[Federal Register: May 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29796-29797]
[DOCID:fr22my08-92]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57816; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-41]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Automated Improvement Auction

May 14, 2008.
    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 April 15, 2008, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' 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. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to allow orders for less than 50 contracts to
be entered into the Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') at a
price that matches the national best bid or offer (``NBBO''). The text
of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/Legal), and in 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
    In order to provide additional opportunities for price improvement,
the Exchange proposes to expand the application of its electronic AIM
auction process. Under the AIM auction process, a member that
represents agency orders may submit an order it represents as agent
(``Agency Order'') along with a second order (a principal order or a
solicited order for the same amount as the Agency Order) into the AIM
auction where other participants can compete with the submitting
member's second order to execute against the Agency Order. A member
(the ``Initiating Member'') may initiate the AIM auction process
provided certain requirements are met. These requirements include a
condition that the Initiating Member stop the entire Agency Order as
principal or with a solicited order at the following price: (i) If the
Agency Order is for 50 contracts or more, at the better of the NBBO or
the Agency Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order); and
(ii) if the Agency Order is for less than 50 contracts, at the better
of (A) the NBBO price improved by one minimum price improvement
increment, which increment shall be determined by the Exchange but may
not be smaller than one cent; or (B) the Agency Order's limit price (if
the order is a limit order).
    The Exchange is now proposing to modify this condition with respect
to the stop price for orders of less than 50 contracts. Under the
proposed rule change, such orders would be stopped at the better of the
NBBO or the Agency Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order).
Thus, orders for less than 50 contracts would be treated the same as
orders for 50 contracts or more for purposes of the AIM stop price
requirement. The Exchange believes this is a reasonable modification
designed to provide additional flexibility for members to obtain
executions on behalf of their customers while continuing to provide a
meaningful, competitive auction. The Exchange believes this expansion
of AIM would have the added benefit of providing members with an
alternative method of achieving an execution at the NBBO for their
customers without having to pay taker fees that may be associated with
routing an order to another market in those scenarios where CBOE's best
bid or offer is inferior to the NBBO.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Several options exchanges have adopted a fee structure in
which firms receive a rebate for the execution of orders resting in
the limit order book (i.e., posting liquidity) and pay a fee for the
execution of orders that trade against liquidity resting on the
limit order book (i.e., taking liquidity). Taker fees currently
range up to $0.45 per contract and are charged without consideration
of the order origin category, including public customer orders. In
contrast, CBOE does not generally charge a fee for the execution of
public customer orders. The effective price paid by a customer
purchasing an option can be considerably higher on an exchange that
charges a taker fee. For example, a customer that enters a
marketable limit order to buy 10 contracts for $0.10 would pay $100
on CBOE and $104.50 if executed on an exchange that charges a $0.45
taker fee (an effective 4.5% increase). Because orders cannot be
executed at prices inferior to the NBBO, members are effectively
forced to pay taker fees when an exchange with a taker fee structure
is at the NBBO and the members' orders are directly routed to such
an exchange or indirectly routed to such an exchange through the
Intermarket Options Linkage (where the fees are passed through).

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it is designed 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.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
provide additional opportunities for price improvement and guaranteed
executions at a price at least as good as the NBBO. Additionally, it
will allow members to avoid paying taker fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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-CBOE-2008-41 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-CBOE-2008-41. 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 on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the CBOE. 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-
CBOE-2008-41 and should be submitted on or before June 12, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-11419 Filed 5-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38167-38168]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13921]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL16-78-000; QF90-203-007]

Saguaro Power Company; Notice of Petition for Waiver

    Take notice that on June 6, 2016, pursuant to section 292.205(c) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC)
implementing the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978,
Saguaro Power Company (Saguaro) filed a petition for limited waiver of
FERC's qualifying cogeneration facility operating and efficiency
standards set forth in 18 CFR 292.205(a)(1)-(2) for calendar years 2016
and 2017, as more fully explained in the petition.
    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 Petitioner.
    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 5 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 email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 28, 2016.

    Dated: June 7, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13921 Filed 6-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 231)]
[Notices]
[Page 75176-75177]
[DOCID:fr02de10-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee

of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to
the public.
    Name of Committee: Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on January 12, 2011, from 8
a.m to 5 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002, Bldg. 31, the Great Room, White Oak Conference
Center (rm. 1503). Information regarding special accommodations due to
a disability, visitor parking and transportation may be accessed at:
http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``White Oak Conference Center Parking
and Transportation Information for FDA Advisory Committee Meetings.''
Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must have a valid
driver's license or other picture ID, and must enter through Building
1.
    Contact Person: Kristine T. Khuc, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-847-
8533, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date
information on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about
last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site
and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to
learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On January 12, 2011, the committee will discuss the safety
and efficacy of new drug application (NDA) 022-486, for Solpura
(liprotamase) Capsules, by Alnara Pharmaceuticals, for the proposed
indication (use) in the treatment of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency
due to cystic fibrosis, chronic pancreatitis, pancreatectomy (surgical
removal of all or part of the pancreas), or other conditions that may
impair or limit function of the pancreas. The pancreas is an organ
involved, in part, in the digestion of food through the use of
specialized proteins called enzymes. Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency
is a decreased ability to digest food due to deficient enzyme
production by the pancreas.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
December 28, 2010. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in
making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before December 17, 2010. Time allotted
for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by December 20, 2010.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kristine T. Khuc at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: November 26, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-30274 Filed 12-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: June 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 120)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35801-35804]
[DOCID:fr22jn06-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0376-200611a; FRL-8187-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Alabama: Open
Burning Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Alabama State Implementation
Plan (SIP), submitted by the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) on March 9, 2006. The revisions include modifications
to Alabama's open burning rules found at Alabama Administrative Code
(AAC) Chapter 335-3-3-.01. These revisions are part of Alabama's
strategy to meet the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
fine particulates (PM2.5) and ozone. Open burning creates smoke that
contains fine particles, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen
oxides, precursors to ozone. ADEM has found that elevated levels of
PM2.5 mirror the months when ozone levels are highest (May-September),
and that PM2.5 levels remain elevated into October. These rules are
intended to help control levels of PM2.5 and ozone precursors that
contribute to high ozone and PM2.5 levels. This action is being taken
pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective August 21, 2006 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 24, 2006.
If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number, ``EPA-
R04-OAR-2006-0376,'' by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0376,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Stacy DiFrank, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division 12th floor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number, ``EPA-R04-
OAR-2006-0376.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy DiFrank, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9042. Ms. DiFrank can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Today's Action

    On March 9, 2006, ADEM submitted to EPA proposed SIP revisions for
review and approval into the Alabama SIP. The proposed revisions
include changes made by the State of Alabama to its open burning
regulations, found at AAC Chapter 335-3-3-.01. These rules became state
effective on April 4, 2006.
    In summary, the revisions submitted by ADEM include changes to the
duration and location of open burning, and add other specific
requirements for open burning for 2006 only. The original provisions
that were part of Chapter 335-3-3-.01(2) still exist, with the
exception of subpart (d), which was modified to include the month of
October and four additional counties. These requirements include
expansion of the seasonal May, June, July, August and September ban on
open burning to now include the month of October, and the additional
counties of DeKalb, Etowah, Russell, and Talladega. In addition, a new
provision, 335-3-3-.01(2)(e) was added. The new provision also
describes additional requirements for open burning during 2006 only,
which allows open burning during the months of May, June, July, August,
September and October in DeKalb, Etowah, Russell, and Talladega
Counties, provided an air curtain incinerator is used to conduct the
open burning. The proposed revisions summarized above are approvable
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.

II. Final Action

    EPA is now taking direct final action to approve the proposed
revisions, specifically, AAC Chapter 335-3-3-.01, into the Alabama SIP.
This revision was submitted by ADEM on March 9, 2006. These revisions
include the entirety of Alabama's open burning rules and are part of
the State's strategy to meet the NAAQS by reducing emissions of
volatile organic compounds, fine particulates and nitrogen oxides.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse

comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse
comments be filed. This rule will be effective August 21, 2006 without
further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by July 24,
2006.
    If EPA receives such comments, EPA will then publish a document
withdrawing the direct final rule and informing the public that such
rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in
commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received,
the public is advised that this rule will be effective on August 21,
2006 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 21, 2006. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 12, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.50(c) is amended by revising the entry for ``Section 335-
3-3.01'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.50  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA Approved Alabama Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    State       EPA approval
       State citation          Title/subject   effective date       date                  Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Chapter 335-3-3   Control of Open Burning and Incineration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 335-3-3-.01........  Open Burning....      04/04/2006      06/22/2006
                                                                      [Insert
                                                                  citation of
                                                                 publication]

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-5598 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Summary of Petitions The petitioner summary of the pesticide petitions is printed below as required by section 408( d)( 3) of the FFDCA. The summary of the petitions was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. EPA is publishing the petition summary verbatim without editing it in any way. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR 4)

2E6501 EPA has received pesticide petition ( 2E6501) from the IR 4 Project, Rutgers University Technology Centre of New Jersey, 681 U. S. Highway 1 South, North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902 3390 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 180.355 by establishing tolerances for the combined residues of the herbicide bentazon ( 3 isopropyl 1H 2,1,3 benzothiadiazin 4( 3H) one 2,2 dioxide) and its 6 and 8 hydroxy metabolites in or on the raw agricultural commodities peaches and nectarines at 0.05 parts per million ( ppm). 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 1. Plant metabolism. The qualitative nature of the residue in plants is adequately understood. Bentazon is rapidly metabolized, conjugated and incorporated into natural plant constituents. Metabolism involves the hydroxylation of bentazon at the 6 and 8 position. The terminal residues of regulatory concern are bentazon, 6 hydroxy bentazon, and 8 hydroxy bentazon ( as specified in 40 CFR 180.355 ( a)).

2. Analytical method. Adequate enforcement methods are available for the determination of residues of bentazon and its 6 and 8 hydroxy metabolites in/ on plant commodities. The Pesticide Analytical Manual ( PAM) Vol. II lists Method II, a GLC method with flame photometric detection for the determination of bentazon and its hydroxy metabolites in/ on corn, rice, and soybeans; the limit of detection for each compound is 0.05 ppm. Method III, modified from Method II, is available for the determination of bentazon and its hydroxy metabolites in/ on peanuts and seed and pod vegetables with a limit of detection of 0.05 ppm for each compound.

3. Magnitude of residues. Nine field trials in peach orchards were conducted with bentazon in 1999 in EPA Regions I ( 1 trial), II ( 4 trials), V ( 1 trial), and X ( 3 trials) in order to determine the magnitude of the residue in/ on peaches. Bentazon was applied two times to peaches as a directed spray to the orchard floor at a rate of 1.0 lb ai/ A, for a total of 2.0 lb ai/ A. Applications were made 12 to 16 days apart and marketable peaches were collected 9 to 15 days following the last application. Samples were analyzed for residues of bentazon and its 6 OH and 8 OH metabolites. No residues above the lowest level of method validation ( LLMV) of 0.05 ppm were observed for bentazon, 6 OH bentazon or 8 OH bentazon.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. Acute toxicity data for bentazon show that this chemical is not acutely toxic by the oral, inhalation, or dermal routes of exposure ( Toxicity Categories III and IV). It is moderately irritating to the eye ( Toxicity Category II) and slightly irritating to the skin ( Toxicity Category IV). Bentazon is also a dermal sensitizer.

2. Genotoxicty. Bentazon was not mutagenic in the tests for gene mutations, which were reverse mutation assays in S. typhimurium and in E. coli WP2 uvrA as well as forward mutation assays with in vitro Chinese hamster ovary cell ( HGPRT) cultures. Bentazon was also negative in the mouse micronucleus test for assessing structural chromosomal aberrations and the unscheduled DNA synthesis assay with primary mouse hepatocytes for detecting DNA damage.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. A developmental study in rats was conducted at doses of 0, 40, 100, or 250 mg/ kg/ day. The maternal NOAEL ( no observed adverse effect level) is 250 mg/ kg/ day, HDT ( highest dose tested). The maternal LOAEL ( lowest observed adverse effect level) is greater than 250 mg/ kg/ day. The developmental NOAEL is 100 mg/ kg/ day. The developmental LOAEL is 250 mg/ kg/ day, based on increased postimplantation loss, skeletal variations ( incomplete or absent ossification in the phalangeal nucleii of the extremities, the sternebrae and cervical vertebrae), and reduced body weights or fetuses surviving to day 21. A developmental study in rabbits was conducted at doses of 0, 75, 150, or 375 mg/ kg/ day. The maternal/ developmental NOAEL is 150 mg/ kg/ day. The maternal/ developmental LOAEL is 375 mg/ kg/ day ( HDT), based on doe with partial abortion, embryonic resorptions, and no living fetuses. A 2 generation reproduction toxicity study in rats was conducted at doses of 0, 200, 800, or 3,200 ppm; equivalent to 0, 15, 62, or 249 mg/ kg/ day. The parental systemic NOAEL is 62 mg/ kg/ day. The parental systemic LOAEL is 249 mg/ kg/ day, based on increased incidences of kidney mineralization and liver microgranuloma. The reproductive NOAEL is 15 mg/ kg/ day. The reproductive LOAEL is 62 mg/ kg/ day, based on reduced pup growth ( body weight gain) during lactation.

4. Subchronic toxicity. A 21 day dermal toxicity study in rabbits was conducted at doses of 0, 250, 500, or 1,000 mg/ kg/ day. The NOAEL is 1,000 mg/ kg/ day ( HDT). The LOAEL is greater than 1,000 mg/ kg/ day. A 13 week feeding study in rats was conducted at doses of 0, 400, 1,200, or 3,600 ppm; equivalent to 0, 25.3, 77.8, or 243.3 mg/ kg/ day for males and 0, 28.9, 86.1, or 258.3 mg/ kg/ day for females. The NOAEL is 77.8 mg/ kg/ day. The LOAEL is 243.3 mg/ kg/ day for males and 258.3 mg/ kg/ day for females based on depressed mean body weights in females, a slight increase in food consumption in males, increased thromboplastin and prothrombin times ( males only), and increased kidney and liver weights.

5. Chronic toxicity. A chronic feeding study in dogs was conducted at doses of 0, 100, 400, or 1,600 ppm; equivalent to 0, 3.2, 13.1, or 52.3 mg/ kg/ day. The NOAEL is 3.2 mg/ kg/ day. The LOAEL is 13.1 mg/ kg/ day based on a dose dependent presence of feces with red areas in dogs at 13.1 mg/ kg/ day ( 400 ppm) and 52.3 mg/ kg/ day ( 1600 ppm) and slight to severe anemia at the high dose. A chronic feeding/ carcinogenicity study in rats was conducted at doses of 0, 200, 800, or 4,000 ppm; equivalent to 0, 9, 35, or 180 mg/ kg/ day in males and 0, 11, 45, or 244 mg/ kg/ day in females. The NOAEL is 9/ 11 mg/ kg/ day, in males/ females. The LOAEL is 35/ 45 mg/ kg/ day, in males/ females, based on increased water consumption, changes in urinalysis and hematology/ coagulation parameters, and decreased absolute and relative thyroid weight. No evidence of carcinogenicity was observed. An oncogenicity study in mice was conducted at doses of 0, 100, 400, or 2000 ppm; equivalent to 0, 12, 47, or 242 mg/ kg/ day in males and 0, 12, 48, or 275 mg/ kg/ day in females. The NOAEL is 12 mg/ kg/ day. The LOAEL is 47/ 48 mg/ kg/ day in males/ females, based on increased prothrombin time, increased liver and kidney weights, calcification of the tunica albuginea, and islet cell hyperplasia of the pancreas. No evidence of carcinogenicity was observed.

6. Animal metabolism. A rat metabolism study with oral dosing showed that parent bentazon was the major metabolite found in urine, amounting to 77.37 91.02% of the dose. Another metabolism study demonstrated that the absorption and excretion of bentazon or its sodium salt in male rats after oral administration is rapid and essentially equivalent. No sex differences in the absorption, metabolism or excretion of sodium bentazon are apparent based on equivalent excretion half lives ( 4 hours), pattern of excretion ( greater than 90% in urine) or urinary metabolite identification ( greater than 80% as free acid). A dermal penetration study in rats was conducted at doses of 0.12, 1.2, 12, or 120 mg/ kg. Single topical application of radioactive sodium bentazon did not appear to significantly penetrate the skin since a maximum of only 1 2% of the radioactivity was recovered ( primarily in the urine) at 72 hours. Negligible amounts of dermally applied radioactivity were retained in the liver, kidneys, G. I. tract and carcass. For risk assessment purposes, dermal penetration is estimated to be 1 2%.

7. Metabolite toxicology. There are no metabolites of toxicological significance to mammals.

8. Endocrine disruption. No special studies investigating potential estrogenic or endocrine effects of bentazon have been conducted. However, the standard battery of required studies has been completed. These studies include an evaluation of the potential effects on reproduction and development, and an evaluation of the pathology exposure. These studies are generally considered to be sufficient to detect any endocrine effects but no such effects of the endocrine organs following repeated or long term were noted in any of the studies.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure i. Food In 1999, EPA evaluated the hazard and exposure data for bentazon and recommended that the FQPA safety factor be retained at 10X in assessing the risk posed by this chemical because there was evidence of increased susceptibility in the developmental toxicity study in rats and in the two generation reproduction toxicity study in rats. The 10X FQPA Safety Factor is applicable to females 13 50 years old for acute dietary and residential exposure assessments and to all population subgroups for chronic dietary and residential exposure assessments. The acute and chronic Population Adjusted Doses ( aPAD and cPAD, respectively) are modification of the acute and chronic RfDs to include the FQPA safety factor. The acute or chronic PAD is equal to the acute or chronic RfD divided by the FQPA safety factor. Acute and chronic dietary exposure analyses for bentazon were performed using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEM) which incorporates data generated in the USDA 1989 1992 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals ( CSII). For the acute analysis, tolerance level residues were used and 100% crop treated ( CT) was assumed for all commodities ( Tier I) for the females 13 50 years old subgroup ( the subpopulation of concern). For all the females 13 50 years old subgroup, 5% or less of the aPAD is occupied by dietary exposure from food. Results of the acute analysis indicate that the acute dietary risk residues in food associated with existing and proposed uses of bentazon do not exceed EPA's level of concern. A refined chronic dietary exposure analysis ( Tier 3) was performed using anticipated and tolerance level residues for commodities for the general U. S. population and all population subgroups. For the chronic analysis, percent crop treated information was used for several commodities. The percent chronic population adjusted dose (% cPADs) for all subgroups were less than 100%, with the highest being 28% for the children 1 6 years subgroup. Results of the chronic analysis indicate that the chronic dietary risk from residues in food associated with the existing and proposed uses of bentazon do not exceed EPA's level of concern. ii. Drinking water. SCI GROW ( Screening Concentration in Ground Water) modeling indicates that bentazon residue ( bentazon + its metabolite, 2 amino N isopropyl benzamide [ AIBA]) concentrations in groundwater used as drinking water are not likely to exceed 4.25 ppb. The other regulated bentazon metabolites ( 6 hydroxy and 8 hydroxy bentazon) have not been found in environmental fate studies. Limited monitoring data indicated a range of bentazon concentrations ( excluding degradation products) in groundwater of 20 to 120 ppb. Because monitoring data indicate a higher concentration than the SCI GROW screening model, EPA used the 20 ppb as the environmental exposure concentration ( EEC) for both acute and chronic scenarios. The EEC for surface water ( from EPA's Pesticide Root Zone Model EXAMS modeling) is 41 ppb for the peak ( acute) and 8 ppb for the 36 year annual mean ( chronic). The surface and ground water estimates were used to compare against back calculated drinking water levels of comparison ( DWLOCs) for aggregate risk assessments. For the acute exposure scenario, the DWLOC is 2800 ppb for females ( 13+/ nursing). For the chronic exposure scenario, the DWLOCs are 95, 82, 22, 94, and 95 ppb for the US population, females ( 13+/ nursing), children ( 1 6 years), Hispanics and males ( 13 19 years), respectively. 2. Non dietary exposure. Because bentazon is registered for consumer use on turf and ornamentals, there is potential for residential exposure to adult applicators and adults and children entering recreational and residential areas treated with bentazon. Short and intermediate term exposure and risk. The handler exposure is expected to be short term while the post application exposure is expected for both the short and intermediate term. However, since there is no short term dermal endpoint, the residential post application exposure cannot be aggregated with the handler exposure. Short term, non dietary ingestion exposure for toddlers is not a concern because it was determined that there is no acute dietary or oral endpoint applicable to infants and children. However, intermediate term, non dietary ingestion exposure to toddlers playing on treated turf is possible and was assessed using the intermediateterm endpoint identified from the one year dog feeding study. Intermediate term exposure is not expected for the ornamental use. The level of concern for residential exposures to bentazon is for MOE's less than 1,000. There are no chemical specific or site specific data available to determine the potential risks associated with residential exposures from handling bentazon. Therefore, the exposure estimates are based on assumptions and generic data as specified by the December 18, 1997 Draft HED Standard Operating Procedures ( SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments. Because bentazon is applied no more than twice per year, only short term exposure is expected for the residential handler. Because a dermal endpoint of concern for the short term duration was not identified, only inhalation exposure estimates are relevant. Assuming that a homeowner treats his lawn and ornamental plants on the same day, the aggregate inhalation short term MOE is 500,000 for the residential handler. This estimate indicates that the potential handler risks from residential uses of bentazon do not exceed EPA's level of concern. Environmental fate data indicate that bentazon is moderately resistant to degradation ( t1/ 2 = 24 65 days). Due to the length of time bentazon is expected to remain in the environment, both short and intermediate term residential post application exposures are expected. For toddlers playing on treated turf, the oral intermediate term endpoint was used to assess toddler incidental ingestion exposures. Based on the residential use pattern, no long term post application residential exposure is expected. Short term, non dietary oral exposures to the toddler were not assessed because the subgroup of concern was identified as females 13 50 years old. This endpoint is not applicable to the infant and children population subgroups. Intermediate term, post application exposure is not expected from the ornamental use of bentazon. Changes to the Residential SOPs have been proposed that alter the residential post application scenario assumptions. The proposed assumptions are expected to better represent residential exposure and are still considered to be high end, screening level assumptions. Therefore, the proposed assumptions are used to calculate exposure estimates. The dermal post application exposure from the turfgrass use for the adult results in an MOE of 9,100. The MOEs for post application exposures for the toddler are calculated as 6,400 and 3,500 for dermal and hand to mouth exposures, respectively. The aggregate intermediate MOE for post application residential exposure to toddlers is 2,200. Therefore, all residential post application exposure estimates are well below EPA's level of concern. Because these estimates were calculated using screening level assumptions, it is believed that the actual risks will be lower. For the intermediate term, typical lawn maintenance practices such as mowing and watering are expected to expedite the dissipation of bentazon on turfgrass. Therefore, with less residue available, potential incidental hand to mouth exposures are expected to be substantially lower.

D. Cumulative Effects There is no available data to determine whether bentazon has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, bentazon does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this notice of filing, therefore, it is assumed that bentazon does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. Population. Acute risk estimates from aggregate exposure to bentazon in food and water are below EPA's level of concern. For Tier 1 acute dietary exposure analysis, it was assumed that 100% of the crops treated with bentazon and that residues equaled the tolerance level. For all females 13 50 years old subgroups, less than or equal to 5% of the aPAD is occupied by dietary exposure from food. The acute dietary risk from food associated with the existing and proposed uses of bentazon is below EPA's level of concern. The estimated average concentrations of bentazon in surface and ground water are less than EPA's levels of comparison for bentazon in drinking water as a contribution to acute aggregate exposure. Chronic ( Non Cancer) Aggregate Risk estimates are below EPA's level of concern. The chronic dietary exposure analysis for residues in food incorporated anticipated and tolerance level residues for commodities. Percent CT information was used for several commodities. The % cPADs for all subgroups were less than 100%, with the highest being 28% for the children ( 1 6 years old) subgroup. Thus, the chronic dietary risk estimates from food associated with existing and proposed uses of bentazon do not exceed EPA's level of concern. For ground and surface water, the estimated average concentrations of bentazon are less than EPA's levels of comparison for bentazon in drinking water as a contribution to chronic aggregate exposure. Aggregate short term risk estimates are below EPA's level of concern. In aggregating short term risk, the background chronic dietary exposure ( food + drinking water) and short term inhalation exposures from residential uses are considered. Because a dermal endpoint of concern for the short term duration was not identified, only inhalation exposure estimates are relevant for the adult handler. Short term inhalation exposure may occur for a homeowner treating turf and ornamentals on the same day. The total short term food and residential aggregate MOE value is 220,000. As this MOE is greater than 1,000, the short term food and residential aggregate risk estimate is below EPA's level of concern. For surface and ground water, the estimated average concentrations of bentazon are less than EPA's levels of comparison for bentazon in drinking water as a contribution to short term aggregate exposure. Aggregate intermediate term risk estimates are below EPA's level of concern for adults. In aggregating intermediate term risk, the background chronic dietary exposure ( food + drinking water) and intermediate term dermal exposures from residential uses are considered. For adults, dermal post application exposures may result from dermal contact with treated turf. For adults, the total food and residential intermediate term aggregate MOE is 7,600. As this value is greater than 1,000, the intermediate term aggregate risk estimate is below EPA's level of concern. For surface and ground water, the estimated average concentrations of bentazon are less than EPA's levels of comparison for bentazon in drinking water as a contribution to intermediate term aggregate exposure. A cancer risk assessment was not done. Bentazon is classified as a Group E chemical ( evidence of non carcinogenicity for humans) based upon lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice. Based on these risk assessments, it is concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to bentazon residues. 2. Infants and children. In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of bentazon, data from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and a 2 generation reproduction study in the rat are considered. The developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism resulting from maternal pesticide exposure during gestation. Reproduction studies provide information relating to effects from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating animals and data on systemic toxicity. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold 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 data base unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a margin of exposure ( MOE) analysis or through using uncertainty ( safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. EPA believes that reliable data support using the standard uncertainty factor ( usually 100 for combined interspecies and intraspecies variability) and not the additional tenfold MOE/ uncertainty factor when EPA has a complete data base under existing guidelines and when the severity of the effect in infants or children or the potency or unusual toxic properties of a compound do not raise concerns regarding the adequacy of the standard MOE/ safety factor. The toxicological data base for evaluating prenatal and postnatal toxicity of bentazon is complete with respect to current data requirements. There was evidence of increased susceptibility following in utero exposure to bentazon in the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats and there was quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility following pre / postnatal exposure to bentazon in the 2 generation reproduction study in rats. There is a complete toxicity data base for bentazon and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably accounts for potential exposures. The FQPA Safety Factor for protection of infants and children will be retained at 10x for bentazon due to the increased pre / postnatal susceptibility. The FQPA Safety Factor for bentazon is applicable to females 13 50 years old only for acute dietary and residential exposure assessments because increased susceptibility was demonstrated in the developmental study in rats which is designed to evaluate chemical effects on the mother and fetus from the time of implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus through the end of gestation. The safety factor is also applicable to all population subgroups for chronic dietary and residential exposure assessments because increased susceptibility was demonstrated in the 2 generation reproduction study ( which is designed to assess the effects of the pesticide on male and female reproductive processes, from egg and sperm production and mating through pregnancy, birth, nursing, growth and development, and maturation). An acute endpoint was not identified and this risk assessment was not required. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit, it was concluded that aggregate exposure to bentazon from food will utilize 28% of the chronic PAD for children ( 1 6 years old). EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the chronic PAD because the chronic PAD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health. Despite the potential for exposure to bentazon in drinking water and from non dietary, non occupational exposure, the aggregate exposure is not expected to exceed 100% of the chronic PAD. Although bentazon is a registered herbicide for use on turf and ornamentals, short term non dietary ingestion exposure for toddlers is not assessed because EPA determined that there is no acute dietary or oral endpoint applicable to infants and children. Aggregate intermediate term risk estimates are below EPA's level of concern for infants and children. In aggregating intermediate term risk, background chronic dietary exposure ( food + drinking water) and intermediate term, non dietary oral and dermal exposures from residential uses are considered. For toddlers, dermal and non dietary oral postapplication exposures may result from dermal contact with treated turf as well as hand to mouth transfer of residues from turfgrass. For infants and children, the total food and residential intermediate term aggregate MOE is 2,000. As this value is greater than 1,000, the intermediate term aggregate risk estimate is below EPA's level of concern. For surface and ground water, the estimated average concentrations of bentazon are less than EPA's levels of comparison for bentazon in drinking water as a contribution to intermediate term aggregate exposure. Based on these risk assessments, it is concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure bentazon to residues.

F. International Tolerances The Commission of European Communities has established provisional maximum residue level for bentazon ( sum of bentazon and the conjugates 6 OH and 8 OH bentazon expressed as bentazon) on peaches ( including nectarines and similar hybrids) at 0.10 ppm. There is no Codex proposal for limits of bentazon in/ on peaches.


Technical Support Document on Emissions Inventory Reporting Requirements for the Proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emissions Analysis and Monitoring Division Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 May 2004 2 Purpose This document provides further information describing the proposed changes to 40 CFR 51 Subpart A and section 51. 122 and the proposed new section 51.125, concerning requirements for emission reporting by States to EPA. The purpose is to facilitate public understanding of the reasons for the proposed changes, in order to allow public comment on the merits of the changes. The information provided here supplements with more detail the summary of the proposed changes contained in section III. B of the preamble to the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Clean Air Interstate Rule.

The information is presented in two tables. Table 1 summarizes in a broad manner the reporting requirements that would apply to States in particular situations. Table 2 lists individual proposed changes to the rule text and the purpose of each.

Questions on the proposed requirements may be addressed to William Kuykendal at kuykendal. bill@ epa. gov or ( 919) 541 5372. 3 Table 1 Summary of Reporting Requirements and Rationales General Content of Required Report States Affected Sources Affected Every year Requirements ( presumed met by three year requirements when years coincide) Three year Requirements ( 2005, 2008, etc. ) Rationale Annual emissons from all sources in all states every third year All All sources ( New definition of point sources is proposed to take effect in 2008, but asking for comment on 2005) Submit data elements in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c of the Appendix to 40 CFR 51 Subpart A for:

All pollutants Annual emissions For all States, this is requirement of existing Subpart A Annual emissions from very large point sources every year All Type A sources ( see criteria in Table 1 of appendix to 51 Subpart A) Submit data elements in Table 2a of the Appendix to 40 CFR 51 Subpart A for:

All pollutants Annual emissions Starts in 2003 ( due June 2005) For all States, this is requirement of existing Subpart A General Content of Required Report States Affected Sources Affected Every year Requirements ( presumed met by three year requirements when years coincide) Three year Requirements ( 2005, 2008, etc. ) Rationale 4 NOx emissions in states contributing significantly to ozone nonattainment in another state,

all sources,

every three years AL, CT, DE,

DC, IL, IN,

KY, MA, MD,

MI, MS, NC,

NJ, NY, OH,

PA, RI, SC,

TN, VA, WV All sources Submit data elements in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c of the Appendix to 40 CFR 51 Subpart A for:

Ozone season NOx Summer day NOx Starts with 2005 ozone season Current NOx SIP Call requirement VOC emissions in states contributing significantly to ozone nonattainment in another state,

all sources,

every three years AL, CT, DE,

DC, IL, IN,

KY, MA, MD,

MI, MS, NC,

NJ, NY, OH,

PA, RI, SC,

TN, VA, WV All Submit data elements in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c of the Appendix to 40 CFR 51 Subpart A for:

Summer day VOC Asking for comment on CO Submission of daily VOC is a requirement of the existing Subpart A.

EPA is proposing to keep it only for areas with ozone concern. These states contribute to nonattainment in other states. General Content of Required Report States Affected Sources Affected Every year Requirements ( presumed met by three year requirements when years coincide) Three year Requirements ( 2005, 2008, etc. ) Rationale 5 NOx emissions in states contributing significantly to ozone nonattainment in another state,

from sources controlled to meet NOx SIP call requirements,

every year AL, CT, DE,

DC, IL, IN,

KY, MA, MD,

MI, MS, NC,

NJ, NY, OH,

PA, RI, SC,

TN, VA, WV However, all have joined the EPA trading program. Only sources subject to control to get required Nox reductions, unless reporting to EPA through a trading program Submit applicable data elements in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c of the Appendix to 40 CFR 51 Subpart A for:

Ozone season NOx Summer day NOx Starts 2003 Current NOx SIP call requirement Same as above GA, MO Same requirements as for the above 3 lines, except that no reporting is required until the 2006 inventory year. These States have been added to the NOx SIP call. General Content of Required Report States Affected Sources Affected Every year Requirements ( presumed met by three year requirements when years coincide) Three year Requirements ( 2005, 2008, etc. ) Rationale 6 Ozone related emissions on a typical summer day, in states with ozone nonattainment areas, all sources, every three years States containing an ozone nonattainment designated by EPA rule on April 15, 2004. All sources Submit data elements in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c of the Appendix to 40 CFR 51 Subpart A for:

Summer day NOx and VOC, Taking comment on CO Starts 2005 A requirement of the existing Subpart A EPA is proposing to keep it only for areas with ozone concern. These states have 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas.

Annual and ozone season NOx emissions in states included in the CAIR due to contribution to ozone nonattainment in another state,

all sources every three years AL, AR, CT,

DC, DE, GA,

IL, IN, MD,

MA, MI, MS,

MO, NJ, NY,

NC, OH, PA,

SC, TN, VA,

WV, WI All sources Submit data elements in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c of the Appendix to 40 CFR 51 Subpart A for:

Annual NOx Ozone season NOx Starts 2008 These States are subject to CAIR for ozone reasons.

Annual NOx allows tracking of budget compliance for regulatory purposes;

ozone season allows tracking for air quality effect. General Content of Required Report States Affected Sources Affected Every year Requirements ( presumed met by three year requirements when years coincide) Three year Requirements ( 2005, 2008, etc. ) Rationale 7 Annual and ozone season NOx emissions in states included in the CAIR due to contribution to ozone nonattainment in another state,

controlled sources only,

every three years AL, AR, CT,

DC, DE, GA,

IL, IN, MD,

MA, MI, MS,

MO, NJ, NY,

NC, OH, PA,

SC, TN, VA,

WV, WI Sources subject to control to get required CAIRrequired reductions,

unless reporting to EPA through a trading program Submit applicable data elements in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c of the Appendix to 40 CFR 51 Subpart A for:

Annual NOx Ozone season NOx Starts 2009 Would extend every year reporting requirements of the NOx SIP call to new states found to contribute significantly to ozone nonattainment in another state.

These States are subject to CAIR for ozone reasons.

Annual NOx allows tracking of budget compliance for regulatory purposes;

ozone season allows tracking for air quality effect. General Content of Required Report States Affected Sources Affected Every year Requirements ( presumed met by three year requirements when years coincide) Three year Requirements ( 2005, 2008, etc. ) Rationale 8 Annual and NOx and SO2 emissions in states included in the CAIR due to contribution to PM2.5 nonattainment in another state,

all sources every three years AL, AR, DC,

DE, FL, GA,

IL, IN, IA, KS,

KY, LA, MA,

MD, MI, MN,

MS, MO, NJ,

NY, NC, OH,

PA, SC, TN,

TX, VA, WV,

WI All sources Submit data elements in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c of the Appendix to 40 CFR 51 Subpart A for:

Annual NOx and SO2 Starts 2008 These States area subject to CAIR for reasons of PM2.5 Reporting of annual SO2 and NOx from all sources at threeyear interval allows tracking of regulatory compliance and annual PM2.5 air quality factors. General Content of Required Report States Affected Sources Affected Every year Requirements ( presumed met by three year requirements when years coincide) Three year Requirements ( 2005, 2008, etc. ) Rationale 9 Annual Nox and SO2 emissions in states included in the CAIR due to contribution to ozone nonattainment in another state,

controlled sources only,

every three years AL, AR, DC,

DE, FL, GA,

IL, IN, IA, KS,

KY, LA, MA,

MD, MI, MN,

MS, MO, NJ,

NY, NC, OH,

PA, SC, TN,

TX, VA, WV,

WI Sources subject to control to get required reductions,

unless reporting to EPA through a trading program Submit applicable data elements in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c of the Appendix to 40 CFR 51 Subpart A for:

Annual SO2 Annual NOx Starts 2009 These States area subject to CAIR for reasons of PM2.5 Reporting of annual SO2 and NOx from all controlled sources every year allows tracking of regulatory compliance and annual PM2.5 air quality factors. 10 Table 2 Proposed Changes in Emissions Reporting Requirements in 40 CFR Part 51 Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes Table of contents for 51 Subpart A Some section headings are revised. Changed " Glossary" to " Definitions". Clarity. Definitions in Subpart A now also serve 51.122 where they previously were called definitions rather than glossary.

51.1 Add phrase indicating that States are not required to submit emission inventory information for sources on tribal lands Clarity. States do not have regulatory over these sources and in general do not have direct access to information on their emissions.

51.1 Minor edits. Make more succinct.

51.10 Add reference to the Clean Air Interstate Rule. State that requirements under that rule and under the NOx SIP call are contained in Subpart A. Clarity. The detailed list of required data elements would be removed from 51.122. Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 11 51.15( a) Reorganize to state the required pollutants separately for the different applicable emission reporting periods.

Limit pollutants to those relevant to the purpose of the reporting requirement for that time period's emissions. Existing 51.15( a) required reporting of all pollutants for each of annual, ozone season day, and winter season day,

some which had no relevance.

Revision, for example,

removes requirement for reporting of SO2 emissions for ozone/ summer season day.

51.15( a) Spell out Volatile Organic Compounds.

Make clear that the required reporting of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions includes specific reporting of condensible and filterable particular matter where applicable. Clarity. Clarity. Requirement is currently implied in the definition of PM.

51.15( a)( 7) Add statement that other pollutants may also be reported. Clarity, since some States may find it less work to report all pollutants in their data system rather than filter to just those required for the time period at issue, and may wish to provide emissions of hazardous air pollutants voluntarily, per Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 12 EPA request.

51.15( b) Clarify that a State is not required to report sources on tribal lands.

Change " Area" to " Non Point" See above.

See footnote in section III. B preamble.

51.15( c) Add statement that EPA may require information on the method of determination for data elements listed later in Subpart A.

Add the example of the State contact person to the existing statement that " additional information not listed in " Source of data" is required by the existing 51.122 for several listed data elements.

However, EPA's current electronic data format does not specify a means to report this information. Rather than list these as data elements in the tables in Subpart A, this provision allows EPA to consider the need for this information each year and to specify the format for reporting it.

To make clearer that this statement is not intended to allow EPA to make substantive additions to the list Is it necessary to set a deadline each year for EPA to designate which data elements require reporting of method of determination? Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 13 Tables 2a through 2d may be required." of data elements through the non rulemaking mechanism of the reporting format.

51.15( e) New paragraph added, to allow the option of submission of emissions inventory model inputs instead of actual emissions values. See preamble. A current example would be inputs for the new National Mobile Inventory Model ( NMIM).

51.20( a) and ( b) Base point source reporting on whether a source is " major",

rather than on cutoffs based on actual emissions in the year at issue. Change is mandatory starting in 2008.

Remove requirement for reporting biogenic emissions. See preamble.

See preamble. How else might difficulties caused by a changing universe of reporting eligible sources from year to year as under the current rules be managed?

How would this actually affect the number of sources reported as point sources, and what effect would this have on State workload? Does the State currently have the necessary emissions data for the additional sources, or would changes in State rules and practices be required? Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 14 51.20( d) Add statement that reporting of non point sources must include wildfires and prescribed fires, but is not required to include windgenerated dust.

Add statement that non point Clarify that fires are potentially important emission sources and are encompassed under the term " anthropogenic stationary sources" for purposes of this Subpart, due to the interaction of prescribed fires and wildfire prevention.

This is not intended to have any effect on the meaning of provisions of other CFR sections that may address fires.

Wind generated dust is explicitly excluded to clarify EPA intent and current practice. Note that wind generated dust from roads and material storage piles at major point sources are required to be reported. Wind generated dust from natural landscapes and from fields that have been plowed but are not yet covered by vegetation would be excluded.

Clarity, reflects current EPA Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 15 sources must be identified by source classification code.

Add statement that non point source categories with de minimus emissions may be excluded. practice in interpreting this section. Practicability and efficiency.

51.25 Change " an area's" to " any area's" Clarity 51.30 Add provisions related to NOx SIP call ( previously contained only in 51.122 and not in Subpart A) and provisions related to the Clean Air Interstate Rule. Restructure and re phrase for clarity. Requirements related to the Clean Air Interstate Rule are based on the reason( s) each State is affected. For example,

States contributing significantly to ozone nonattainment in another State would be required to report ozone relevant data like States presently subject to the NOx SIP call, but States contributing only to PM2.5 nonattainment would report only annual SO2 and NOx. Note that under the existing Subpart A, all States are required to report all pollutants for winter and ozone season day. The proposed revision removes the requirement for winter day reporting ( for reasons stated in the preamble)

and limits the ozone season day ( now proposed to be termed summer season day)

reporting only to VOC and NOx and only to areas with ozone nonattainment or contributing to nonattainment in another State. Should summer day reporting include Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 16 The reports now required by 51.122 to be submitted on December 31 of the next year will instead be due June 1 of the second year following the year being reported.

The existing requirement of 51.122 for full reporting of all sources for 2007 is not retained. Consolidate reporting transactions, for efficiency.

See preamble for explanation. CO, which makes some contribution to ozone formation?

Instead, should all or some of the reporting which Subpart A now requires on June 1 be moved forward to December 31? See discussion in preamble.

51.35( a)( 3)

( And deletion of current 51.35( d) and renumbering of remaining paragraphs.) Remove the alternative of a State submitting one third of its three year sources each year. Instead, State may obtain data on one third of the sources each year but must submit all the data in one transaction. Efficiency in EPA handling and analysis of submitted data,

and avoiding errors related to source identification and matching. To EPA's knowledge, no State's current or planned practice will be affected. Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 17 51.40 Add a statement better indicating what specifications/ requirements can be part of the electronic data format, which EPA may change from year to year without amendment to Subpart A, e. g., that the electronic data format may specify that more than one data field is required for a single data element listed in Tables 2a through 2d. Clarity. Reflects current EPA practice in applying existing Subpart A.

Table 1 Simplify by removing classification dependent emissions cutoffs for point source reporting, which would instead be based on status as a " major" source. See preamble for explanation of the purpose of basing point sources on " major" source status. Requirements for reporting as Type A sources every year are not affected. The term " Type B" is not longer necessary and is not used.

Table 2a Revised to address all required data elements for point sources in consolidated form. Details for data elements being altered Separate State and county FIPS codes are reduced to a single combined FIPS code,

per current practice. Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 18 or otherwise of special interest are listed in the next column.

A State would enter this table once it had determined which time periods and pollutants it was required to report, based on its status under 51.122,

51.123, 51.124, and 51.125. Point ID code is replaced with Unit ID code, per current practice.

Heat content of fuel in the ozone season, if applicable, is added, since it is a current requirement of the NOx SIP call. Activity data element is generalized from " annual" and " daily" to " for each period reported" since this list of data elements now applies to annual reporting, ozone season reporting, and summer day reporting.

" Work weekday" is replaced by " summer daily", per reasons explained in the preamble. In some areas, the conditions of greatest concern may occur on weekend days.

Futher explanation appears in the definition of " summer Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 19 daily."

Add " Ozone season emissions ( if applicable)", since this list now must address the requirements of the NOx SIP call and the Clean Air Interstate Rule. ( Previous Subpart A addressed only annual emissions and daily emissions.) Applicability of ozone season emissions reporting is given in 51.30.

Terminology ( and later definitions) for X and Y coordinated are correct to reflect current practice as to which represents latitude vs.

longitude. " Method accuracy descriptions" are added as a required data element, and will be further defined in the electronic reporting format.

The requirement to identify the SIC/ NAICS code is What is the impact on the State of the requirement to provide method accuracy descriptions? Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 20 clarified to indicate that this must be provided at both the facility and unit levels. This is a requirement of the current reporting format.

" Design capacity" is reworded to clarify that it can refer to boiler capacity, as in the parallel but differently worded terminology of the existing 51.122 " Maximum nameplate capacity" is reworded to include " generator", as in the parallel but differently worded terminology of the existing 51.122.

" Primary control efficiency" is replaced with " Primary collection and control efficiency" ( requiring 2 values). This reflects current practice and reporting format.

Control efficience alone is not Preamble invites comment on appropriate data elements for describing type and effectiveness of controls at sources. Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 21 useful.

" Secondary control efficiency"

is replaced with " Total capture and control efficiency." This reflects current practice and reporting format, makes Tables 2a and 2b more consistent, and allows description of net effects of primary and all other control devices. Preamble invites comment on appropriate data elements for describing type and effectiveness of controls at sources.

Table 2a No change is proposed but comment is requested regarding stack parameters ( exit gas velocity, exit gas flow rate, and stack diameter) See preamble for explanation.

Any one of these can be calculated from the other two. Which of the three is most often subject to actual physical measurement and should be preferred for reporting?

Table 2a No change is proposed but comment is requested regarding hr/ day in operation,

start time, day/ wk in operation, and wk/ yr in operation. See preamble. These longstanding data elements are useful for determining typical hourly and daily emissions while a source is in operation,

if annual emissions of an intermitent source are known.

This is most relevant to estimation of relatively near Are these data elements relevant to the purposes of the emission reporting requirements? Should they be retained? Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 22 by short term air quality impacts, as required for new source review, for example.

Table 2c No change is proposed, but comment is requested regarding current requirement of Subpart A for reporting of the 4 seasonal throughputs ( VMT) for highway mobile sources. Current data reporting format does not support these data elments. Moreover, knowing the four seasonal throughput values does not allow annual emissions to be allocated to seasons correctly since emission factors vary by season. Therefore, usefulness of these data is an issue. If highway mobile source emissions are reported by month or if inputs to the relevant emissions inventory model are provided, these datda elements would be redundant. Are these data elements relevant to the purposes of the emission reporting requirements? Should they be retained? Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 23 Table 2b Retitled for clarity.

Changes in data elements parallel those described above for Table 2a, but limited to data elements relevant to nonpoint sources.

Table 2c Retitled for clarity.

Changes in data elements parallel those described above for Table 2a, but limited to data elements relevant to mobile sources. Note that the " activity" data element for mobile sources is the same as for the current Subpart A, and differs from that in the current 51.122. The latter is obsolete and does not represent current practice with available emission estimation methods and models.

Definitions Previous titled " Glossary".

Definitions are corrected,

consolidated, and harmonized with their usage in the preceding sections and tables. Activity throughput and fuel heat content are generalized to the period of interest, rather than being separately defined for annual and daily.

Design capacity is made more relevant to the case of a boiler,

using language presently in 51.122. Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 24 Facility ID codes  clarify that one facility may have several codes assigned by different authorities and all must be reported if specified by the applicable data reporting format. Inventory type is redefined to match current practice, in which a single data file covers multiple time periods, and therefore " type" is not used to distinguish time period.

Maximum nameplate capacity changed to maximum generator nameplate capacity,

as appears now in 51.122.

Definition added for nitrogen oxides.

Area source replaced by nonpoint source.

Definition added for ozone Presently, Subpart A is ambiguous about whether States must report ID codes they have not themselves assigned to a source. Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 25 season, copied from existing 51.122. Definitions of PM ( particulate matter) are clarified to more explicitly address PM10,

PM2.5, condensible PM, and filterable PM.

Point ID code replaced by Unit ID code.

Point source definition revised to hinge on status as " major".

Pollutant code definition updated to reflect current practice.

Primary control efficiency is replaced with Primary capture and control efficiency.

Roadway class definition corrected to reflect current practice. Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 26 Secondary control efficiency is deleted, since no longer in Table 2a.

Start time definition revised to match current practice.

Summer work weekday emissions changed to summer daily emissions, with longer discussion.

Definition added for total capture and control efficiency.

Type B source definition removed, no longer needed.

VMT by roadway class replaced by VMT by SCC,

reflecting current practice to provide information by vehicle type as well as roadway type.

X and Y coordinate definitions corrected. X represents longitude, i. e., east west Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 27 coordinate.

51.122 in general Shorten by moving detailed lists of required date elements and definitions to Subpart A.

However, the following data elments now listed in 51.122 are not being added to the data element tables in Subpart A.

Instead, this information will be addressed in the year

toyear specification of the supporting data requirements;

see proposed revision to section 51.15( c).

Point Sources  Source of fuel heat content data  Source of activity/ throughput data  Source of emission factor Non point ( area) Sources  Source of emission factor  Source of activity/ throughput data Lists are moved to consolidate requirements in one location. Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 28  Source of emissions data Mobile Sources  Source of emission factor  Source of activity data In addition, the current 51.122 requires the data element " Area designation." EPA proposes not to require this in the consolidated list of data elements in the new Subpart A Table 2a . Designations change from time to time, and are available from other compilations.

51.122( b)( 1) The term " annual reporting" is replaced with " every year reporting" To avoid possible confusion with reporting of emissions for an annual ( 12 month) period.

51.122( b)( 2) The term " triennial reporting"

is replaced with " three year cycle reporting" Clarity and consistency with terminology of 51 Subpart A. Section Amended or Added Proposed Changes or Addition Reasons for Proposed Changes Request for Comment and other Special Notes 29 Previous 51.122( b)( 3) Deleted, subsequent paragraphs renumbered Remove requirement for special reporting of 2007 emissions from all sources, for reasons stated in preamble.

Previous 51.122 ( c), ( d), ( e) Detailed lists of data elements in these three paragraphs are replaced with a single reference to Subpart A.

Previous 51.122( f) Renumbered as ( d)

Previous 51.122( g) Renumbered as ( e)

Previous 51.122( h) Renumbered as ( f) and reduced to a reference to Subpart A.

Previous 51.122( i) Renumbered as ( g) and reduced to a reference to definitions in Subpart A.

51.125 New section This new section states the emissions reporting requirements related to the Clean Air Interstate Rule. It is similar in structure and content to 51.122. 30


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 73548]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25354]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-399, OMB Control No. 3235-0456]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form 24F-2

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 24f-2 (17 CFR 270.24f-2) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) requires any open-end management companies
(``mutual funds''), unit investment trusts (``UITs''), registered
closed-end investment companies that make periodic repurchase offers
under rule 23c-3 under the Investment Company Act [17 CFR 270.23c-3]
(``interval funds''), or face-amount certificate companies
(collectively, ``funds'') deemed to have registered an indefinite
amount of securities to file, not later than 90 days after the end of
any fiscal year in which it has publicly offered such securities, Form
24F-2 (17 CFR 274.24) with the Commission. Form 24F-2 is the annual
notice of securities sold by funds that accompanies the payment of
registration fees with respect to the securities sold during the fiscal
year.
    The Commission estimates that 6,794 funds file Form 24F-2 on the
required annual basis. The average annual burden per respondent for
Form 24F-2 is estimated to be four hours. The total annual burden for
all respondents to Form 24F-2 is estimated to be 27,176 hours.
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules.
    Compliance with the collection of information required by Form 24F-
2 is mandatory. The Form 24F-2 filing that must be made to the
Commission is available 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 control number.
    The Commission requests written comments on: (a) Whether the
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the
burdens of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 12, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25354 Filed 11-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 46157]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19808]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[EG18-95-000, EG18-96-000, EG18-97-000, EG18-98-000, EG18-99-000, EG18-
100-000, EG18-101-000, EG18-102-000, FC18-6-000, FC18-7-000]

Langdon Renewables, LLC, Rush Springs Energy Storage, LLC, Origis
Energy, Palmer's Creek Wind Farm, LLC, Meadowlark Wind I LLC, Foard
City Wind, LLC, Torrecillas Wind Energy, LLC, Holloman Lessee LLC,
Solfuture Gestion, S.L.U., Glicinia Instalaciones Fotovoltaicas,
S.L.U.; Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator and
Foreign Utility Company Status

    Take notice that during the month of August 2018, the status of the
above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a)(2018).

    Dated: September 6, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19808 Filed 9-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P