[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48209-48211]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19724]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0049; Notice 1]

FCA US, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: FCA US, LLC, (f/k/a Chrysler Group LLC) ``FCA US'' has
determined that certain model year (MY) 2018 Jeep Wrangler motor
vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Material. FCA US filed a noncompliance report
dated April 25, 2019. FCA also petitioned NHTSA on May 15, 2019, and
later submitted a supplemental petition on May 31, 2019, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of FCA US's
petition.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is October 15,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket number and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and

will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received
after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the
fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: FCA US has determined that certain MY 2018 Jeep
Wrangler motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S5.1.1 of
FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). FCA US filed a
noncompliance report dated April 25, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. FCA also
petitioned NHTSA on May 15, 2019, and later submitted a supplemental
petition on May 31, 2019, for an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt, of FCA US's petition, is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercises of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 1,804 MY 2018 Jeep Wrangler
motor vehicles, manufactured between October 13, 2018, and October 19,
2018, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: FCA US explains that the noncompliance is that
the liftgate privacy glass in the subject vehicles does not fully
comply with paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 205. Specifically, the
liftgate glass in the subject vehicles contains the AS2 solar glazing
marking when they should have been marked with the AS3 privacy glazing
marking.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 205 includes
the requirements relevant to this petition. Except as otherwise
specifically provided by FMVSS No. 205, glazing for use in multipurpose
passenger vehicles shall conform to the requirements for glazing for
use in trucks as specified in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (incorporated by
reference, See Sec.  571.5).
    V. Summary of FCA US' Petition:
    FCA US described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, FCA US submitted the following
reasoning:
    1. NHTSA recently described the glazing materials certification and
marking requirements as follows: ``A prime glazing manufacturer
certifies its glazing by adding to the marks required by section 7 of
ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996''. American National Standard Institute (``ANSI'')
standard ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 requires privacy glass to meet AS3
requirements for light transmissibility and requires labeling the glass
with an AS3 marking.
    2. FCA US states that the liftgate glass glazing of the affected
vehicles otherwise meets all marking and performance requirements of
FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996. Since all transparent sections
of the affected glazing fully meet all the applicable performance
requirements, FCA US does not believe that the incorrect AS2 marking
impacts the ability of the glazing to satisfy the stated purpose or
affect the performance of the glazing intended by FMVSS No. 205.
    3. FCA US stated that the subject glazing meets all applicable
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 205. FCA US stated their belief
that there is no safety performance implication associated with this
technical noncompliance.
    4. In addition to meeting all the component level performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 205, the subject glazing also fully meets the
vehicle level installation requirements specified by FMVSS No. 205. The
subject glazing at 22% transmissibility is permitted in the rear window
location on the affected Jeep Wrangler vehicles.
    5. The actual transmissibility of the subject glass glazing
(approximately 22%) is consistent with all the other glazing rearward
of the driver (i.e., left and right-side windows, and the left and
right rear quarter window glazing) on the affected Jeep Wrangler
vehicles. Accordingly, there is no reason for the customer, state
inspection authorities, service personnel, or anyone else to focus on
or detect any distinction involving the subject liftgate glass.
    6. In the extremely unlikely event that a glazing corresponding to
the incorrect markings (i.e., solar glazing with 70% transmittance) was
installed on an affected vehicle, this would also be fully compliant to
all the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, including component level and
vehicle level marking requirements of the standard.
    7. FCA US is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or customer
complaints associated with the condition.
    8. NHTSA has previously granted inconsequential treatment for FMVSS
No. 205 glazing material marking noncompliances. Examples of the Agency
granting similar inconsequentiality petitions for incorrect markings
related to glazing include:

[cir] Supreme Corporation, NHTSA-2015-0126; N2, October 21, 2016
[cir] Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., NHTSA-2015-0066; N2,
August 22, 2015
[cir] Ford Motor Company, NHTSA-2014-0054; N2, March 2, 2015
[cir] Custom Glass Solutions Upper Sandusky Corp., NHTSA-2013-0124; N2,
January 23, 2015
[cir] General Motors, LLC, NHTSA-2013-0039; N2, April 28, 2015
[cir] Fiji Heavy Industries U.S.A. Inc., NHTSA-2013-0017; N2, September
25, 2013
[cir] Ford Motor Company, NHTSA-2010-0060; N2, May 30, 2013
[cir] Pilkington North America, Inc., NHTSA-2009-0092; N2, April 17,
2013
[cir] Pilkington Glass of Canada LTD., NHTSA-2006-24707; N2, July 11,
2006
[cir] General Motors, NHTSA-2005-21675; N2, August 25, 2005
[cir] Freightliner LLC, NHTSA-2002-15644; N2, November 24, 2003
[cir] Toyota Motors North America Inc, NHTSA-2002-12367; N2, March 4,
2003
[cir] Guardian Ind. Corp., NHTSA-2002-12319; N2, October 23, 2002
[cir] Ford Motor Company, NHTSA-1999-5210; N2, December 15, 1999
[cir] Western Star Trucks Inc, NHTSA-1998-3869; N2, December 1, 1998

    FCA US concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that FCA US no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after FCA US
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-19724 Filed 9-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US

05/01/2008 08:13 AM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

"Fraas, Arthur G."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jason Burnett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: two tables - two files

Heidi,

I'm afraid I don't, but I'll be sure to make whatever conforming changes to the RIA that are necessary once I have that table.

Thanks,

Neal

_________________________________

Neal Fann

USEPA

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

Air Benefit and Cost Group

C439-02

RTP, NC 27711

voice:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 05/01/2008 07:37 AM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

"Fraas, Arthur G."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jason Burnett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: two tables - two files

Lydia,

I haven’t received these files yet, but reading the new RIA chapters it occurred to me that Deirdre may have shared them with Neal Fann, who needs to make corresponding changes in the RIA.

Neal – do you have the new Conc Resp fuct tables distributed yesterday evening before midnight?

Thanks,

heidi

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:02 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Fraas, Arthur G<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: two tables - two files

Yes, I just found the same problem.  Deirdre has left for the night, so I'm afraid we'll both have to wait until 6 AM tomorrow, when she plans to be in the office.  I'm sorry about that but I need to have her resend the files.

-----"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote: -----

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Fraas, Arthur G." <EMAIL_ADDRESS> From: "King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date: 04/30/2008 11:59PM

cc: Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jason Burnett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: RE: two tables - two files

Lydia ,

The files are pictures of a word attachment, but I cannot open the attachment.

Would it be possible for you to resend?

Thanks,

heidi

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:53 PM

To: King, Heidi R.; Fraas, Arthur G. :PersonName

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Fw: two tables - two files

-----Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/30/2008 11:51PM -----

To: Wegman Lydia@EPA

From: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US

Date: 04/30/2008 11:49PM

Subject: Fw: two tables - two files

Karen Martin, Ph.D.

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. EPA (C504-06)

Research Triangle Park , NC 27711

phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS> ----- Forwarded by Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US  on 04/30/2008 11:48 PM  -----

Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US

04/30/2008 11:33 PM

To

Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

two tables - two files


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

	PC Code: 055459

	DP Barcode:  351023

MEMORANDUM	October 20, 2008

SUBJECT:	Quinoxyfen (New Uses)

Tier I Drinking Water Exposure Assessment in Support of the Proposed New
Uses of Quinoxyfen on stone fruits group 12 (excluding cherry),
artichokes, winter squash, pumpkin and edible gourds

TO:	Sidney Jackson/Barbara Madden

	Registration Division (7505P)

	John Redden

	Health Effects Division (7509P)

FROM:	Amy McKinnon, Environmental Scientist

	Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

THROUGH:	Cheryl Sutton, Ph.D.,  Environmental Scientist

	Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

	Marietta Echeverria, RAPL

	Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

	Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief

	Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This assessment provides estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs)
of quinoxyfen in surface water and in ground water in support of the
IR-4 tolerance petition for the proposed use of quinoxyfen (Quintec®
22.58% active ingredient; 2.08 lb ai/gal.; PC Code 055459) as a
fungicide on stone fruits group 12 (excluding cherry), artichokes,
winter squash, pumpkins and edible gourds. Quinoxyfen is proposed for
use as an aerial spray/foliar application with up to four applications
of 0.13 lbs a.i./A (8 oz. Quintec) with a six-day minimum re-application
interval, for a maximum total application rate of 0.52 lbs a.i./A/crop
(32 oz. Quintec).  Tier I EDWCs (Table 1) of quinoxyfen were generated
with the models FIRST for surface water and SCI-GROW for ground water.
Modeled application rates represent the maximum use pattern for use on
stone fruits group 12 (excluding cherry), artichokes, edible gourds,
winter squash and pumpkins and the previously assessed highest use rate
on cherries (EPA Registration 124495-18-7).  Remaining model input
parameters were chosen according to current guidance (USEPA, 2002).
EDWCs reflect exposure to quinoxyfen and the degradate of concern 3-OH
quinoxyfen (USEPA, 2007).

The EFED Risk Assessment for the Section 3 Registration of quinoxyfen
(DP Barcodes: D278515, D285770, D286376) was completed in August 2003;
uses assessed included grapes, hops and cherries.  In that assessment,
EDWCs for use in the human health risk assessment were determined using
a maximum annual application rate for cherries of 0.57 lb a.i./A (five
applications of 0.114 lb a.i./A/application).  Because the label did not
specify a minimum application interval at the time the assessment was
conducted, a default of one day was assumed.  However, an updated label
for application to cherries dated June 21, 2004 with a minimum
re-application interval of seven days has since been identified.

The maximum application rates for the proposed uses on stone fruits
group 12 (excluding cherry), artichokes, winter squash, pumpkins and
edible gourds do not exceed the previous maximum application rate for
any crop and the previous human health dietary risk assessment indicated
that the previously estimated drinking water levels were not a concern.
Modeling using current methodologies and models was done for the highest
existing use (cherries) as well as the proposed new uses.  The EDWCs
presented below are recommended for use in HED’s risk assessment
(Table 1).  All input parameter values used for modeling are presented
below in Tables 2 and 3.  If the screening EDWCs listed in this memo
result in dietary risk exceedences, please contact Amy McKinnon
(703-347-8010) of Environmental Risk Branch IV (7507P) to request a
refined drinking water exposure assessment.

Table 1.  Maximum Tier 1 EDWCs for quinoxyfen in ground water and
surface water based on proposed new uses and current highest rate on
cherries

Use Pattern	Use/Rate Modeled (lbs. a.i./A)	Surface Water Acute EDWC
(ppb)	Surface Water Chronic EDWC (ppb)	Ground water EDWC (ppb)

Proposed New Uses*	Aerial spray/0.13x 4 applications; annual total of
0.52	9.3	0.66	3.1 x 10-03

Cherries	orchard air blast spray/0.114x 5 applications; annual total of
0.57	9.9	0.62	3.4 x 10-03

*Proposed new uses include stone fruits group 12 (excluding cherry),
artichokes, edible gourds, winter squash and pumpkins.

Quinoxyfen (PC Code 055459) is a fungicide belonging to the
phenoxyquinoline class of chemicals.  Dow AgroSciences first developed
the active ingredient quinoxyfen for use on grape, hops and cherry crops
in the United States and elsewhere.  The end use product in the U.S. is
Quintec®, a suspension concentrate containing quinoxyfen as the single
active ingredient.   tc \l2 "Mode of Action The chemical’s main mode
of action occurs at the cellular level and is specific to powdery
mildews (e.g., Erysiphe, Uncinula).

Based on the submitted fate data, its chemical properties and the
proposed use patterns, quinoxyfen is, in general, expected to be a
slowly biodegradable compound that is hardly mobile in soil. Quinoxyfen
is a relatively high molecular weight compound with low water
solubility.  The primary degradation pathway is aqueous photodegradation
when the compound is present in an unsorbed state in clear and shallow
surface water under favorable light conditions. Quinoxyfen degrades
moderately quickly via soil photolysis and is not expected to persist in
aerobic or anaerobic aquatic environments.  Quinoxyfen is hydrolytically
stable at most environmentally relevant pHs and temperatures, but
hydrolyzes slowly at more acidic pHs.  Quinoxyfen is expected to degrade
slowly under aerobic and anaerobic soil conditions.

Five major degradates of quinoxyfen were identified in the submitted
environmental fate studies which include: 5,7-dichloroquinoline-4-ol
(DCHQ); 5,7-dichloro-4-(4-fluorophenoxy)quinolin-3-ol (3-OH quinoxyfen);
2-chloro-10-fluoro[1]benzopyrano[2,3,4-de]quinoline (CFBPQ);
5,7-dichloro-4-methoxyquinoline (DCMQ; methylated DCHQ) and CO2.   In
accordance to a decision made by the MARC committee (dated 3/26/03; DP
Barcode D287939), the drinking water assessment considers the parent
compound plus 3-OH quinoxyfen, a degradate considered to be a residue of
concern (due to its structural similarity to the parent) for drinking
water.  EDWCs reflect exposure to quinoxyfen and 3-OH quinoxyfen.

PROBLEM FORMULATION

This drinking water assessment uses environmental modeling to provide
estimates of surface water and ground water concentrations in drinking
water source water (pre-treatment) resulting from quinoxyfen use on
vulnerable sites.  Estimates reflect drinking water exposure to residues
of concern for quinoxyfen, which include the parent compound and the
degradate of concern, 3-OH quinoxyfen (USEPA, 2007).  Primary routes of
transport to source water include runoff/erosion and spray drift.  The
screening model FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) was used to
assess exposure in surface water due to runoff, erosion, and spray drift
from the proposed quinoxyfen uses.  Exposure in ground water due to
leaching was assessed with the screening model Screening Concentration
in Ground Water (SCI-GROW).

ANALYSIS

Use Characterization

Quinoxyfen is currently registered for use on cherries, grapes, hops,
lettuce, melons, peppers (bell and non-bell), eggplant and strawberries
plants in the United States.  The fungicide is a protectant fungicide
that is used as a foliar application.  Based on the proposed label (for
stone fruits group 12 (excluding cherry), artichokes, winter squash,
edible gourds and pumpkins), quinoxyfen will likely be applied as an
orchard airblast spray (a form of ground spray) or aerial spray (which
is not recommended according to the proposed label).  The label
prohibits use of the product for applications made using irrigation
systems (chemigation) and aerial is only allowed on the proposed label.
The maximum application rates (per application), maximum number of
applications per year, maximum annual rates, minimum application
intervals, and methods of application are listed by proposed crop type
in Table 2.

Table 2.  Summary of the Proposed Maximum Application Rate, Number of
Applications, Application Interval and Maximum Yearly Application Rate
for the Proposed New Uses of Quinoxyfen and current highest rate on
cherries

Use	Formulation	Maximum application rate	Maximum applications per year
Maximum Annual Rate	Minimum application interval	Application Method

Proposed New Uses*	Quintec	0.13 lb a.i./A	4	0.52 lb a.i./A	6	aerial

Cherry	Quintec	0.114 lb a.i./A	5	0.57 lb a.i./A	7	orchard air blast

*Proposed new uses include stone fruits group 12 (excluding cherry),
artichokes, edible gourds, winter squash and pumpkins.

Fate and Transport Characterization

Based on the submitted fate data, its chemical properties and the
proposed use patterns, quinoxyfen is, in general, expected to be a
slowly biodegradable compound that is hardly mobile in soil.  Table 3
summarizes the chemical properties of quinoxyfen, a relatively high
molecular weight compound with low water solubility.  The primary
degradation pathway is aqueous photodegradation when the compound is
present in an unsorbed state in clear and shallow surface water under
favorable light conditions.

Table 3. General Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters
of quinoxyfen.

Chemical Fate / Parameter	Value	Source

Chemical Name	quinoxyfen

	Molecular Mass	308.14 g/mol	Physical/

chemical property data.

Vapor Pressure (Pa @ 20 ºC, extrapolated)	1.2 x 10-5 Pa (20(C)

2.0 x 10-5 Pa (25(C)	Physical/

chemical property data.

Solubility (20°C)	0.116 mg/L, distilled water(20(C)

0.128 mg/L, pH 5 buffer (20(C)

0.047 mg/L, pH 7 buffer (20(C)

0.036 mg/L, pH 9 buffer (20(C)	Physical/

chemical property data.

Log Octanol-water partition coefficient (K ow)	4.66	MRID 45360712

Mean adsorption coefficient (K d) 	366, 385, 433, 252, 146, 73, 1803,
311 mL/g (parent only)	MRIDs 45360701, 45360703

Mean organic carbon partioning coefficient (K oc)	21550 (sandy clay
loam), 18339(sandy loam), 28897(loamy sand), 53401(loam), 61523 (sandy
loam), 45287(sand), 75178(loam), 75930 (clay)(parent only)	MRID s
45360701, 45360703

Hydrolysis half-life (pH 4, 50(C)

Hydrolysis half-life (pH 7, 50(C)

Hydrolysis half-life (pH 9, 50(C)	6 days

stable

stable	MRID 45360620

Aqueous photolysis half-life 	<1 day  (parent only)	MRIDs 45360623
,45360624

Soil photolysis half-life	74 days  (parent only)	MRIDs 45360625

Aerobic soil metabolism half-life (soil texture)	102(sandy loam),
110(sandy loam), 210(loamy sand), 257(loam), 315(loam), 433(clay loam),
495 (sandy clay loam), 577 days(sandy loam) (parent only);

210(sandy loam), 415(sandy loam), 433(loamy sand), 436(loam), 495(loam),
577(clay loam), 642(sandy clay loam, 648  (sandy loam)days (parent plus
3-OH quinoxyfen)1	MRIDs 45360626 & 45360627

Anaerobic soil metabolism half-life (soil texture)	108 days (sandy loam
soil)	MRIDs 45360711

Aerobic aqueous metabolism half-life (sandy loam)	50 days (parent only);

165 days (parent plus  3-OH quinoxyfen)1	MRID 45360630

Anaerobic aqueous metabolism half-life (sandy loam)	18 days  (parent
only)

2013 days  ( parent plus  3-OH quinoxyfen)	MRID 45360629

Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) in fish	5040X	MRID 45360425

Terrestrial field dissipation half-life (soil texture)	94 days (sandy
loam; California)

65 days (loam; Ontario Canada)

Half life not determined(sandy clay loam, Ile de France)

Half life not determined (loamy silt, Oberbayern Germany)

Half life not determined(sandy clay loam, Oxfordshire England)	MRIDs
45360704, 45360705, 45360708, 45360709, 45360710

1Half-lives were re-calculated using combined concentration data for the
parent compound plus 3-OH quinoxyfen when the latter compound was
present.  Data are listed in ascending order and do not correspond
pairwise to the values listed for parent only.

Transport and Mobility

Based on a reported vapor pressure of 1.2 x 10-5 Pa (@20(C) quinoxyfen
is not expected to volatilize.  Quinoxyfen is a relatively high
molecular weight compound with low water solubility.  Quinoxyfen is
hardly mobile (FAO) in soil, and its adsorption correlates well with
organic carbon content.  Data from batch equilibrium studies, when
considered along with results from Tier I screening models and guideline
terrestrial field dissipation studies, indicate a low potential for
leaching to groundwater.  Because adsorption of the compound is related
to soil organic carbon content, a slightly higher, though still low,
potential for leaching to groundwater might exist for quinoxyfen in
soils which are relatively low in organic matter, as is often the case
with coarse-textured soils.  There is a potential for quinoxyfen to
reach surface water through spray drift when applied using ground spray
and aerial spray.  The potential for overland surface runoff of the
compound in the water phase is low given the low aqueous solubility of
the compound.  However, because quinoxyfen is generally persistent under
field conditions, over time the compound may be present in field runoff
as a sorbed residue.  The slow biodegradation of quinoxyfen in most
soils will increase the potential for both groundwater and surface water
contamination.  While quinoxyfen is likely to adsorb to aquatic
sediments, the potential for the compound to accumulate in such is
mediated by the degradation of the compound in aquatic environments.
However, although quinoxyfen is degraded in the environment, its major
degradate in most soil and aquatic systems is the transformation product
3-OH quinoxyfen, which is essentially stable to biodegradation in both
aerobic and anaerobic aquatic systems.   Based on the submitted
laboratory and field studies, it is likely that 3-OH quinoxyfen has
mobility characteristics similar to those of the parent compound.  In
addition, based on the results of a guideline study, quinoxyfen has a
very high potential to bioaccumulate in fish and is not metabolized in
such, but will be depurated rapidly when the fish are no longer exposed
to the compound.

Degradation

Photodegradation of quinoxyfen in clear, shallow surface water is rapid
(<1 day) and results in the formation of a degradate which is also
rapidly degraded. However, direct photolytic degradation of either the
parent or the degradate in turbid and/or deeper waters may be limited by
the attenuation of sunlight due to unfavorable conditions with regard to
light penetration.  Also, adsorption of the compound to suspended
particles in the water column will decrease the amount of compound
available for photolytic degradation.  In aerobic soil and in aerobic
and anaerobic aquatic systems the primary degradation pathway is
biodegradation, with more rapid degradation in the aquatic environments,
particularly where anaerobic conditions exist.  Quinoxyfen only slowly
biodegrades in aerobic soil, but is moderately rapidly degraded in the
sediment phase of aquatic environments.  While the photodegradation on
soil half-life (74 days) is shorter than the aerobic soil metabolism
half-lives (102-577 days), the former was determined under ideal
laboratory conditions where the compound remained on the soil surface
and was irradiated consistently; this is not likely to occur in the
natural environment.  Additionally, the soil photodegradation half-life
was extrapolated beyond the scope of the data and, thus, is of
questionable value in terms of representing an actual degradation rate
expected in the environment.  For these reasons, photodegradation on
soil is not likely to be as significant a fate process in the
environment as biodegradation will be.  Although quinoxyfen is degraded
in the environment, its major degradate in most soil and aquatic systems
is the transformation product 3-OH quinoxyfen, which is structurally
similar to the parent compound, the only difference being the addition
of an hydroxyl group on the quinoline ring of the degradate.  Based on
the submitted laboratory data, 3-OH quinoxyfen is essentially stable to
biodegradation in both aerobic and anaerobic aquatic systems.
Quinoxyfen is hydrolytically stable at most environmentally relevant pHs
and temperatures, but hydrolyzes slowly at more acidic pHs.  Quinoxyfen
is stable to photodegradation on soil.  Degradates of quinoxyfen include
5,7-dichloroquinoline-4-ol (DCHQ);
5,7-dichloro-4-(4-fluorophenoxy)quinolin-3-ol (3-OH quinoxyfen);
2-chloro-10-fluoro[1]benzopyrano[2,3,4-de]quinoline (CFBPQ); and
5,7-dichloro-4-methoxyquinoline (DCMQ; methylated DCHQ).

Field Studies

In the terrestrial field dissipation studies (conducted in California
and Ontario, Canada), quinoxyfen dissipated with half-lives ranging from
65 to 94 days.  Soil samples were analyzed for quinoxyfen and the major
degradate 3-OH quinoxyfen.  No major degradates were identified in the
studies conducted in California or Ontario, Canada.  Based on the
results of nonguideline field studies conducted during a 5-year period
in France, Germany and the UK to determine the residues of the parent
and 3-OH quinoxyfen, and potential for accumulation of such over time
following five annual applications of the pesticide, the accumulation of
both the parent compound and 3-OH quinoxyfen in the field is found to be
likely over time.

Degradates

Five major degradates of quinoxyfen were identified in the submitted
environmental fate studies: 5,7-dichloroquinoline-4-ol (DCHQ);
5,7-dichloro-4-(4-fluorophenoxy)quinolin-3-ol (3-OH quinoxyfen);
2-chloro-10-fluoro[1]benzopyrano[2,3,4-de]quinoline (CFBPQ);
5,7-dichloro-4-methoxyquinoline (DCMQ; methylated DCHQ) and  carbon
dioxide (IUPAC names in Table 4).  The major degradates were identified
in the hydrolysis, aqueous photolysis, aerobic soil metabolism,
anaerobic soil metabolism, aerobic aquatic metabolism and anaerobic
aquatic metabolism studies.

Table 4. Chemical Names for the Transformation Products of quinoxyfen.

Synonym	IUPAC Chemical Name

 DCHQ 	5,7-dichloroquinoline-4-ol

3-OH quinoxyfen	5,7-dichloro-4-(4-fluorophenoxy)quinolin-3-ol

 CFBPQ	2-chloro-10-fluoro[1]benzopyrano[2,3,4-de]quinoline

DCMQ; methylated DCHQ	5,7-dichloro-4-methoxyquinoline

CO2	Carbon dioxide

Drinking Water Exposure Modeling

	Models

An EDWC in surface water was estimated using EFED’s Tier I aquatic
model FIRST (v1.1.1; 3/25/08).  FIRST (FQPA Index Reservoir Screening
Tool) is a metamodel of PRZM and EXAMS used as a screening tool to
estimate pesticide concentrations found in surface water used as
drinking water.  FIRST was developed by making multiple runs of PRZM
using varying sorption coefficients and determining the concentration in
the EXAMS index reservoir scenario after a two-inch single storm event.
(The Index Reservoir is a standard water body used by the Office of
Pesticide Programs to assess drinking water exposure (Office of
Pesticide Programs, 2002).  It is based on a real reservoir (albeit not
currently in active use as a drinking water supply), Shipman City Lake
in Illinois, that is known to be vulnerable to pesticide contamination.
The single runoff event moves a maximum of 8% of the applied pesticide
into the reservoir.  This amount can be reduced by degradation or
effects of binding to soil in the field.  Additionally, FIRST can
account for spray drift and adjusts for the area within a watershed that
is planted with the modeled crop (Percent Cropped Area).  Spray drift
(modeled as direct deposition of the pesticide into the reservoir) is
assumed to be 16% of the applied active ingredient for aerial
application, 6.3% for orchard air blast application, and 6.4% for other
ground spray application. Despite being a single event model, FIRST can
account for spray drift from multiple applications.  The default
agricultural Percent Cropped Area (PCA) is 87%.  The PRZM scenario used
for FIRST development was among the most vulnerable, and thus resulting
surface water concentrations represent the upper bound values on the
concentrations that might be found in drinking water from the use of a
pesticide.

Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW v2.3, Jul. 29, 2003)
is a regression model used as a screening tool to estimate pesticide
concentrations found in ground water used as drinking water.  SCI-GROW
was developed by fitting a linear model to ground water concentrations
with the Relative Index of Leaching Potential (RILP) as the independent
variable.  Ground water concentrations were taken from 90-day average
high concentrations from Prospective Ground Water studies.  The RILP is
a function of aerobic soil metabolism and the soil-water partition
coefficient.  The output of SCI-GROW represents the concentrations of
quinoxyfen residue that might be expected in shallow unconfined aquifers
under sandy soils, which is representative of the ground water most
vulnerable to pesticide contamination and likely to serve as a drinking
water source.  The SCI-GROW and FIRST models and user’s manual may
also be downloaded from the EPA Water Models web-page (USEPA, 2007a).

Modeling Approach and Input Parameters

The approach was to model Total Toxic Residues which includes the parent
compound (quinoxyfen) and the degradate 3-OH quinoxyfen.  In this
approach, the aerobic soil metabolism and the aerobic and anaerobic
aquatic metabolism half-lives determined for the parent compound in the
guideline studies were recalculated using concentration data for the
parent compound plus 3-OH quinoxyfen when the latter compound was
present in the study samples.  Because separate aqueous photolysis data
were not available for 3-OH quinoxyfen, and the compound was not
detected in the irradiated test solutions treated with the parent
compound, the photolysis half-life used in the modeling was calculated
using parent compound concentration data only.  The lack of information
on the photolysis rate of 3-OH quinoxyfen comprises an uncertainty
surrounding the surface water EDWCs.  However, the results of additional
modeling conducted with the conservative assumption that the compounds
(i.e., the parent and degradate combination) are stable to aqueous
photodegradation indicated that changes in the value of the input
parameter did not have a significant effect on the EDWCs.  Additionally,
there are only soil adsorption data for the parent compound; however, a
preliminary study conducted as part of the acceptable guideline studies
indicates that 3-OH quinoxyfen approaches the mobility of the parent
compound.  Regardless, because the parent is hardly mobile and parent
data were used in lieu of definitive adsorption coefficient data for the
degradate, this increases the uncertainty surrounding the surface water
EDWCs as well as the groundwater EDWC.

The highest concentrations in this assessment for acute surface water
acute and groundwater EDWCs are based on the cherry use, using a maximum
annual application rate of 0.57 lb a.i./A (five applications of 0.114 lb
a.i./A/application).  The highest concentrations in this assessment for
surface water chronic EDWCs are based on the proposed new uses (stone
fruits group 12 (excluding cherry), artichokes, pumpkins, winter squash
and edible gourds), using a maximum annual application rate of 0.52 lb
a.i./A (four applications of 0.13 lb a.i./A/application). Because the
label did not provide a minimum application interval at the time the
first assessment (2003) was conducted, a default of one day was
utilized.  However, a label for application to cherries dated June 21,
2004 with a minimum re-application interval of seven days has since been
identified and is used in this modeling.  The application method modeled
for cherries in this assessment was orchard air blast and as aerial for
the proposed new uses since it is allowed on the label.    SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1 Input parameters for the FIRST model follow in Table 5; data
source and justification descriptors accompany values for each
parameter.

Table 5 Input values used for quinoxyfen Tier I surface water modeling
with FIRST.

Parameter (units)	Value(s)	Source	Comment

Application Rate

(lb a.i./A)	0.13 (new uses*)

0.114 (cherries)	Label	Maximum application rate allowed for proposed new
uses.

Maximum application rate allowed for cherries.

Number of Applications	4 (new uses*)

5 (cherries)	Label	Four per season for proposed new uses.

Five per season for cherries.

Interval between Applications (days)	6 (new uses*)

7 (cherries)	Label	Proposed Label for new uses

Label dated 6/21/04 for cherries

Percent Cropped Area (decimal)	0.87(new uses* and cherries)	EFED PCA
guidance.	Default PCA factor for crops other than corn, soybean and
wheat.

Mean Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc)	18339	MRIDs 45360701,
45360703	Represents the lowest non-sand value among eight values ranging
from 18339 to 75930.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life 	554 days	MRIDs 45360626 & 45360627
Value calculated from data for parent plus 3-OH quinoxyfen.  Represents
the 90th percentile of the upper confidence bound on the mean of 8
half-life values.

Wetted in?	No	Label	

Depth of Incorporation (inches)	0	Label	Aerial and orchard airblast
application

Method of Application	aerial (new uses*)

orchard airblast (cherries)	Label	

Solubility in Water (mg/L or ppm) distilled water at 20ºC.	0.116
Physical/

chemical property data.	

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life 	495 days	MRID 45360630	Value
calculated from data for parent plus 3-OH quinoxyfen.  Input value was
determined by multiplying the calculated half-life by 3 to account for
the uncertainty associated with using a single value, per EFED model
input parameter guidance.

Hydrolysis Half-life (pH 7)	stable	MRID 45360620	

Aquatic Photolysis Half-life  @ pH 7 	1 day	MRIDs 45360623, 45360624
Input value is based only on parent data.  Separate data were not
available for 3-OH quinoxyfen, and the degradate was not detected in the
irradiated test solutions.

*Proposed new uses include stone fruits group 12 (excluding cherry),
artichokes, edible gourds, winter squash and pumpkins.

Input parameters for the SCI-GROW model appear in Table 6; data source
and justification descriptors accompany values for each parameter.

Table 6. SCI-GROW input parameters for quinoxyfen.

Input Parameter	Value	Justification	Source

Application Rate

(lbs a.i./A)	0.13 (new uses*)

0.114 (cherries)	Label	Maximum application rate allowed per season for
proposed new uses and for cherries.

Applications per season	4 (new uses*)

5 (cherries)	Label directions	Proposed label

Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (KOC) (mL/gOC)	18339	Represents the
lowest value of eight values ranging from 18339 to 75930 for the parent
compound only.  	MRID 45360703

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days)	465.5	Represents the median
value of eight values ranging from 210 to 648, based on concentration
data for the parent plus 3-OH quinoxyfen. 	MRIDs 45360626 & 45360627

*Proposed new uses include stone fruits group 12 (excluding cherry),
artichokes, edible gourds, winter squash and pumpkins.

Modeling Results

Screening estimates generated for drinking water exposure assessment are
listed in Table 7.  The use pattern on cherries is the maximum use
pattern modeled for surface water and ground water exposure estimates,
as described above.  Modeled input/output data for these estimates are
attached in Appendix A.

Table 7 Maximum Tier 1 EDWCs for quinoxyfen in ground water and surface
water based on proposed new uses and current highest rate on cherries

Use Pattern	Use/Rate Modeled (lbs. a.i./A)	Surface Water Acute EDWC
(ppb)	Surface Water Chronic EDWC (ppb)	Ground water EDWC (ppb)

Proposed New Uses*	Aerial spray/0.13x 4 applications; annual total of
0.52	9.3	0.66	3.1 x 10-03

Cherries	orchard air blast spray/0.114x 5 applications; annual total of
0.57	9.9	0.62	3.4 x 10-03

*Proposed new uses include stone fruits group 12 (excluding cherry),
artichokes, edible gourds, winter squash and pumpkins.

SCIGROW concentration (ppb) represents the ground water concentration
that might be expected in shallow unconfined aquifers under sandy soils.
Output is used for both acute and chronic endpoints.  FIRST
concentrations (ppb) represent untreated surface water concentrations.
The one-in-10-year peak day concentration is used for acute endpoints
and the one-in-10-year annual average concentration is used for chronic
endpoints.  The estimated concentrations provided in this assessment are
conservative estimates of concentrations in drinking water.  If dietary
risks require refinement, higher tiered crop-specific and
location-specific models and modeling scenarios can be used.

Drinking Water Treatment

OPP does not have direct data on the effects of drinking water treatment
on quinoxyfen.  Flocculation and sedimentation removal may be effective
at reducing quinoxyfen concentrations.  Carbon filtering may also reduce
quinoxyfen concentrations due to the compound’s moderate affinity to
organic carbon.  Because of the absence of data on quinoxyfen, the
effects of drinking water treatment were not quantitatively considered
in this assessment.

Uncertainties tc \l2 "Uncertainties

Uncertainties associated with the determination of EDWCs stemmed from
the use of the aqueous photolysis half-life and the soil adsorption
coefficient determined for the parent only, while the aerobic soil
metabolism and the aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism half-lives
used in modeling were calculated using concentration data for the parent
compound plus 3-OH quinoxyfen when the latter compound was present in
the study samples. Definitive data were not available on the photolysis
rate or the mobility of 3-OH quinoxyfen, which is structurally similar
to the parent compound, having only the addition of a hydroxyl group on
the quinoline ring.  However, the results of additional modeling
conducted with the conservative assumption that the compounds (i.e., the
parent and degradate combination) are stable to aqueous photodegradation
(vs. the rapid photodegradation which occurs for the parent compound)
indicated that changes in the value of the input parameter did not have
a significant effect on the EDWCs.  Additionally, there are only soil
adsorption data for the parent compound; however, a preliminary study
conducted as part of the acceptable guideline studies indicates that
3-OH quinoxyfen approaches the mobility of the parent compound.

LITERATURE CITATIONS

USEPA.  2002.  Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the
Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides.  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects
Division, Feb. 28, 2002.  Online at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_guidance2_28_02.htm/"
http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_guidance2_28_02.htm/

Æ

Æ

E

G

P

–

¨

©

ï

ð

E

F

d

•

–

¨

©

ሂĀ㄀Ĥ摧ى 	ሀĀ㄀Ĥ摧ى

䀀&摧ᨚ

옍

摧㒒¥ᔀð

õ

ÿ

M

N

z

¶

¹

hx

h

hx

Ȁ萏ː萑ː搒é␱币킄怂킄愂̤摧ᱟå

 hc*

 hc*

" hc*

 hc*

 hc*

퀀ࠂ䀇

퀀ࠂ䀇

퀀ࠂ䀇

䀀&摧㒒¥

摧ى

퀀ࠂ䀇

퀀ࠂ䀇

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

h

h

h

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

 hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

kdw

”ÿô

”ÿô

  hŽ

  hŽ

	̤̀␱愁̤摧௹S

̤̀萑ː␱态킄愂̤摧௹S

”ÿô

摧礍}

̤̀␆ᄁ킄怂킄愂̤摧㟌ë	̤̀␆愁̤摧㸣
ሀĀ㄀Ĥ摧礍}̤̀␅؁Ĥ␱愁̤摧㟌ë

h§

h§

h§

퀀ࠂ䀇

␃愃̤摧猅

̤̀萑ː␱态킄愂̤摧嶵£	̤̀␱愁̤摧䅀

@

	”

愀Ĥ摧礠µ

摧ᗃJ

愀Ĥ摧礠µ

愀Ĥ摧ᗃJ

퀀ࠂ	@

  h

 h

  h

  h

Æ

$

	@

  h

  h

  h

h¢

  h

  h

h¢

  h

퀀ࠂ䀇

␃؁Ĥ옍

h

퀀ࠂ䀇

h

h

h

h

" hc*

퀀ࠂ䀇

퀀ࠂ䀇

␱愁̤摧݀

퀀ࠂ䀇

퀀ࠂ䀇

퀀ࠂ䀇

a.  Water Models.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides:
Science and Policy, Models and Databases.  Last updated Aug. 23, 2007.
Online at:   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/"
http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/ .

 PAGE

 PAGE   12


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67536-67537]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26877]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2014-111]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before December 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-
0824 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to

http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20951.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 6, 2014.
James M. Crotty,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-0824.
    Petitioner: Viafield.
    Section of 14 CFR: parts 21 Subpart H, 45.23, 45.29, 61.23, 61.3,
61.113(a) and (b), 61.133(a), 91.7(a), 91.9, 91.109(a), 91.119, 91.121,
91.151(a), 91.203, 91.319(a)(1), 91.401, 91.403, 91.405, 91.407,
91.409, 91.411, 91.413, 91.415, 91.417, 91.419, and 91.421.
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner, a member-owned
agricultural cooperative with 18 locations serving northern Iowa and
southern Minnesota, is seeking an exemption to commercially operate
their eBee small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) for precision
agricultural surveying.

[FR Doc. 2014-26877 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 202 (Monday, October 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66395-66399]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23014]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90163; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-066]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Equity 7, Section 118(a)

October 13, 2020.
    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 October 1, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been 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 amend the Exchange's schedule of credits,
as set forth in Equity 7, Section 118(a) of the Exchange's Rulebook.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its schedule of credits at Equity 7,
Section 118, to add several new credits.
New Supplemental Credit for Displayed Orders in Securities in Tape B
    Presently, the Exchange offers a supplemental credit of $0.0001 per
share executed--in addition to the range of credits it normally
offers--to members with displayed orders/quotes (other than
Supplemental Orders \3\ or Designated Retail Orders \4\) in securities
in Tape B (securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE)
that provide liquidity to the Exchange, to the extent that such members
add liquidity in securities in Tape B representing at least 0.10% of
Consolidated Volume \5\ during the month through one or more of their
Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As set forth in Rule 4703(b)(6)(A), a ``Supplemental Order''
is an Order Type with a Non-Display Order Attribute that is held on
the Nasdaq Book in order to provide liquidity at the NBBO through a
special execution process described in Rule 4757(a)(1)(D).
    \4\ As set forth in Equity 7, Section 118, a ``Designated Retail
Order'' is an agency or riskless principal order that meets the
criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03 and that originates from a natural
person and is submitted to Nasdaq by a member that designates it
pursuant to this section, provided that no change is made to the
terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and the
order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized methodology. An order from a ``natural person'' can
include orders on behalf of accounts that are held in a corporate
legal form--such as an Individual Retirement Account, Corporation,
or a Limited Liability Company--that has been established for the
benefit of an individual or group of related family members,
provided that the order is submitted by an individual. Members must
submit a signed written attestation, in a form prescribed by Nasdaq,
that they have implemented policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to ensure that substantially all orders
designated by the member as ``Designated Retail Orders'' comply with
these requirements. Orders may be designated on an order by-order
basis, or by designating all orders on a particular order entry port
as Designated Retail Orders.
    \5\ Pursuant to Equity 7, Section 118(a), the term
``Consolidated Volume'' means the total consolidated volume reported
to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by all exchanges and
trade reporting facilities during a month in equity securities,
excluding executed orders with a size of less than one round lot.
For purposes of calculating Consolidated Volume and the extent of a
member's trading activity the date of the annual reconstitution of
the Russell Investments Indexes is excluded from both total
Consolidated Volume and the member's trading activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to this credit the Exchange now proposes to add a new
supplemental $0.00005 per share executed credit for members that add
displayed liquidity in securities in Tape B constituting Designated
Retail Orders where members add liquidity in securities in Tape B
representing at least 0.10% of Consolidated Volume during the month
through one or more of their Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs.
    Thus, under the proposal, to the extent that a member provides
liquidity in securities in Tape B that represents more than 0.10% of
Consolidated Volume during a month, then the member will qualify for
the following: (i) Any of the regular per share executed credits set
forth in Equity 7, Section 118(a)(3) for which the member otherwise
qualifies; (ii) a supplemental $0.0001 per share executed credit
applicable to the member's displayed add orders (other than its
Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders); and (iii) a
supplemental $0.00005 per share executed credit applicable to the
member's displayed add orders that constitute Designated Retail Orders
(other than Supplemental Orders).
    The Exchange intends for the new supplemental credit to provide a
further incentivize to its members to add displayed liquidity to the
Exhange in securities in Tape B. Moreover, the Exchange intends for the
proposal to broaden the availability of its supplemental credits to
members that add displayed retail liquidity to the Exchange, as the
existing supplemental credit excludes Designated Retail Orders. In
incentivizing members to increase the extent of their displayed
liquidity adding activity on the Exchange, and the extent of their
retail liquidity adding activity on the Exchange, the Exchange intends
to improve the overall quality and attractiveness of the market.
New Credits for Non-Displayed Orders
    Presently, the Exchange offers a range of credits for non-displayed
orders (other than Supplemental Orders) that provide liquidity to the
Exchange. For example, for orders in securities in Tapes A and B, the
Exchange presently offers a member a $0.0015 per share executed credit
for other non-displayed orders if the member (i) provides 0.10% or more
of Consolidated Volume through non-displayed orders (other than
midpoint orders) and (ii) provides 0.15% or more of Consolidated Volume
through midpoint orders during the month. For orders in securities in
Tape C, these same qualification requirements presently entitle a
member to receive a credit of $0.0010 per share executed.
    The Exchange proposes to add two additional credit tiers for orders
in securities in each Tape. For orders in securities in Tapes A and B,
the Exchange proposes to offer the following credits:
     $0.00175 per share executed for other nondisplayed orders
if the member (i) provides 0.225% or more of Consolidated Volume
through non-displayed orders (other than midpoint orders) and (ii)
provides 0.165% or more of Consolidated Volume through midpoint orders
during the month; and
     $0.0020 per share executed for other nondisplayed orders
if the member (i) provides 0.275% or more of Consolidated Volume
through non-displayed orders (other than midpoint orders) and (ii)
provides 0.175% or more of Consolidated Volume through midpoint orders
during the month.
    For orders in securities in Tape C, these same qualification
requirements described above would entitle a member to receive credits
of $0.00125 per share

executed and $0.0015 per share executed, respectively.
    The Exchange intends for these new credits to provide increased
incentives to its members to add significant amounts of non-displayed
liquidity to the Exhange, including in both midpoint and non-midpoint
orders. Although the Exchange intends to provide such incentives to
members who add non-displayed liquidity in securities in all Tapes, it
intends to provide a higher incentive to members who add non-displayed
liquidity in orders in securities in Tapes A and B, where the Exchange
has determined that the market would benefit most from additional such
liquidity. In incentivizing members to increase the extent of their
non-displayed liquidity adding activity on the Exchange, the Exchange
intends to improve the overall quality and attractiveness of the
market.
Impact of the Changes
    Those participants that act as significant providers of displayed
retail liquidity to the Exchange in securities in Tape B will benefit
directly from the proposed addition of the new supplemental credit,
while participants that act as significant providers of non-displayed
liquidity will benefit directly from the new non-displayed credits.
Other participants will also benefit from the new credits insofar as
any increase in liquidity adding activity on the Exchange will improve
the overall quality of the market, to the benefit of all member
organizations.
    The Exchange notes that its proposals are not otherwise targeted at
or expected to be limited in their applicability to a specific segment
of market participants nor will they apply differently to different
types of market participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposals are consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and further the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that they
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility,
and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposals are also consistent with
Section 11A of the Act relating to the establishment of the national
market system for securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposals Are Reasonable
    The Exchange's proposed changes to its schedule of credits are
reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . .'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and
fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. Within the
foregoing context, the proposals represent a reasonable attempt by the
Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its
competitors.
    The Exchange has designed its proposed new supplemental displayed
credit to provide increased overall incentives to members to increase
their retail displayed liquidity adding activity on the Exchange in
securities in Tape B, and it has designed its proposed new non-
displayed credits to increase incentives to members to increase their
non-displayed liquidity adding activity on the Exchange. An increase in
liquidity adding activity on the Exchange will, in turn, improve the
quality of the Nasdaq market and increase its attractiveness to
existing and prospective participants.
    The Exchange notes that those market participants that are
dissatisfied with the new credits are free to shift their order flow to
competing venues that offer them lower charges or higher credits.
The Proposals Are an Equitable Allocation of Credits
    The Exchange believes its proposals will allocate its credits
fairly among its market participants. It is equitable for the Exchange
to establish the proposed new supplemental credit as a means of
incentivizing members to provide meaningful amounts of liquidity to the
Exchange in securities, including both displayed and non-displayed
liquidity. To the extent that the Exchange succeeds in increasing
liquidity activity on the Exchange and in attracting additional retail
order flow, then the Exchange would experience improvements in its
market quality, which would benefit all market participants.
    The Exchange also believes it is equitable for the Exchange to
target its proposed supplemental credit to members with displayed
orders in securities in Tape B, and to Designated Retail Orders, in
particular, due to the Exchange's assessment that the market would
benefit from an increase in displayed liquidity in securities in Tape B
as well as additional retail liquidity in securities in Tape B.
Likewise, the Exchange believes that it is equitable for it to provide
higher new non-displayed credits to members with non-displayed orders
in securities in Tapes A and B, because the Exchange has determined
that the market would specifically benefit from additional non-
displayed liquidity in securities in those Tapes.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposed new credits
is free to shift their order flow to competing

venues that provide more generous pricing or less stringent qualifying
criteria.
The Proposed Credits Are Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposals are not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price
discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that its new proposed supplemental
displayed credit and its new proposed non-displayed credits are not
unfairly discriminatory because they stand to improve the overall
market quality of the Exchange, to the benefit of all market
participants, by incentivizing members to provide meaningful amounts of
liquidity. Additionally, it is not unfairly discriminatory to target
the new supplemental credit to orders in securities in Tape B and to
provide higher non-displayed credits to orders in securities in Tapes A
and B because the Exchange believes that the market would benefit from
additional liquidity in those areas. The Exchange notes that it has
limited funds to apply in the form of incentives, and thus must deploy
those limited funds to incentives that it believes will be the most
effective at improving market quality in areas that the Exchange
determines are in need of improvement.
    Finally, any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposed new
credits is free to shift their order flow to competing venues that
provide more generous pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposals will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. To the
contrary, the proposed changes will provide opportunities for members
to receive new credits based upon their market-improving behavior. Any
member may elect to provide the levels of market activity required in
order to receive the new credits. Furthermore, all members of the
Exchange will benefit from any increase in market activity that the
proposals effectuates.
    Moreover, members are free to trade on other venues to the extent
they believe that the proposed credits are too low or the qualification
criteria are not attractive. As one can observe by looking at any
market share chart, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with
liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction
to fee and credit changes. The Exchange notes that the tier structure
is consistent with broker-dealer fee practices as well as the other
industries, as described above.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange believes that its proposals will not burden
competition because the Exchange's execution services are completely
voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from the multitude
of other live exchanges and from off-exchange venues. The Exchange
notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems
that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards
applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their
own fees in response, and because market participants may readily
adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the
degree to which fee and credit changes in this market may impose any
burden on competition is extremely limited.
    The proposed new credits are reflective of this competition
because, even as one of the largest U.S. equities exchanges by volume,
the Exchange has less than 20% market share, which in most markets
could hardly be categorized as having enough market power to burden
competition. Moreover, as noted above, price competition between
exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely
between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. This is in
addition to free flow of order flow to and among off-exchange venues
which comprises upwards of 40% of industry volume.
    The Exchange's proposals are pro-competitive in that the Exchange
intends for them to increase liquidity on the Exchange and thereby
render the Exchange a more attractive and vibrant venue to market
participants.
    In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-066 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-066. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-066 and should be submitted
on or before November 9, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23014 Filed 10-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13114-13115]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC12-76-000
    Applicants: PPL Generation, LLC, AES Ironwood, L.L.C.
    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities of PPL Generation, LLC and AES Ironwood,
L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 2/27/12
    Accession Number: 20120227-5127
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/19/12

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-91-002
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.
    Description: Duke submits Amendment requesting Deferral of Action
in ER12-91 and ER12-92 to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/24/12
    Accession Number: 20120224-5079
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/12

    Docket Numbers: ER12-92-002
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.
    Description: Duke submits Amendment requesting Deferral of Action
in ER12-91 and ER12-92 to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/24/12
    Accession Number: 20120224-5080
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/12

    Docket Numbers: ER12-682-000
    Applicants: Erie Wind, LLC
    Description: Supplemental information of Erie Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/27/12
    Accession Number: 20120227-5141
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/12

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1013-001
    Applicants: Physical Systems Integration, LLC
    Description: Physical Systems Integration, LLC--Amendment to MBR
Application to be effective 3/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/24/12
    Accession Number: 20120224-5090
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/12

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1157-000
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Commonwealth Edison
Company
    Description: ComEd submits 1st Amended Trans. Upgrade Agmt among
ComEd & American Transm Co. to be effective 2/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/24/12
    Accession Number: 20120224-5155
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/12

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1158-000
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 1166R15 Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority NITSA NOA
to be effective 2/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/27/12
    Accession Number: 20120227-5043
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/19/12

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1159-000
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation
    Description: Transmission Access Charge Informational Filing of the
California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Filed Date: 2/24/12
    Accession Number: 20120224-5182
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/12

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1160-000
    Applicants: Hampton Lumber Mills-Washington, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Market-Based Rate Tariff of
Hampton Lumber Mills-Washington, Inc.
    Filed Date: 2/27/12
    Accession Number: 20120227-5073
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/19/12

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1161-000
    Applicants: Fibrominn LLC
    Description: Fibrominn LLC FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1
baseline eTariff to be effective 2/23/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/27/12
    Accession Number: 20120227-5074
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/19/12

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1162-000
    Applicants: PacifiCorp
    Description: PAC Energy NITSA Rev 13 to be effective 2/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/27/12
    Accession Number: 20120227-5103
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/19/12

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1163-000
    Applicants: ATCO Power Canada Ltd.
    Description: ATCO Power Canada Ltd. baseline eTariff 2012-02-22 to
be effective 2/22/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/27/12
    Accession Number: 20120227-5106
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/19/12

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1165-000
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC
    Description: Second Amendment of and Restatement of Facilities and
Operating Agreement to be effective 4/27/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/27/12
    Accession Number: 20120227-5150
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/19/12

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES12-23-000
    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: Application for Authorization of the Assumption of
Liabilities and the Issuance of Securities under Section 204 of the
Federal Power Act of Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 2/24/12
    Accession Number: 20120224-5173
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/12

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 27, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5241 Filed 3-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78544-78545]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27723]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0318; FRL-10004-02-R9]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve revisions to the San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District (SDCAPCD) and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (SJVUAPCD) portions of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) from architectural coating operations.
We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: These rules is effective January 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0318. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On September 19, 2022 (87 FR 57161), the EPA proposed to approve
the following amended rules into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Local agency          Rule #         Rule title        Adopted/amended/revised           Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDCAPCD................       67.0.1  Architectural         2/10/2021 (effective for   4/20/2021, as an
                                       Coatings.             state law purposes on 1/   attachment to a letter
                                                             1/2022).                   dated 4/16/2021.
SJVUAPCD...............         4601  Architectural         4/16/2020 (effective upon  4/23/2020, as an
                                       Coatings.             adoption but the new or    attachment to a letter
                                                             revised VOC content        of the same date.
                                                             limits were effective 1/
                                                             1/2022).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve these amended rules because we determined
that they comply with the relevant CAA requirements. More specifically,
we evaluated the amended rules and determined that they remain
enforceable, that they implement reasonably available control measure
(RACM)-level controls, and that they would not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further
progress (RFP) or any other requirement of the CAA. In our proposed
rule, we also evaluated the specific contingency measure provisions in
the rules (i.e., paragraph (b)(6) of SDCAPCD Rule 67.0.1 and section
4.3 of SJVUAPCD Rule 4601) and concluded that the provisions meet the
requirements for contingency measures under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9). While we found that the rules meet the requirements for
stand-alone contingency measures, we indicated that we are not making
any determination at this time as to whether these individual
contingency measures are sufficient in themselves for their respective
nonattainment areas to fully comply with the contingency measure
requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). As noted in
the proposed rule, we will be taking action on the contingency measure
SIP elements for San Diego County and San Joaquin Valley in separate
rulemakings. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules
and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received one germane comment, and that one
comment was supportive of the proposed action.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in
section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, the EPA is fully approving these rules
into the California SIP. Upon the effective date of this final rule,
the February 10, 2021 version of SDCAPCD Rule 67.0.1 and the April 16,
2020 version of SJVUAPCD Rule 4601 will replace the previously approved
versions of these rules in the California SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
SDCAPCD and SJVUAPCD rules identified in section I. of this preamble.
These rules concern emissions of VOC from architectural coating
operations. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region
IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a

SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     The state did not evaluate environmental justice
considerations as part of its SIP submittal. There is no information in
the record inconsistent with the stated goals of E.O. 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 21, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: December 14, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(379)(i)(C)(9),
(c)(472)(i)(C)(2), and (c)(565)(i)(A)(3), reserved paragraph (c)(591),
and paragraph (c)(592) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (379) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (9) Previously approved on November 8, 2011, in paragraph
(c)(379)(i)(C)(6) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
paragraph (c)(592)(i)(A)(1) of this section, Rule 4601, ``Architectural
Coatings,'' amended on December 17, 2009.
* * * * *
    (472) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (2) Previously approved on October 4, 2016, in paragraph
(c)(472)(i)(C)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
paragraph (c)(565)(i)(A)(3) of this section, Rule 67.0.1,
``Architectural Coatings,'' adopted on June 24, 2015.
* * * * *
    (565) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Rule 67.0.1, ``Architectural Coatings,'' rev. adopted on
February 10, 2021.
* * * * *
    (591) [Reserved]
    (592) The following regulation was submitted on April 23, 2020, by
the Governor's designee, as an attachment to a letter dated April 23,
2020.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 4601, ``Architectural Coatings,'' amended on April 16,
2020.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-27723 Filed 12-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P