 11. Body weight effects were also seen in
the high dose, which was the limit dose. The degree of concern for
these effects are low since the effects are either transient in nature
or occurred at the limit dose and EPA is regulating based on a POD
below where these effects are seen.
    While qualitative sensitivity was seen in the rabbit developmental
study, the fetal effects were seen only at the limit dose in the
presence of maternal toxicity. Further, since EPA is regulating based
on a POD which is an order of magnitude below where these effects are
seen in the rabbit developmental study, EPA concludes that the
qualitative sensitivity evidenced in the fetuses in the rabbit
developmental study does not require retention of the 10X children's
safety factor.
    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 boscalid is adequate for risk
assessment, however an immunotoxicity study (OPPTS Guideline 870.7800)
in rats and/or mice is required under the new 40 CFR part 158 data
regulations. No indication of immunotoxicity was observed in the
toxicity database; therefore, an additional 10X database uncertainty
factor (UF) is not warranted.
    ii. There is no indication that boscalid is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in the acute subchronic, or
developmental neurotoxicity studies. The toxicity studies for boscalid
demonstrate that, in general, the chemical has low mammalian toxicity,
and the database reveals no reproductive, developmental, or
developmental neurotoxicity concerns.
    iii. Data involving the testing of young animals did show increased
quantitative sensitivity in the young with regard to body weight
effects, and qualitative sensitivity was seen in one developmental
study. However, clear NOAELs were identified for all of these effects.
Moreover, the body weight effects at the LOAELs in these studies were
either transient or inconsistent, and qualitative sensitivity occurred
at the limit dose in the presence of maternal toxicity. Additionally,
EPA is regulating based on a POD below where these effects are seen.
EPA concludes that there are no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or
post-natal toxicity.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. EPA has conservatively estimated human exposure to boscalid,
relying on worst case exposures in food (assuming all registered crops
contain residues at the tolerance level), and conservative models, as
well as pesticide-specific data, in estimating exposure from residues
in drinking water, and from residential uses. These assessments will
not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by boscalid.

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. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single-oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
boscalid is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
boscalid from food and water will utilize 33% of the cPAD for children
1 to 2 years of age, 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
boscalid 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). Boscalid is
currently registered for use(s) 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 boscalid.
    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 MOEs of 950
for the U.S. population, 1,200 for females 13-49 years old, and 1,300
for youth 13-19 years old.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water

(considered to be a background exposure level). Because no intermediate
term, non-occupational exposures are anticipated from the use of
boscalid, an intermediate-term aggregate risk assessment is not
required for boscalid.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Boscalid is
classified as exhibiting ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity.''
Evidence of carcinogenicity was seen in males (significant trend, and
pair-wise at the high dose) and in females (trend only); however, in
both sexes no malignancies were seen. Only benign tumors were observed,
and these occurred at dose levels above the dose level used to
establish the cPAD. Additionally, there is no concern for mutagencity.
Quantification of human cancer risk is not required. Aggregate cancer
exposure and risk are not of concern. Therefore, an aggregate risk
assessment was not conducted.
    6. 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 boscalid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodologies high performance liquid
chromatography/ultra violet (HPLC/UV), and liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) are available to
enforce the tolerance expressions. The methods 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

    The Codex Alimentarius Commission has established a MRL for
residues of boscalid in or on banana at 0.2 ppm, which is equivalent to
the current U.S. tolerance. However, the recommended U.S. tolerance is
higher than the Codex MRL. In the submitted field trials, residues
above the Codex MRL were observed. As a result, it is not possible to
harmonize the banana tolerance with the Codex MRL. There is a Codex
Maximum Residue for the residues of boscalid in/on coffee beans at 0.05
ppm.

C. Response to Comments

    One anonymous public comment was received on November 5, 2008. The
commenter claimed that there was suggestive evidence of carcinogenic
effects from boscalid but that EPA had not assessed these effects. In
response, EPA notes that, for the reasons set forth in Unit II.A., EPA
has concluded that boscalid cPAD provides an adequate margin of safety
with regard to the benign tumors seen in cancer studies with boscalid.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.589 be amended by increasing
the tolerance for residues of boscalid in or on banana from 0.2 ppm to
0.5 ppm. Based on the output from the tolerance spreadsheet, the Agency
recommends in favor of the establishment of an import tolerance of 0.40
ppm.
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the Agency may issue a final rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has
determined that there is good cause for making today's technical
correction final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment,
because EPA is correcting an error in a prior tolerance rulemaking for
boscalid (73 FR 16553) (March 28, 2008). In that action, EPA amended
the boscalid tolerances for cucumber and vegetable, root, subgroup 1A ,
except sugar beet, garden beet, radish, and turnip by increasing the
level of each of those tolerances. Inadvertently, however, the revised
tolerance levels were added to the CFR without removing the prior
tolerances. This action removes the prior tolerances. EPA finds that
this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are amended for residues of boscalid, in or
on banana, imported at 0.40 ppm, and established for coffee, green
bean, imported at 0.05 ppm. Additionally, the duplicate boscalid
tolerances for cucumber at 0.20 ppm, and vegetable, root, subgroup 1A,
except sugar beet, garden beet, radish, and turnip at 0.7 ppm are
removed correcting the error in which these superceded tolerances were
not deleted despite their amendment.

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: August 25, 2009.
Lois A. 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. In Sec.  180.589, the table to paragraph (a)(1) is amended by
alphabetically adding an entry for ``coffee, green bean, imported'', by
revising the entry for ``banana, import'' and by removing the entry for
``cucumber'' with the limit of 0.20 ppm and the entry for ``vegetable,
root, subgroup 1A, except sugar beet, garden beet, radish, and turnip''
with the limit of 0.7 ppm. The added and revised entries read as
follows:

Sec.  180.589  Boscalid; tolerances for residues.

    (a)* * *(1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Banana, import \\1\\.......................................         0.40
                                * * * * *
Coffee, green bean, import \\1\\...........................         0.05
                               * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1No US registrations as of September 16, 2009.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. E9-22163 Filed 9-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: March 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 13338-13340]
[DOCID:fr21mr07-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55473; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Fees for Full Value Russell
Index and Reduced Value Russell Index

March 14, 2007.
    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 February 16, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. On March 8, 2007, the Phlx submitted Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. The Phlx has designated this proposal as one
changing a due, fee, or other charge under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,
as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-
4 thereunder,\6\ proposes to assess equity option charges, as opposed
to index option charges on: (1) Options on the Russell 2000[supreg]
Index \7\ traded under the symbol

RUT (the ``Full Value Russell Index''); and (2) options on the one-
tenth value Russell 2000[supreg] Index traded under the symbol RMN (the
``Reduced Value Russell Index'')(the Full Value and the Reduced Value
Russell Indexes together are referred to herein as the ``Russell
Products'').\8\ Therefore, the Exchange proposes to charge the Russell
Products, which are index options, in the same manner that it charges
for equity options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \7\ Russell 2000[supreg] is a trademark and service mark of the
Frank Russell Company, used under license. Neither Frank Russell
Company's publication of the Russell Indexes nor its licensing of
its trademarks for use in connection with securities or other
financial products derived from a Russell Index in any way suggests
or implies a representation or opinion by Frank Russell Company as
to the attractiveness of investment in any securities or other
financial products based upon or derived from any Russell Index.
Frank Russell Company is not the issuer of any such securities or
other financial products and makes no express or implied warranties
of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose with
respect to any Russell Index or any data included or reflected
therein, nor as to results to be obtained by any person or any
entity from the use of the Russell Index or any data included or
reflected therein.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55305 (February 15,
2007), 72 FR 8240 (February 23, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2006-65) (order
approving listing and trading equity and FLEX options on the Russell
Products, and LEAPS on the Full Value Russell Index). FLEX options
are customized or flexible index and equity options and LEAPS are
Long-term Equity Anticipation Securities or long term options
series. See Phlx Rules 1079, 1012 and 1101A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt a $0.15 per side
license fee on ``firm-related'' comparison and transaction charges.\9\
This license fee will be imposed only after the Exchange's $60,000
``firm-related'' equity option and index option comparison and
transaction charge cap is reached.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Specifically, ``firm-related'' charges include equity option
firm/proprietary comparison charges, equity option firm/proprietary
transaction charges, equity option firm/proprietary facilitation
transaction charges, index option firm (proprietary and customer
executions) comparison charges, index option firm/proprietary
transaction charges, and index option firm/proprietary facilitation
transaction charges (collectively, the ``firm-related charges'').
    \10\ The Exchange currently imposes a license fee of $0.10 per
contract side for equity option and index option ``firm''
transactions on certain licensed products (collectively, ``licensed
products'') after the $60,000 cap per member organization on all
``firm-related'' equity option and index option comparison and
transaction charges combined is reached. Therefore, when a member
organization exceeds the $60,000 cap (comprised of combined firm-
related charges), the member organization is charged $60,000, plus
the applicable license fee per contract side for any contracts in
licensed products (if any) over those that were included in reaching
the $60,000 cap. Thus, such firm-related charges in the aggregate
for one billing month may not exceed $60,000 per month per member
organization. For a complete list of the licensed products that are
assessed a $0.10 license fee per contract side after the $60,000 cap
is reached, see $60,000 ``Firm Related'' Equity Option and Index
Option Cap on the Exchange's fee schedule. Consistent with current
practice, when calculating the $60,000 cap, the Exchange first
calculates all equity option and index option transaction and
comparison charges for products without license fees and then equity
option and index option transaction and comparison charges for
products with license fees that are assessed by the Exchange after
the $60,000 cap is reached. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
50836 (December 10, 2004), 69 FR 75584 (December 17, 2004) (SR-Phlx-
2004-70); and see e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53287
(February 14, 2006), 71 FR 9186 (February 22, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-
10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend its Summary of Equity Option
Charges to reflect that a $0.15 license fee on the Russell Products
will be assessed in connection with the Exchange's current cap on
Registered Options Traders (``ROT'') comparison charges and ROT and
specialist transaction charges \11\ on non-AUTOM delivered equity
option contracts \12\ when an ROT or specialist executes over 14,000
contracts calculated on a daily basis. These terms apply only to
transactions when an ROT or specialist is the contra-party to a
customer order.\13\ Therefore, after the 14,000 non-AUTOM delivered
contract level is reached in a specific option, additional comparison
and transaction charges are not assessed on subsequent option contracts
in excess of 14,000 that are executed on that day in that specific
option when the ROT or specialist is the contra-party to a customer
order. Even when the 14,000 cap is reached, the license fee of $0.10
per contract side (or $0.15 per contract side for each of the Russell
Products) will be imposed on applicable ROTs and specialists for equity
option transactions on those licensed products that carry a license
fee.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange does not currently assess a comparison charge
on specialist transactions. Therefore, the proposed cap will apply
to ROT comparison and transaction charges combined and separately to
specialist transaction charges.
    \12\ For purposes of this fee, orders delivered via the Floor
Broker Management System shall be deemed to be non-AUTOM delivered
orders. See Phlx Rule 1063.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54659 (October 27,
2006), 71 FR 64603 (November 2, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-67) (capping ROT
comparison charges and ROT and specialist transaction charges when
certain requirements are met. For equity options, ROT transaction
and comparison charges and specialist transaction charges are not
assessed on additional qualifying transactions on option contracts
that number greater than 14,000, calculated per day per equity
option overlying the same underlying security).
    \14\ For a complete list of the licensed products that will be
assessed a license fee per contract side after the 14,000 equity
option contract cap is reached, see $60,000 ``Firm Related'' Equity
Option and Index Option Cap on the Exchange's fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal is scheduled to become effective for transactions
settling on or after February 20, 2007.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.Phlx.com, at the Phlx, and at the Commission's

Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposal is to assess equity option charges,
including payment for order flow charges, which are competitive with
charges assessed on these same products by other exchanges.\15\ Thus,
the Russell Products will not be assessed customer comparison or
transaction charges in accordance with the Exchange's equity option fee
schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51858 (June
16, 2005), 70 FR 36218 (June 22, 2005) (SR-ISE-2005-26)
(establishing fees for transactions in options on RUT and RMN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of assessing the Russell Products a license fee of
$0.15 per contract side after reaching the $60,000 cap and the 14,000
cap as described in this proposal is to help defray licensing costs
associated with the trading of these products, while still capping
member organizations' fees enough to attract volume from other
exchanges.\16\ The caps operate this way in order to offer an incentive
for additional volume without leaving the Exchange with significant
out-of-pocket costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55099
(January 12, 2007), 72 FR 2720 (January 22, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
91) (adopting a $0.15 per contract Royalty Fee on options traded on
RUT); 55000 (December 21, 2006), 71 FR 78479 (December 29, 2006)
(SR-BSE-2006-47) (establishing a $0.15 surcharge fee for
transactions in options on RUT); 53968 (June 9, 2006), 71 FR 34971
(June 16, 2006) (SR-Amex-2006-56) (adopting a per contract licensing
fee for the orders of specialists, registered options traders,
firms, non-member market makers, and broker-dealers in connection
with options transactions on the RUT); and 51858 (June 16, 2005), 70
FR 36218 (June 22, 2005) (SR-ISE-2005-26) (adopting a surcharge fee
of $0.10 per contract for trading in RUT and RMN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
dues, fees and charges is consistent with

Section 6(b) of the Act,\17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\18\ in particular, in that it is an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
Exchange members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \19\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on March 8, 2007, the date on which the Phlx filed
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \20\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\21\ because it establishes or changes a due,
fee or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal
will take effect upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Number SR-Phlx-2007-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-12. 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. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Phlx. 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-Phlx-2007-12 and should be submitted on or before April
11, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5060 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: April 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 73)]
[Notices]
[Page 20278-20279]
[DOCID:fr15ap08-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No.: 2210-169]

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

April 9, 2008.
    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.: 2210-169.
    c. Date Filed: March 27, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Appalachian Power Company, dba American Electric
Power.
    e. Name of Project: Smith Mountain Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the headwaters of the Roanoke River in south-
central Virginia, within the counties of Bedford, Campbell, Franklin
and Pittsylvania, and near the city of Roanoke, Virginia. No federal
lands are occupied by the project works or otherwise located within the
project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Teresa P. Rogers, Environmental and
Regulatory Affairs Supervisor, Appalachian Power Company, Hydro
Generation, P.O. Box 2021, Roanoke, VA 24022-2121;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Allan Creamer, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426; (202) 502-
8365<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The Project Description: The existing Smith Mountain Project
consists of two developments; one used for pumped storage operation and
the other conventional operation.
    The upper, pumped storage development, known as Smith Mountain,
consists of: (1) A 816-foot-long, 235-foot-high concrete arch dam, with
a crest elevation of 812.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum
(NGVD); (2) two ogee-crest overflow spillways, each 100 feet long and
having a crest elevation of 595.0 feet NGVD [passing 25,000 cubic feet
per second (cfs)]; (3) a reservoir with a surface area of 20,260 acres
at a normal operating level of 795.0 feet NGVD; (4) a pump station/
powerhouse containing five generating units, with a total capacity of
586 megawatts (MW), a total hydraulic capacity of 46,000 cfs, and an
average annual generation of 476,640 MWh (three of the units, which
have a pumping capacity of 15,810 cfs, are reversible for pumping water
from the Leesville's reservoir to Smith Mountain's reservoir); (5) a
600,000 KVA substation and a double-circuit 138-kV tie-in line to
American Electric Power's (AEP) interconnected system; and (6)
appurtenant facilities.
    The lower, conventional development, known as Leesville, consists
of: (1) A 980-foot-long, 94 foot-high concrete gravity dam, with a
crest elevation of 615.67 feet NGVD; (2) a 224-foot-long gated spillway
section, with (a) A crest elevation of 578.0 feet NGVD, (b) four
taintor gates, and (c) a hydraulic capacity of 175,100 cfs; (3) a
reservoir with a surface area of 3,260 acres at an elevation of 613.0
feet NGVD; (4) a powerhouse containing two generating units, with a
total capacity of 50 MW, a total hydraulic capacity of 9,000 cfs, and
an average annual generation of 59,376 MWh; (5) a 50,000 KVA substation
and a double-circuit 138-kV tie-in line to AEP's interconnected system;
and (6) appurtenant facilities.
    The Smith Mountain development operates as a peaking/load-following
facility, with generation occurring during peak demand periods and
pump-back operation occurring during off-peak periods. Under normal
operations, Smith Mountain Lake uses a 2-foot drawdown, which equates
to a 13-foot fluctuation in Leesville Lake. Currently, Leesville is
operated by auto-cycling the units, to provide a minimum average daily
flow of 650 cfs to the Roanoke River downstream. Additional flow is
provided during the spring spawning season for striped bass.
    Appalachian Power does not propose to modify existing operations,
except as described in its proposed Water Management Plan. Appalachian
also proposes to implement numerous environmental enhancement measures
that are contained in its proposed resource-specific management plans.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 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.
For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/
esubscribenow.htm to be notified via e-mail 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 Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule
may be made as appropriate. For example, issuance of the Ready for
Environmental Analysis Notice is based on the assumption that there
will be no additional information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tendering Notice......................  (April 2008).
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready    (May 2008).
 for Environmental Analysis.
Filing of recommendations, preliminary  (July 2008).
 terms and conditions, and fishway
 prescriptions.
Commission issues Draft EA or EIS.....  (January 2009).
Comments on Draft EA or EIS...........  (March 2009).
Modified Terms and Conditions.........  (May 2009).
Commission Issues Final EA or EIS.....  (August 2009).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-7955 Filed 4-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P