[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80763-80764]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32568]

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

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: EC16-36-000.
    Applicants: LWP Lessee, LLC.
    Description: Clarification to November 19, 2015 Application for
Authorization Under Section 203 of the FPA and Request for Shortened
Comment Period of LWP Lessee, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5271.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-1276-005; ER10-1353-006; ER10-1319-006; ER10-
1303-004; ER10-1292-004; ER10-1287-004.
    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company, CMS Energy Resource
Management Company, Grayling Generation Station Limited Partnership,
Genesee Power Station Limited Partnership, CMS Generation Michigan
Power, LLC, Dearborn Industrial Generation, L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Consumer
Energy Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5286.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1285-006.
    Applicants: Craven County Wood Energy Limited Partnership.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Craven
County Wood Energy Limited Partnership.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5287.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2417-002; ER13-122-002.
    Applicants: ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Complex, ExxonMobil Beaumont
Complex.
    Description: Supplement to June 29, 2015 Triennial Market-Power
Analysis for the Central Region of ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Complex, et
al.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2409-006 ER15-2620-001; ER15-2615-001; ER14-
2858-005; ER13-2409-006; ER12-979-010; ER12-2448-010 ER11-4501-011;
ER11-4499-010; ER11-4498-010.
    Applicants: Buffalo Dunes Wind Project, LLC, Caney River Wind
Project, LLC, Chisholm View Wind Project, LLC, Goodwell Wind Project,
LLC, Little Elk Wind Project, LLC, Origin Wind Energy, LLC, Rocky Ridge
Wind Project, LLC, Smoky Hills Wind Farm, LLC, Smoky Hills Wind Project
II, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis and Order No. 697
Compliance Filing of Buffalo Dunes Wind Project, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5276.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1332-002.
    Applicants: Arbuckle Mountain Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Arbuckle
Mountain Wind Farm LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5288.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2681-000.
    Applicants: White Oak Energy LLC.
    Description: Request for administrative cancellation of tariff ID
36, et. al. of White Oak Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5296.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-91-001.
    Applicants: Blythe Solar 110, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of Blythe Solar 110,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5297.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-438-001; ER15-2211-006; ER13-1266-007.
    Applicants: Marshall Wind Energy LLC, CalEnergy, LLC, MidAmerican
Energy Services, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for Southwest Power Pool
Region of Marshall Wind Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5290.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-553-001.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company
    Description: Tariff Amendment: SDGE Merchant OM Agreement-Baseline
Filing to be effective 12/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5249.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-580-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule 140 NPC RS 140
Concurrence with PacifiCorp RS 439 12.18.15 to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5241.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-581-000.
    Applicants: ENGIE Portfolio Management, LLC
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization to be effective 2/17/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5246.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-582-000.
    Applicants: ENGIE Retail, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization to be effective 2/17/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5247.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-583-000.
    Applicants: GDF SUEZ Energy Resources NA, Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization to be effective 2/17/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5248.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-584-000.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filings Related to 1986
Integrated Transmission Agreement Part I to be effective 7/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5250.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-584-001.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Filings Related to 1986 Integrated
Transmission Agreement Part II to be effective 7/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5251.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-585-000.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Service
Agreement No. 3 Under the CASOT to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5253.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-586-000.
    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.
    Description: Georgia Power Company submits rate schedule update per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): reduction in transmission carrying charge to be
effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5272.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/16.

    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 Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 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: December 21, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32568 Filed 12-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31943-31944]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12816]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1620]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Request for Information From United
States Processors That Export to the European Community

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Request for Information from U.S.
Processors that Export to the European Community'' has been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 28, 2014, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Request for Information
from U.S. Processors that Export to the European Community'' to OMB for
review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB
control number 0910-0320. The approval expires on May 31, 2017. A copy
of the supporting statement for this information collection is
available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: May 27, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-12816 Filed 6-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57704-57705]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25078]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0153; FRL-9986-62-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Amendment to Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds From Consumer Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reopening the
comment period for the proposed approval to a state implementation plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland pertaining to the
Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.32--Control of Emissions of
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from Consumer Products. The proposed
rule was published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2018 (83 FR
39009). Written comments on the proposed rule were to be submitted to
EPA on or before September 7, 2018. The purpose of this document is to
reopen the comment period for an additional 30 days. This extension of
the comment period is provided to allow the public additional time to
provide comment on the August 8, 2018 proposed rule. All comments
submitted between the close of the original comment period and the
reopening of this comment period will be accepted and considered.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 17,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2018-0153 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Susan
Spielberger, Associate Director, Office of Air Planning and Programs,
[email protected]. For

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 8, 2018 (83 FR 39009), EPA
proposed approval to a SIP revision submitted by the Maryland
Department of Environment (MDE) for COMAR 26.11.32--Control of
Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer Products. The
amendment is part of Maryland's strategy to achieve and maintain the 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) throughout
the State.

I. Extension of Comment Period

    EPA is reopening the comment period due to a comment noting that
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) model rules referenced in the NPR were not in the
docket on www.regulations.gov. EPA has now put these documents into the
docket identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0153 at
www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Consumer products,
Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: November 1, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-25078 Filed 11-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45314-45316]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20771]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0055]

Steel Erection; Extension of the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements
specified in the Standard on Steel Erection.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
November 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2011-0055,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Docket Office's normal business hours,
10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2011-0055) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other materials in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone
(202) 693-2222<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collection of
information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information
is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal,
collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of
the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes
information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for
enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the
causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and
accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires OSHA to obtain
such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent
feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information
(29 U.S.C. 657).
    Section 1926.752(a)(1). Description of the requirement. Based on
the results of a specified method for testing field-cured samples, the
controlling contractor must provide the steel erector with written
notification that the concrete in the footings, piers, and walls, or
the mortar in the masonry piers and walls, is at 75% of its minimum
compressive-design strength or has sufficient strength to support loads
imposed during steel erection. Note: This is not and will not be
enforced for mortar in piers and walls until such time as OSHA is able
to define an appropriate substitute or until an appropriate American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method is developed.
    Sections 1926.752(a)(2) and 1926.755(b)(1). Description of the
requirements. Under section 1926.752(a)(2), the controlling contractor,
before it authorizes commencement of steel erection, must notify the
steel erector in writing that any repairs, replacements, and
modifications to anchor bolts (rods) have been made in accordance with
section 1926.755(b)(1) which requires the controlling contractor to
obtain approval from the project structural engineer of record for the
repairs, replacements, and modifications.
    Section 1926.753(c)(5). Description of the requirement. Employers
must not deactivate safety latches on hooks or make them inoperable
except for the situation when: A qualified rigger determines that it is
safer to hoist and place purlins and single joists by doing so; or
except when equivalent protection is provided in the site-specific
erection plan.
    Section 1926.753(e)(2). Description of the requirement. Employers
must have the maximum capacity of the total multiple-lift rigging
assembly, as well as each of its individual attachment points,
certified by the manufacturer or a qualified rigger.
    Sections 1926.755(b)(1) and 1926.755(b)(2). Description of the
requirements. Under section 1926.755(b)(2), throughout steel erection
the controlling contractor must notify the steel erector in writing of
additional repairs, replacements, and modifications of anchor bolts
(rods); section 1926.755(b)(1) requires that these repairs,
replacements, and modifications not be made without

approval from the project structural engineer of record.
    Section 1926.757(a)(4). Description of the requirement. If steel
joists at or near columns span more than 60 feet, employers must set
the joists in tandem with all bridging installed. However, the employer
may use an alternative method of erection if a qualified person
develops the alternative method, it provides equivalent stability, and
the employer includes the method in the site-specific erection plan.
    Section 1926.757(a)(7). Description of the requirement. Employers
must not modify steel joists or steel joist girders in a way that
affects their strength without the approval of the project structural
engineer of record.
    Sections 1926.757(a)(9) and 1926.758(g). Description of the
requirements. An employer can use a steel joist, steel joist girder,
purlin, or girt as an anchorage point for a fall-arrest system only
with the written approval of a qualified person.
    Section 1926.757(e)(4)(i). Description of the requirement. An
employer must install and anchor all bridging on joists and attach all
joist bearing ends before placing a bundle of decking on the joists,
unless: A qualified person determines that the structure or portion of
the structure is capable of supporting the bundle, the employer
documents this determination in the site-specific erection plan, and
follows the additional requirements specified in section
1926.757(e)(4)(ii)-(vi).
    Section 1926.760(e) and (e)(1). Description of the requirements.
The steel erector can leave its fall protection at the jobsite after
completion of the erection activity only if the controlling contractor
or its authorized representative directs the steel erector to do so and
inspects and accepts responsibility for the fall protection.
    1926.752(e) and Appendix A to Subpart R, ``Guidelines for
Establishing the Components of a Site-Specific Erection Plan: Non-
mandatory Guidelines for Complying with 1926.752(e),'' paragraph (a).
Description of the requirement. Site-specific erection plan. Where
employers elect, due to conditions specific to the site, to develop
alternate means and methods that provide employee protection in
accordance with section 1926.753(c)(5), section 1926.757(a)(4) or
section 1926.757(e)(4), a site-specific erection plan shall be
developed by a qualified person and be available at the work site.
Guidelines for establishing a site-specific erection plan are contained
in Appendix A to this subpart.
    Appendix A to Subpart R, paragraph (b). Description of the
requirement. Paragraph (b) of the Appendix provides for the development
of a site-specific erection plan. Preconstruction conference(s) and
site inspection(s) are held between the erector and the controlling
contractor, and others such as the project engineer and fabricator
before the start of steel erection. The purpose of such conference(s)
is to develop and review the site-specific erection plan that will meet
the requirements of this section.
    Appendix A to Subpart R, paragraphs (c), (c)(1)-(c)(9), (d), (d)(1)
and (d)(2). Description of the requirement. These paragraphs of
Appendix A describe the components of a site-specific erection plan,
including: The sequence of erection activity developed in coordination
with the controlling contractor; a description of the crane and derrick
selection and placement procedures; a description of the fall
protection procedures that will be used to comply with section
1926.760; a description of the procedures that will be used to comply
with section 1926.759; a description of the special procedures required
for hazardous non-routine tasks; a certification for each employee who
has received training for performing steel erection operations as
required by section 1926.761; a list of the qualified and competent
persons; a description of the procedures that will be utilized in the
event of rescue or emergency response; the identification of the site
and project; and signed and dated by the qualified person(s)
responsible for its preparation and modification.
    Paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of Appendix G to Subpart R. Description of the
requirement. This mandatory appendix duplicates the regulatory
requirements of section 1926.502 (``Fall protection systems criteria
and practices''), notably the requirements specified in paragraph
(c)(4)(ii). This paragraph addresses the certification of safety nets
as an option available to employers who can demonstrate that performing
a drop test on safety nets is unreasonable. This provision allows such
employers to certify that their safety nets, including the installation
of the nets, protect workers at least as well as safety nets that meet
the drop-test criteria. The employer must complete the certification
process prior to using the net for fall protection, and the certificate
must include the following information: Identification of the net and
the type of installation used for the net; the date the certifying
party determined that the net and its installation would meet the drop-
test criteria; and the signature of the party making this
determination. The most recent certificate must be available at the
jobsite for inspection.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply.
For example, by using automated, or other technological information
collection, and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting an adjustment increase of 9,426 burden hours,
from 21,393 to 30,819 burden hours. This increase is due in part to an
increase in estimated worksites associated with this subpart, from
13,864 to 16,748. The increase also results from the Agency's
determination that information collection requirements identified in
Subpart R[mdash x ]Steel Erection's non-mandatory Appendix
A are covered by the PRA.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Steel Erection (29 CFR part 1926, subpart R).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0241.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 70,329.
    Frequency: On occasion, annually; triennially.
    Average Time per Response: Various.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 92,160.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 30,819.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0055). You
may supplement electronic

submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to
mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile
submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the
section of this notice titled ADDRESSES). The additional materials must
clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the
docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR
3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on September 19, 2017.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2017-20771 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27352-27354]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11481]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74895; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-050]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Billing Policies

May 7, 2015.
    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 May 1, 2015, 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 7007, and re-title it
``Collection of Exchange Fees and Other Claims and Billing Policy,''
and to require NASDAQ members to submit billing disputes within a
certain time period.
    While changes to the Pricing Schedule [sic] pursuant to this
proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the
proposed amendment to be operative on July 1, 2015.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 7007,
which was recently filed,\3\ to require all pricing disputes to be
submitted to the Exchange in writing \4\ and accompanied by supporting
documentation within sixty days of receipt of an invoice. The Exchange
believes that this practice will

conserve Exchange resources, which are expended when untimely billing
disputes require staff to research applicable fees and order
information beyond two months after the invoice was issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74823 (April 28,
2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-046) (amending Rule 7007).
    \4\ The Exchange invoice specifies the Exchange contact persons
with whom to dispute the invoice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sixty days limitation would apply to invoices for transactional
activity occurring in July 2015 and thereafter.\5\ The Exchange
proposes to apply the billing policy in Rule 7007 to the following 7000
series Rules: 7001 (Membership Fees), 7014 (Market Quality Incentive
Programs: Investor Support Program), 7015 (Access Services), 7016
(Nasdaq Risk Management), 7018 (Nasdaq Market Center Order Execution
and Routing), 7021 (NasdaqTrader.com Trading and Compliance Data
Package Fee), 7024 (Clearly Erroneous Module), 7027 (Aggregation of
Activity of Affiliated Members), 7029 (Installation, Removal or
Relocation), 7030 (Other Services), 7034 (Co-Location Services), 7038
(Step-Outs and Sales Fees Transfers), 7041 (Nasdaq Regulation
Reconnaissance Service), 7042 (Non-Tape Riskless Submissions), 7043
(Inclusion of Transaction Fees in Clearing Reports Submitted to ACT),
7049 (Nasdaq InterACT), 7051 (Direct Connectivity to Nasdaq), 7055
(Short Sale Monitor), 7058 (QView), 7060 (Equity Trade Journal for
Clearing Firms) and 7061 (Limit Locator).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This proposal would not apply to invoices related to June
2015 billing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, this proposal would provide a cost savings to the Exchange
in that it would alleviate administrative burdens related to belated
billing disputes, which divert staff resources away from the Exchange's
regulatory and business purposes. A similar requirement with respect to
initiating billing disputes is in place today for Options Participants
on NASDAQ Options Market LLC (``NOM'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NOM Rules at Chapter XV, Section 7, entitled ``NASDAQ
Options Fee Disputes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend the title of Exchange
Rule 7007 from ``Collection of Exchange Fees and Other Claims'' to
``Collection of Exchange Fees and Other Claims and Billing Policy.''
The Exchange believes that the proposed title provides a more specific
description of Rule 7007.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by providing a uniform practice for disputing fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the requirement that billing disputes for
certain specified fees and rebates must be submitted to the Exchange
within sixty days from receipt of the invoice will set objective
standards and will be fair to members. The proposal equally applies to
all NASDAQ equity members. Also, the Exchange's administrative costs
would be lowered as a result of this policy.
    The Exchange believes that sixty days is ample time to review an
invoice and dispute any pricing related to the transactions for that
time period. An identical policy applies today with respect to NOM
billing.\9\ The Exchange is seeking to apply this policy to all NASDAQ
members alike in the same manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Chapter XV, Section 7 in the NOM Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The billing policy would
apply uniformly to all NASDAQ equity members as it does today with all
NOM Participants. All NASDAQ members would be subject to this policy.
    The Exchange believes that this practice will conserve Exchange
resources, which are expended when untimely billing disputes require
staff to research applicable fees and order information beyond two
months after the invoice is issued.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-2015-050 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-050. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-050, and should be submitted on or before
June 3, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2015-11481 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37547-37551]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16224]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0865; FRL-9929-51]

Cuprous Oxide; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends the tolerance exemption for copper in/
on meat, milk, poultry, eggs, fish, shellfish, and irrigated crops when
it results from the use of cuprous oxide embedded in polymer emitter
heads used in irrigation systems for root incursion prevention. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of copper resulting from this use of cuprous oxide.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 1, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 31, 2015,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID)

number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0865, is available at http://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP
Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC),
West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer McLain, Antimicrobials
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(g),
21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this
regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must
file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2014-0865 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 31, 2015. Addresses
for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are
provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0865, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of April 22, 2015 (80 FR 22466) (FRL-9925-
79), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 4F8324) by Cupron, Inc., 800 East Leigh St., Richmond, VA
23219. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1021 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of copper in/on meat, milk, poultry, eggs, fish, shellfish,
and irrigated crops by including the use of cuprous oxide (also
referred to as copper oxide) embedded in polymer emitter heads used in
irrigation systems for agricultural crops or residential food
commodities for algicidal or root incursion prevention. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Cupron, Inc., which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by cuprous
oxide are discussed in this unit.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of

the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available
information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major
identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by cuprous oxide, as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed adverse effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies, are discussed in the final
rule published in the Federal Register of August 11, 2006 (71 FR 46106)
(FRL-8085-3). Copper is ubiquitous in nature and is a necessary
nutritional element for both animals (including humans) and plants.
Copper is found naturally in the food we eat including fruits,
vegetables, meats, and seafood. It is found in the water we drink, the
air we breathe and in our bodies themselves. Some of the environmental
copper is due to direct modification of the environment by humans such
as mining and smelting of the natural ore. It is one of the elements
found essential to life. The copper ion is present in the adult human
body with nearly two-thirds of the body copper content located in the
skeleton and muscle. The liver is the primary organ for the maintenance
of plasma copper concentrations.
    The 2006 Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Copper compounds
reviewed and summarized all toxicity studies submitted for copper and
has determined that the toxicological database is sufficient to assess
the hazard from pesticides containing copper. Copper generally has
moderate to low acute toxicity based on acute oral, dermal, and
inhalation studies in animals. All effects resulting from acute
exposure to copper containing pesticides are due to acute body
responses to minimize excessive absorption or exposure to copper.
Current available data in animals do not show any evidence of upper
limit toxicity level that warrant determining acute toxicity end
points.
    Based on available data summarized in the ``2006 Reregistration
Eligibility Decision for Coppers'', there is no evidence of any
dietary, oral, and dermal or inhalation adverse effects warranting
quantitative assessment of sub-chronic or chronic risk. Available
short-term feeding studies with rats and mice indicate decreased food
and water intake with increasing oral concentrations of copper.
Irritation of the stomach was seen at higher copper concentrations.
Longer-term feeding studies indicate decreased feed intake with
reductions in body weight gains, and increased copper concentration of
the liver. Available reproductive and developmental studies by the oral
route of exposure generally indicate that the main concern in animals
for reproductive and teratogenic effects of copper has usually been
associated with the deficiency rather than the excess of copper.
    Oral ingestion of excessive amounts of the copper ion from
pesticidal uses including the proposed use is unlikely. Copper
compounds are irritating to the gastric mucosa. Ingestion of large
amounts of copper results in prompt emesis. This protective reflex
reduces the amount of copper ion available for absorption into the
human body. Additionally, at high levels humans are also sensitive to
the taste of copper. Because of this organoleptic property, oral
ingestion would also serve to limit high doses. Only a small percentage
of ingested copper is absorbed, and most of the absorbed copper is
excreted. The human body appears to have efficient mechanisms in place
to regulate total body copper. The copper ion occurs naturally in food
and the metabolism of copper is well understood.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    No endpoints of toxicological concern were identified for risk
assessment purposes for copper oxide. Cuprous oxide readily hydrolyzes
into the copper cation and oxygen anion. Copper is a required essential
nutritional element for both plants and animals. Indeed, current
available data and literature studies indicate that there is a greater
risk from the deficiency of copper intake than from excess intake.
Copper also occurs naturally in a number of food items including
fruits, meats, seafood, and vegetables. In humans, as part of the
utilization of copper as an essential nutrient, there is an effective
homeostatic mechanism that is involved in the dietary intake of copper
and that protects humans from excess body copper. Given that copper is
ubiquitous, is an essential nutrient, and is routinely consumed as part
of the daily diet, exposure to copper as a result of the use of copper
oxide as a pesticide chemical would not be of toxicological concern.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to
consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide
residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including
drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through
pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other
indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

    Copper is ubiquitous in nature and is necessary nutritional element
for both animals (including humans) and plants. It is one of several
elements found essential to life. The human body must have copper to
stay healthy. In fact, for a variety of biochemical processes in the
body to operate normally, copper must be part of our daily diet. Copper
is needed for certain critical enzymes to function in the body.
Actually, too little copper in the body can actually lead to disease.
    1. Food. The main source of copper for infants, children, and
adults, regardless of age, is the diet. Copper is typically present in
mineral rich foods like vegetables (potato, legumes (beans and peas),
nuts (peanuts and pecans), grains (wheat and rye), fruits (peaches and
raisins), and chocolate in levels that range from 0.3 to 3.9 parts per
million (ppm). A single day's diet may contain 10 milligram (mg) or
more of copper. It is not likely that the approval of this petition
would significantly increase exposure over that of existing levels of
copper. In any event, given the lack of toxicity of copper, EPA does
not expect any increased exposure resulting from approval of this
petition to be unsafe.
    2. Drinking water exposure. Copper is a natural element found in
the earth's crust. As a result, most of the world's surface water and
ground water that is used for drinking purposes contains copper. The
actual amount varies from region to region, depending on how much is
present in the earth, but in almost all cases the amount of copper in
water is extremely low. Naturally occurring copper in drinking water is
safe for human consumption, even in rare instances where it is at
levels high enough to impart a metallic taste to the water. Residues of
copper in drinking water are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water
Act. A Maximum Contaminant Level Goal of 1.3 ppm has been set by the
Agency for copper. According to the National Research Council's
Committee on Copper in Drinking Water, this level is ``set at a
concentration at which no known or expected adverse health effects
occur and for which there is an adequate margin of safety.'' The Agency
believes that this level of protection would not cause any potential
health problems, i.e. stomach and intestinal distress, liver, and
kidney damage and anemia. It is not likely that the approval of this
petition would significantly increase exposure over that of the
existing levels of copper. In any event, given the lack of toxicity

of copper, EPA does not expect any increased exposure resulting from
approval of this petition to be unsafe.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    Copper compounds have many uses on crops (food as well as non-food)
and ornamentals as a fungicide.
    1. Dermal exposure. Given the prevalence of copper in the
environment, no significant dermal exposure increase above current
levels would be expected from this non-occupational use of cuprous
oxide. In any event, given the lack of toxicity of copper, EPA does not
expect any increased exposure resulting from approval of this petition
to be unsafe.
    2. Inhalation exposure. Air concentrations of copper are relatively
low. A study based on several thousand samples assembled by EPA's
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory showed copper levels
ranging from 0.003 to 7.32 micrograms per cubic meter. Other studies
indicated that air levels of copper are much lower. The Agency does not
expect the air concentrations of copper to be significantly affected by
this use of cuprous oxide. In any event, given the lack of toxicity of
copper, EPA does not expect any increased exposure resulting from
approval of this petition to be unsafe.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found cuprous oxide to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and cuprous oxide does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
cuprous oxide does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    Cuprous oxide is considered Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). EPA has also exempted various
copper compounds from the requirement of a tolerance when used as
herbicide and algicide (40 CFR 180.1021), including cuprous oxide when
contained in antifouling coatings on submerged concrete or other
(irrigation) structures (40 CFR 180.1021(a)(4)). Copper compounds
including cuprous oxide are also exempt from the requirements of a
tolerance when applied to growing crops when used as a plant fungicide
in accordance with good agricultural practices (40 CFR 180.1021(b)).
    1. U.S. population. Copper is a component of the human diet and an
essential element. In addition, no acute or chronic dietary endpoints
were selected because no endpoints of toxicological concern have been
identified for risk assessment purposes. Use of cuprous oxide is not
expected to increase the amount of copper in the diet as a result of
its use on growing crops and post-harvest use.
    2. Infants and children. Copper is also component of the diet of
infants and children as is also an essential element of their diet.
Since no endpoints have been identified, EPA has not conducted a
quantitative risk assessment for cuprous oxide. The Agency has also
determined that the special Food Quality Protection Act safety factor
(FQPA SF) to protect infants and children was not needed since there
are no toxicity endpoints or uncertainty surrounding exposure.
    Based on the information in this preamble, EPA concludes that there
is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure to
residues. Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of cuprous
oxide from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The Agency is establishing an exemption for cuprous oxide that
differs slightly from the exemption that was requested. First, the
Agency has removed the phrase ``for agricultural crops or residential
food commodities'' because the current structure of section 180.1021(a)
makes that language duplicative and potentially confusing. With today's
exemption, residues of copper on any irrigated crop that result from
uses of cuprous oxide in polymer emitter heads for irrigation are
exempt from the requirement of a tolerance; it is not necessary to
further clarify where the irrigation heads are intended to be used.
Also, the term algaecidal was deleted from the proposed tolerance
exemption expression because the product is not intended to act as an
algaecide.

VIII. Conclusion

    Based on the information contained in the document, EPA concludes
that there is no reasonable certainty of harm from aggregate exposure
to residues of cuprous oxide. Accordingly, EPA finds that the exemption
for residues of copper in or on meat, milk, poultry, egg, fish,
shellfish, and irrigated crops from use of cuprous oxide embedded in
polymer emitter heads used in irrigation systems for root incursion
prevention will be safe. Therefore, an exemption is established for
residues of copper oxide embedded in polymer emitter heads used in
irrigation systems for root incursion prevention.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule,

the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

X. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 18, 2015.
Jennifer L. McClain,
Acting Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Add paragraph (a)(5) to Sec.  180.1021 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1021  Copper; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Copper oxide embedded in polymer emitter heads used in
irrigation systems for root incursion prevention.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-16224 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P