[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40721-40722]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17248]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL11-48-000]

Southern California Edison Company; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 30, 2011, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC or the Commission), 18 CFR 385.207 (2011), Southern
California Edison Company filed a petition for a limited historical
waiver (for the limited period from 2008-2010) of specific provisions
of FERC's Order 2003 et. seq. requirement to annually reassess the
estimated current tax liability with respect to those generator
interconnection agreements it had on file before 2011.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in the above
proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the

eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filing in the above proceeding is accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system. It is also available for review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. on July 22, 2011.

    Dated: July 1, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17248 Filed 7-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 55078-55080]
[DOCID:fr26oc09-130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60845; File Nos. SR-BX-2009-061, SR-NASDAQ-2009-087,
SR-Phlx-2009-88]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; The NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Restated Certificate
of Incorporation of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.

October 20, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 1, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''), The NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC (``NASDAQ Exchange'') and NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'')
(collectively, the ``NASDAQ OMX Exchange Subsidiaries'') \3\ filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the NASDAQ OMX Exchange Subsidiaries. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Commission notes that on October 1, 2009, substantially
similar filings also were submitted by Boston Stock Exchange
Clearing Corporation (``BSECC'') (SR-BSECC-2009-005) and Stock
Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia (``SCCP'') (SR-SCCP-2009-04),
the clearing corporation subsidiaries of NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.
(``NASDAQ OMX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The NASDAQ OMX Exchange Subsidiaries are filing the proposed rule
change with regard to proposed changes to the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation (the ``Certificate'') of their parent corporation, The
NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ OMX''). The proposed rule change will
be implemented as soon as practicable following filing with the
Commission. The text of the proposed rule change for each of the NASDAQ
OMX Exchange Subsidiaries is available at http://
nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, http://nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com/, and
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=PhlxApprovedRulefilings,
respectively, at the respective NASDAQ OMX Exchange Subsidiary's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ OMX is proposing to file the Certificate of Designation
described below. Under Article Fourth, Paragraph B of the Certificate,
NASDAQ OMX's Board of Directors may authorize the issuance of preferred
stock, establish the number of shares to be included in such series and
fix the designation, powers, preferences and rights of the shares of
such series, and the qualifications, limitations and restrictions
thereof. As provided in Articles XI and XII of the NASDAQ OMX By-Laws,
proposed amendments to the Certificate are to be reviewed by the Board
of Directors of each self-regulatory subsidiary of NASDAQ OMX, and if
any such proposed amendment must, under Section 19 of the Act and the
rules promulgated thereunder, be filed with, or filed with and approved
by, the Commission before such amendment may be effective, then such
amendment shall not be effective until filed with, or filed with and
approved by, the Commission, as the case may be. Senior management of
each of the NASDAQ OMX Exchange Subsidiaries, through delegated
authority of their governing boards, have determined that the proposed
change should be filed with the Commission, and the governing boards of
BSECC and SCCP have each reviewed the proposed change and determined
that it should be filed with the Commission.\4\ Under Delaware law, the
amendment of the Certificate by the filing of a Certificate of
Designation does not require approval by the stockholders of NASDAQ
OMX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Nasdaq OMX Exchange Subsidiaries, BSECC and SCCP are
each submitting this filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of
the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issuance of the Series A Preferred is part of a transaction
between NASDAQ OMX and one of its existing shareholders, Silver Lake
Partners (``Silver Lake''), whereby Silver Lake agreed to convert all
of the 3.75% Series A Convertible Notes due 2012 (the ``Notes'') held
by certain of its affiliates (``Silver Lake Affiliates'') into shares
of NASDAQ OMX common stock (``Common Stock'') prior to the maturity
date of such Notes.\5\ As an inducement to convert the Notes, NASDAQ
OMX has delivered a cash payment and has agreed to deliver 1,600,000
shares of Series A Preferred to the Silver Lake Affiliates
(``Transaction''). Effective September 28, 2009, the Silver Lake
Affiliates converted Notes into 8,246,680 shares of Common Stock. As a
result, Silver Lake no longer holds any Notes and, through certain of
the Silver Lake Affiliates, currently is the beneficial owner of shares
of Common Stock that equal less than five percent (5%) of the
outstanding voting securities of NASDAQ OMX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under Article Fourth, Section C.1(b) of the Certificate, the
Notes are entitled to vote on an as-converted basis on matters that
are submitted to a vote of the stockholders of NASDAQ OMX, voting
together with the holders of the Common Stock and any other shares
of capital stock entitled to vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Certificate of Designation, up to two million shares will
be designated for issuance as shares of Series A Preferred. The Series
A Preferred will be senior in preference and priority to the Common
Stock and on parity with all other classes and series of preferred
stock.
    The Series A Preferred will have limited voting rights and will not
have the right to vote on any matters that are subject to the vote of
the holders of Common Stock. The approval of at least a majority of the
then outstanding shares of Series A Preferred will be required to
approve any amendment to the Certificate or the NASDAQ OMX By-Laws that
would adversely affect the rights, preferences or privileges of the
Series A Preferred (including any change in the dividends payable or
liquidation preference). In addition, any amendments to reduce the
dividend payable to the Series A Preferred, to increase the number of
authorized shares of the Series A Preferred or to change certain
specified provisions of the Certificate of Designation will require the
written consent of 75% of the then outstanding shares of Series A
Preferred, voting together as a class.
    The shares of Series A Preferred will be convertible into shares of
Common Stock. Under the applicable NASDAQ listing rules, approval by
the stockholders of NASDAQ OMX (``Shareholder Approval'') is required
to permit the conversion of the Series A Preferred.\6\ NASDAQ OMX
intends to seek Shareholder Approval at the company's 2010 annual
meeting of stockholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Pursuant to NASDAQ Listing Rule 5635(c), shareholder
approval is required when an equity compensation arrangement is made
pursuant to which stock may be acquired by an issuer's officers,
directors, employees, or consultants. Pursuant to agreements
relating to the issuance of the Notes, a Silver Lake representative
currently serves on the NASDAQ OMX Board of Directors. The
Commission notes that it takes no position regarding whether the
requirements of NASDAQ Listing Rule 5635(c) have been satisfied with
respect to the Series A Preferred Stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon the date of Shareholder Approval, the Series A Preferred will
mandatorily convert into shares of Common Stock as provided in the
Certificate of Designation.\7\ In the event that Shareholder Approval
is not obtained, the Series A Preferred will accrue cumulative
dividends, accrued on a daily basis and compounded quarterly, at a per
annum rate equal to 12%. In addition, in the event that Shareholder
Approval is not obtained, the Series A Preferred will be subject to
optional redemption by NASDAQ OMX subject to the terms of the
Certificate of Designation. The Series A Preferred will be mandatorily
redeemable by NASDAQ OMX on the fourth anniversary of the original
issuance date and will be redeemable at the option of the holders upon
a Fundamental Change (as defined in the Certificate of Designation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The number of shares of Common Stock to be issued upon
conversion is variable. To the extent that the conversion results in
Silver Lake obtaining beneficial ownership of shares of voting
securities in excess of five percent (5%) of the then-outstanding
shares of stock entitled to vote, Silver Lake will be subject to the
existing voting restrictions in Article Fourth, Section C.3 [sic] of
the Certificate. This provision provides that no person who is the
beneficial owner of voting securities of NASDAQ OMX in excess of
five percent (5%) of the then-outstanding shares of stock generally
entitled to vote (``Excess Securities'') may vote such Excess
Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issuance of Series A Preferred will result in no substantive
change in the ownership or governance structure of NASDAQ OMX, since
the Series A Preferred will have no voting rights other than the
limited rights described above. The Transaction also has resulted in
the conversion of most of the outstanding Notes into Common Stock.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Prior to the Transaction, the Silver Lake Affiliates held
approximately $119.5 million in aggregate principal amount of the
outstanding Notes. Another holder continues to hold approximately
$500,000 in aggregate principal amount of the outstanding Notes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The NASDAQ OMX Exchange Subsidiaries believe that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in
general, and with Sections 6(b)(1) and (b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in
particular, in that the proposal enables the NASDAQ OMX Exchange
Subsidiaries to be so organized as to have the capacity to be able to
carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply with and enforce
compliance by members and persons associated with members with
provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and self-
regulatory organization rules, and is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and

coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The NASDAQ OMX Exchange
Subsidiaries believe that the issuance of Series A Preferred to
existing investors will result in no substantive change to the
corporate ownership structure of their parent NASDAQ OMX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement on Burden on Competition

    The NASDAQ OMX Exchange Subsidiaries do not believe that the
proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act,
as amended.
C. Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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)(iii) of the Act \11\ and subparagraph (f)(3) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\12\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
respective proposed rule change by the applicable NASDAQ OMX Exchange
Subsidiary, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Nos. SR-BX-2009-061, SR-NASDAQ-2009-087, and SR-Phlx-2009-88 on
the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Nos. SR-BX-2009-061, SR-NASDAQ-
2009-087, and SR-Phlx-2009-88. These file numbers should be included on
the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filings also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the respective NASDAQ OMX Exchange Subsidiary. 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 Nos. SR-BX-2009-061, SR-
NASDAQ-2009-087, and SR-Phlx-2009-88, and should be submitted on or
before November 16, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25708 Filed 10-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

05/07/2008 01:01 PM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Brian Heninger, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lydia Wegman, Charles Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Fw: New Tables and text for Chapter 4

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax

----- Forwarded by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/07/2008 01:00 PM -----

Darryl Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US

05/07/2008 12:59 PM

To

Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov@EPA

cc

Subject

New Tables and text for Chapter 4

_______________________________

Darryl A. Weatherhead, Economist

U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ABCG

Mail Drop: C439-02, RTP, NC 27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10925]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4500]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March
3, 2011 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
March 3, 2011 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 24, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4500 Filed 2-24-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        ANN ARBOR, MI 48105

December 2, 2009

                                                                                OFFICE OF 	                                                                              AIR AND RADIATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Meeting with Ecospec on October 7, 2009

FROM:	Mike Samulski

		Office of Transportation and Air Quality

TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121

	On October 7, 2009, representatives from the U.S. EPA and Coast Guard met with representatives from the Ecospec.  The purpose of this meeting was for Ecospec provide an overview of its CSNOx exhaust gas scrubbing technology.  The Ecospec briefing materials used for this meeting are attached.  The meeting participants included:

	Chew Hwee Hong	Ecospec

	Tany Tay		Ecospec

	Glenn Ashe		American Bureau of Shipping

	Wayne Lundy		U.S. Coast Guard

	Arman Tanman	EPA

	Trish Koman		EPA

	Mike Samulski	EPA

	Chris Laroo 		EPA

	Brian Muehling	EPA

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register: December 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 248)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 68759-68761]
[DOCID:fr29de09-38]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0754; FRL-9096-2]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South
Coast Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portions of
the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from coatings operations
associated with the coating of motor vehicles and mobile equipment. We
are proposing action on local rules that regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We
are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 28, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0754], by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4126<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What Rules Did the State Submit?
    B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?
    C. What Is the Purpose of the Rule Revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
    B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
    C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?
    D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
    E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Rule                  Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD..................................         1151  Motor Vehicle and Mobile            12/02/05     04/06/09
                                                        Equipment Non-Assembly Line
                                                        Coating Operations.
VCAPCD..................................        74.18  Motor Vehicle and Mobile            11/11/08     03/17/09
                                                        Equipment Coating Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 20, 2009, the submittal for VCAPCD Rule 74.18 was found to
meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which
must be met before formal EPA review. On May 13, 2009, the submittal
for SCAQMD Rule 1151 was found to meet the completeness criteria.

B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 74.18 into the SIP on April
19,

2001 (66 FR 20086). The VCAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved
version on November 11, 2008 and CARB submitted it to us on March 17,
2009. We approved an earlier version of Rule 1151 into the SIP on May
26, 2000 (65 FR 34101). The SCAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on December 2, 2005 and CARB submitted it to us on
April 6, 2009.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Rule Revisions?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. SCAQMD and VCAPCD
revised their rules to comply with CARB's Suggested Control Measure for
Automotive Coatings. EPA's technical support documents (TSD) have more
information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and other requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings,''
California Air Resources Board, October 2005.

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    SCAQMD Rule 1151 and VCAPCD Rule 74.18 improve the SIP by
establishing more stringent emission limits and by clarifying
monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping provisions. The rules are
largely consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding
enforceability, rule stringency and SIP relaxations. Rule provisions
which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized below and
discussed further in the TSD.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

    SCAQMD Rule 1151(b)(51) and VCAPCD Rule 74.18(G)(16) exempt
tertiary butyl acetate (TBAc) as a VOC. These exemptions do not fully
comply with EPA's definition of a VOC which requires TBAc to be
regarded as a VOC for the purposes of recordkeeping, emissions
reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory
requirements.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agencies modify the rules.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is
proposing a limited approval of the submitted rules to improve the SIP.
If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rules into
the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. This
approach is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited
disapproval of the rules under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a), but is
not proposing to impose sanctions or a FIP as a consequence of this
limited disapproval as explained in the following paragraph.
    As noted above, we are simultaneously proposing a limited
disapproval of the submitted rules, because they do not comply with our
requirement to retain TBAc as a VOC for the purposes of recordkeeping,
emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory
requirements. See 69 FR 69298 (November 29, 2004) and 40 CFR
51.100(s)(5). While we recognize the connection between these rule
deficiencies and future ozone attainment plans in the South Coast and
Ventura County, we are proposing not to impose sanctions or a FIP under
CAA sections 179 and 110(c), because TBAc has negligible photochemical
reactivity, and thus, the connection between the rule deficiencies and
CAA nonattainment planning requirements is too remote to impose
sanctions or a FIP. We note, however, that we may find approval of
future ozone attainment demonstrations for these two areas problematic
if they do not account for TBAc. We invite comment on this issue as
well as all other aspects of our proposed action.
    In the event that TBAc is exempted from the recordkeeping,
emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory
requirements, and final action has not yet been taken on the submitted
rules, EPA will finalize action on SCAQMD Rule 1151 and VCAPCD Rule
74.18 as a full approval as opposed to a limited approval/limited
disapproval. Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the
SCAQMD and VCAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval would not
prevent the local agency from enforcing them.
    We will accept comment from the public on the proposed limited
approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or Tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under
section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that
may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the proposed action does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
Tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132,
because it merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not
apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it proposes to
approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
proposed action does not require the public to perform activities
conducive to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 2, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-30854 Filed 12-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 195)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57487-57488]
[DOCID:fr10oc07-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-07-136]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Kennebec River, Bath and
Woolwich, ME

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Carlton Bridge across the Kennebec River at mile 14.0, between Bath and
Woolwich, Maine. Under this temporary deviation the Carlton Bridge may
remain in the closed position from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. for seven
days; October 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 22, 2007, to facilitate bridge
painting operations. Vessels that can pass under the draw without a
bridge opening may do so at all times. This deviation is necessary to
facilitate bridge painting.

DATES: This deviation is effective from October 1, 2007 through October
22, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for
inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch
Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7
a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The First Coast Guard District
Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary
deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John McDonald, Project Officer, First
Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Carlton Bridge, across the Kennebec
River, mile 14.0, between Bath and Woolwich, Maine, has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 10 feet at mean high water and 16
feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations
are listed at 33 CFR 117.525.
    The owner of the bridge, Maine Department of Transportation,
requested a temporary deviation to facilitate bridge painting
operations at the Carlton Bridge.
    The bridge painting will be performed on the lift span end sections
which requires the lift span to be raised up 6 feet and locked in that
position in order

to install paint containment, sandblast the metal, and paint the bridge
span ends.
    This work must be performed before the ambient air temperature
becomes too cold for outdoor painting.
    Historically, there were thirteen requests to open the Carlton
Bridge in September 2006, and eleven requests to open in October 2006.
Those totals were for the entire month.
    The requested bridge closure dates to complete the bridge painting
at the bridge for 2007, will all be on Monday and Tuesday when
recreational boating activity is very low.
    Under this temporary deviation the Carlton Bridge need not open for
the passage of vessel traffic between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.; October
1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 22, 2007. Vessels that can pass under the
bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
    Should the bridge maintenance authorized by this temporary
deviation be completed before the end of the effective period published
in this notice, the Coast Guard will rescind the remainder of this
temporary deviation, and the bridge shall be returned to its normal
operation schedule.
    Notice of the above action shall be provided to the public in the
Local Notice to Mariners and the Federal Register, where practicable.

    Dated: September 28, 2007.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 07-4998 Filed 10-4-07; 3:08 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: July 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 131)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39450-39455]
[DOCID:fr09jy10-4]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0237; FRL-8831- 4]

Terpene Constituents of the Extract of Chenopodium ambrosioides
near ambrosioides ([alpha]-Terpinene, d-Limonene and p-Cymene) as
Synthetically Manufactured; Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of Terpene Constituents of the Extract of
Chenopodium ambrosioides near ambrosioides ([alpha]-terpinene, d-
limonene and p-cymene) as Synthetically Manufactured in or on all food
commodities when applied/used as a biochemical insecticide and
acaricide. AgraQuest, Incorporated submitted a petition to EPA under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of Terpene Constituents of the Extract of Chenopodium
ambrosioides near ambrosioides ([alpha]-terpinene, d-limonene and p-
cymene) as Synthetically Manufactured under FFDCA.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 9, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 7, 2010,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0237. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as

copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available in the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office
of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Pfeifer, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I 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.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. How Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2009-0237 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
September 7, 2010. 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 that does not contain any 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 a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0237, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of May 6, 2009 (74 FR 20946) (FRL-8411-2),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP
9F7551) by AgraQuest, Incorporated, 1540 Drew Avenue, Davis, CA 95618-
6320. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of Terpene Constituents of the Extract of Chenopodium
ambrosioides near ambrosioides ([alpha]-terpinene, d-limonene and p-
cymene) as Synthetically Manufactured. The notice referenced a summary
of the petition prepared by the petitioner, AgraQuest, Incorporated,
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 section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require 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. . .
.'' Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires that 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 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 section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, 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.

A. Overview

    This active ingredient is a synthetic blend of the pesticidally
active terpene constituents that are found in the Extract of
Chenopodium ambrosioides near ambrosioides. Plant extracts are
comprised of many constituents, some of which give the extract its
pesticidal effects. The concentration of each of the terpene
constituents is the same as that of the natural extract.
    There are non-terpene constituents in this synthetically
manufactured extract. These non-terpene constituents are pesticidally
inactive and virtually non-toxic. Likewise, there are non-terpene
constituents that are found in the natural extract. The non-terpene
constituents found in both the natural extract and this synthetically
manufactured extract have been assessed by EPA and determined not to be
of toxicological concern when used in pesticide products applied to
various food crops.
    The terpene constituents of this synthetically manufactured extract
and the natural extract are the same and therefore this tolerance
exemption document focuses only on the terpene constituents. In
addition, based on this determination, the toxicological information
submitted in support of the tolerance exemption for Extract of
Chenopodium ambrosioides near ambrosioides were used to bridge to
satisfy the data requirements for this synthetically manufactured
extract (74 FR 629, January 7, 2009).

B. Constituents of ECANA as Synthetically Manufactured

    The three major terpene constituents of this synthetically
manufactured extract are [alpha]-terpinene, p-cymene, and d-limonene.
These terpene constituents occur naturally in fruits, vegetables,
herbs, spices, and other foods and beverages. These three terpene
constituents are found naturally in food, permitted as food and
fragrance additives in the United States (U.S.) and Europe, and have
been fully characterized by EPA and assessed for their uses in
pesticide products applied to various food crops (Science Review in
Support of the Registration of the Active Ingredient ECANA, February
2008; Science Review and Tolerance Exemption Petition Review in Support
of the Registration of Requiem, October 2008). A summary description of
the Agency's dietary exposure to the terpene constituents follows:
    1. [alpha]-Terpinene is found in the essential oils of a variety of
plants, including citrus, peppermint, thyme, basil, and papaya. Per 21
CFR 172.515, [alpha]-terpinene is permitted for direct addition to food
for human consumption.
    2. d-Limonene is a major terpene constituent of lemon oil, orange
oil, and grapefruit oil; a minor terpene constituent of other fruits,
vegetables, meats, and spices; widely used as a flavor and fragrance;
and generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) as a food additive or flavoring and as a fragrance
additive (21 CFR 182.60). Furthermore, d-limonene is a federally
registered active ingredient in 15 pesticide products with a tolerance
per 40 CFR 180.539. It is also used as a solvent or fragrance in 14
other food use pesticide products, where it is exempt from the
requirement of a tolerance as an inert ingredient (40 CFR 180.910 and
40 CFR 180.930).
    3. Humans regularly consume p-cymene through such foods as butter,
carrots, nutmeg, orange juice, oregano, raspberries, lemon oil, and
spices. p-Cymene is permitted by FDA for direct addition to food as a
flavoring substance (21 CFR 172.515).
    The general public is exposed daily to low levels of these terpene
constituents via ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation through
consumption of foods and beverages, as well as through dermal contact
with cosmetics, in excess of any exposure expected to result from the
pesticidal use of this synthetically manufactured extract, all without
toxicological incident to humans. The per capita daily consumption of
these terpene constituents as food additives alone amounts to 13.325
milligrams (mg) in the U.S. and 40.397 mg in Europe (Ref. 4), amounts
far in excess of any potential dietary exposures resulting from
exposure to residues from this pesticidal extract.

C. Biochemical Pesticide Human Health Assessment Data Requirements

    Acute toxicity data were submitted for this synthetically
manufactured extract; all other toxicity information submitted in
support of the registration and food use of this synthetically
manufactured extract were bridged from the natural extract summaries of
the toxicological data supporting this exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance are as follows:
    1. Acute toxicity. Acute toxicity studies, submitted to support the
registration of the end-use product (EP) containing this synthetically
manufactured extract indicate a low toxicity profile and support the
finding that this active ingredient poses no significant human health
risk with regard to food use.
    a. The acute oral median lethal dose (LD50) in rats for
this synthetically manufactured extract was greater than 2,000
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and confirmed negligible toxicity
through the oral route. There were no observed toxicological effects on
the test subjects in the the acute oral. (Master Record Identification
Number (MRID No.) 4762704). This synthetically manufactured extract is
Toxicity Category III for acute oral toxicity.
    b. The acute dermal LD50 in rats was greater than 2,000
mg/kg for this synthetically manufactured extract. No toxic endpoints
were established. These data substantiated this synthetically
manufactured extract's relative dermal nontoxicity to the general
public (MRID No. 4762705). This synthetically manufactured extract is
Toxicity Category III for acute dermal toxicity.
    c. The acute inhalation median lethal concentration
(LC50) for this synthetically manufactured extract was
greater than 2.03 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in rats and showed no
significant inhalation toxicity. No toxic endpoints were established.
This synthetically manufactured extract was tested to a limit dose of
5.14 mg/L (MRID No. 48064401). This synthetically manufactured extract
is Toxicity Category IV for acute inhalation toxicity.
    d. Skin irritation studies on rabbits indicated that this
synthetically manufactured extract was an irritant to the skin (MRID
No. 48064403). This synthetically manufactured extract is Toxicity
Category IV for dermal irritation.
    e. Data indicated this synthetically manufactured extract is not a
dermal sensitizer (MRID No. 48064404).
    Data indicate that this synthetically manufactured extract is not
acutely toxic. No toxic endpoints were established, and no significant
toxicological effects were observed in any of the acute toxicity
studies.
    2. Mutagenicity. Three mutagenicity studies, using the natural
extract as the test substance, were bridged to support this
synthetically manufactured extract. These studies are sufficient to
confirm that there are no expected dietary or non-occupational risks of
mutagenicity with regard to new food uses for this synthetically
manufactured extract. Although the natural extract and this
synthetically manufactured extract have non-terpene constituents that
are different, none of the constituents have been shown to present any
mutagenicity or any impact on mutagenicity and therefore, the data
submitted to support the natural extract demonstrates the lack

of mutagenicity of this synthetically manufactured extract.
    a. The Reverse Mutation Assay (MRID No. 46456301) showed that the
natural extract did not induce mutant colonies relative to control
groups.
    b. The In vitro Mammalian Cells in Culture Assay (MRID No.
46396214) demonstrated that the natural extract did not damage
chromosomes in human lymphocyte cells.
    c. A Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Repair Assay (MRID No. 46396215)
indicated no unscheduled DNA repair in rat hepatocytes exposed to the
natural extract.
    3. Subchronic toxicity. When used as a contact insecticide,
residues of this synthetically manufactured extract are not expected to
result in any repeated and/or long-term exposure by the oral, dermal,
or inhalation routes. As a result, waiver requests for the subchronic
toxicity studies were approved, for the most part, based upon three
residue studies for the natural extract, which confirm the rapid
degradation of the terpene constituents in this synthetically
manufactured extract.
    a. A residue decline study on primrose (MRID No. 47209101)
demonstrated that, when an EP containing the natural extract was
applied at four times the labeled application rate, the terpene
constituents were not detectable 10 minutes after application.
    b. In another study, an EP containing the natural extract was
applied to tomatoes four times and at twice the labeled application
rate (MRID No. 46858903); residues of the terpene constituents were
below the limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.01 mg/kg when plant samples
were collected and checked at 0, 3, 6, and 24-hour intervals.
    c. In the final study (MRID No. 47548301), an EP containing the
natural extract was applied to mustard greens three times and at twice
the labeled application rate; residues of the terpene constituents had
dissipated to below the LOQ of 0.05 parts per million (ppm) at 1-4
hours after the last application.
    These residue decline studies on the natural extract support the
finding that there is little potential for dermal or inhalation
exposure to residues of this synthetically manufactured extract based
on the rapid degradation of the terpene constituents that are the
principal constituents in the natural extract and this synthetically
manufactured extract. Therefore, no subchronic testing is needed.
    4. Developmental toxicity. The Agency bridged from information on
the natural extract to support this synthetically manufactured extract.
The information from the open scientific literature characterizes the
developmental toxicity of the terpene constituents and satisfies the
data requirements for developmental and reproductive toxicity for this
synthetically manufactured extract (Refs. 1, 2, 3, and 4). The
information established that none of the terpene constituents in this
synthetically manufactured extract are developmental or reproductive
toxicants. The data submitted to support the natural extract
appropriately demonstrates the lack of developmental toxicity of this
synthetically manufactured extract.
    The information established a conservative maternal no observable
adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 60 mg/kg per day and a developmental
NOAEL of 30 mg/kg per day. These levels greatly exceed any potential
dietary exposure, as discussed above in Unit III.C.3., from the use of
this synthetically manufactured extract and confirm the lack of risk
for developmental toxicity, even in a worst-case scenario.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA 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

    Dietary exposure to the residues of this synthetically manufactured
extract is expected to be virtually nonexistent. Even in the event of
exposure, the information supporting this tolerance exemption
demonstrates that any dietary risks would be negligible.
    1. Food. The pesticidal use of this synthetically manufactured
extract is not expected to result in any dietary exposure. Three
residue decline studies on the natural extract show that rapid
degradation of the terpene constituents of this synthetically
manufactured extract. A detailed discussion of those studies can be
found in Unit III.C.3. In sum, these data demonstrate that, by the time
this synthetically manufactured extract has dried on the plant, there
is no detectable residual product.
    2. Drinking water exposure. Exposure of humans to this
synthetically manufactured extract in drinking water is unlikely
because associated pesticide products are labeled for applications
directly to terrestrial plants and because any residues would have
significantly degraded in the advance of any rainfall event. Low
application rates and rapid biodegradation in water (an aqueous half
life of 36.11 hours for the natural extract) further reduce the
potential for drinking water exposure.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    Non-occupational exposure is not expected because this
synthetically manufactured extract is not approved for residential uses
and the active ingredient is applied directly to food commodities and
degrades rapidly.
    1. Dermal exposure. Non-occupational dermal exposures to this
synthetically manufactured extract are expected to be negligible
because of its directed agricultural use. In the event of dermal
exposure to residues, because of the non-toxic profile of this
synthetically manufactured extract (as described in Unit III.), use of
this synthetically manufactured extract is not expected to result in
any risks through this route of exposure.
    2. Inhalation exposure. Non-occupational inhalation exposures are
not expected to result from the agricultural uses of this synthetically
manufactured extract. Any inhalation exposure associated with this
agricultural use pattern is expected to be occupational in nature.

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 this synthetically manufactured extract to share
a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and this
synthetically manufactured extract does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that this synthetically
manufactured extract does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

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

    FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall assess the
available information about consumption patterns among infants and
children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide
chemical residues, and the cumulative effects on infants and children
of the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. In addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and
children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and
postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database unless EPA
determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. Margins of exposure (safety), which are often referred to
as uncertainty factors, are incorporated into EPA risk assessments
either directly or through the use of a margin of exposure analysis, or
by using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that
poses no appreciable risk.
    Health risks to humans, including infants and children, are
considered negligible with regard to the pesticidal use of this
synthetically manufactured extract. Toxicity information submitted in
support of the application for this synthetically manufactured extract
demonstrates that the active ingredient has negligible toxicity. In
addition, the terpene constituents of this synthetically manufactured
extract are ubiquitous in nature and present in a multitude of fruits
and vegetables and, to date, there is no history of toxicological
incident involving their consumption. As discussed earlier, the terpene
constituents of this synthetically manufactured extract are approved as
direct food additives by the FDA. Most importantly, however, exposure
to the residues of this synthetically manufactured extract are not
expected. Pesticidal applications are applied directly to commercial
crops, and data confirm that detectable residues do not persist beyond
the time for this synthetically manufactured extract to dry on to
foliar surfaces. As such, the Agency has determined that this food use
of this synthetically manufactured extract poses no foreseeable risks
to human health or the environment. There is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result to the general U.S. population, including
infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of this
synthetically manufactured extract.

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. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for Terpene Constituents
([alpha]-terpinene, d-limonene and p-cymene) of the Extract of
Chenopodium ambrosioides near ambrosioides as Synthetically
Manufactured.

VIII. Conclusions

    The Agency concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to the United States population, including infants and
children, from aggregate exposure to residues of this synthetically
manufactured extract. Therefore, an exemption is established for
residues of Terpene Constituents ([alpha]-terpinene, d-limonene and p-
cymene) of the Extract Chenopodium ambrosioides near ambrosioides as
Synthetically Manufactured in or on all food commodities.

IX. References

    1. Araujo IB, Souza CAM, De-Carvalho RR, Kuriyama SN, Rodrigues RP,
Vollmer RS, Alves EN, Paumgartten FJR. 1996. Study of the
embryofoetotoxicity of [alpha]-terpinene in the rat. Food and Chemical
Toxicology 34:477-482.
    2. Cornell University. 2008. Medicinal Plants Website. Medicinal
Plants for Livestock, Beneficial or Toxic? Available from http://
www.ansci.comell.edu/plants/medicinal/plants.html.
    3. Flavor and Fragrance High Production Volume Consortia (FFHPVC).
2002. The Terpene Consortium: Test Plan for Aromatic Terpene
Hydrocarbons.
    4. World Health Organization (WHO). 2005. Evaluation of Certain
Food Additives. WHO Technical Report Series No. 928. Sixty-third Report
of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance exemption under section
408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of
actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final
rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this
final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order
13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance
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 final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between

the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

XI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 30, 2010.
Martha Monell,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.1296 is added to subpart D to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1296  Terpene Constituents [alpha]-terpinene, d-limonene and
p-cymene, of the Extract of Chenopodium ambrosioides near ambrosioides
as Synthetically Manufactured; exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
the residues of the biochemical pesticide Terpene Constituents [alpha]-
terpinene, d-limonene and p-cymene, of the Extract of Chenopodium
ambrosioides near ambrosioides as Synthetically Manufactured when used
as an insecticide/acaricide in or on all food commodities.
[FR Doc. 2010-16765 Filed 7-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 61728]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4019-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

North Carolina; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4019-DR), dated August
31, 2011, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 31, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 31, 2011, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of North Carolina resulting from Hurricane Irene beginning on August
25, 2011, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of North Carolina.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael E. Bolch, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of North Carolina have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Beaufort, Carteret, Craven, Dare, Hyde, Pamlico, and Tyrrell
Counties for Individual Assistance.
    All counties within the State of North Carolina are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-25599 Filed 10-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


May 30, 2003 Jim and Bob, To facilitate better discussions next week, we have prepared this paper that outlines how we would address our concerns with the fuel testing provisions within Boiler MACT. It lays out a process for establishing default " fuel contaminant input" values as well as operating limits and compliance demonstrations. We would like to talk about the general concepts in the paper while Bob is participating in the meeting but would be glad leave the details to the later portion of the meeting. Please share with others within EPA as you see fit. We are also working on a draft sampling technique for biomass and other fuels and hope to provide it to you at the meeting. We are also developing the more comprehensive sampling plan to address variability and number of samples. Have a good weekend. << Fuel Paper final 5 30 03. doc>> Timothy Hunt Senior Director, Air Quality Programs American Forest and Paper Association Suite 800 1111 19th St., NW Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202 463 2588 fax: 202 463 2423 Tim_ Hunt@ afandpa. org