[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64317-64322]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25592]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0729; FRL-9917-15]

Paraquat Dichloride; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
paraquat dichloride in or on the tuberous and corm vegetables subgroup
1C. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested this
tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective October 29, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 29, 2014,
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-2013-0729, 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration 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 EPA's
tolerance regulations at 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 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-2013-0729 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
December 29, 2014. 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-2013-0729, 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. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 30, 2013 (78 FR 79359) (FRL-
9903-69), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
3E8201) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.205 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the desiccant, defoliant, and
herbicide paraquat dichloride (1,1'-dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridinium-ion)
(hereafter in this document referred to solely as paraquat) derived
from application of the dichloride salt (calculated as the cation) in
or on tuberous and corm vegetables subgroup (Crop subgroup 1C) at 0.5
parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
. .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for paraquat including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with paraquat follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The primary target organ of paraquat is the lung. Evidence of lung
inflammation, scarring, and compromised lung function in response to
paraquat are observed throughout the toxicity database (independent of
route of exposure (oral, dermal, inhalation)) in different species
(rats, mice, and dogs). Effects in the respiratory tract are observed
after acute, subchronic, and chronic exposures regardless of the route
of exposure (oral or inhalation). However, inhalation was a more
sensitive route of exposure than the oral route. With increasing
durations of exposure, effects of paraquat in other organ systems are
observed. These effects include liver inflammation and necrosis in rats
and inflammation and necrosis of the kidneys in rats and mice.
Lenticular changes in the eyes of rats were also observed with
increasing durations of exposure. Importantly, the lung effects occur
at doses lower than effects in these other organs systems, and so
protecting for lung effects protects for all other adverse effects of
paraquat.
    The effects of paraquat in lungs are considered systemic effects.
There are no dermal toxicity studies suitable for evaluation of
systemic lung effects in the toxicity database for paraquat. Therefore,
the Agency is using a dermal absorption factor of 0.3%, which was
derived from dermal absorption studies conducted in humans and monkeys
and an oral endpoint for dermal risk assessments.
    Paraquat does not cause reproductive toxicity. Developmental
toxicity in response to paraquat, when observed, always occurred in the
presence of maternal toxicity. Four developmental toxicity studies (two
in rats and two in mice) are available. Since effects in the

offspring (e.g., reduced body weight/gain and delayed skeletal
ossification), when present, were lesser in severity than those
observed in maternal animals (e.g. respiratory distress, reduced body
weight, lesions in the lungs and kidneys) and were also consistent with
those commonly observed as secondary to maternal toxicity, the Agency
has concluded that there was no evidence of qualitative susceptibility
in the young.
    No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies conducted with paraquat up to the doses at which
respiratory effects were observed (e.g. the maximum tolerated dose).
There was also no evidence of immunotoxicity in response to paraquat.
    Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats,
the Agency has concluded that there is no concern for the carcinogenic
potential of paraquat. Paraquat was not mutagenic in the Salmonella
typhimurium assay, was not genotoxic in the unscheduled DNA synthesis
assay in vitro or in vivo, was negative for chromosomal aberration in
the bone marrow test, and no evidence was found for suppressed
fertility or dominant lethal mutagenicity in mice. Conversely, paraquat
was found to be weakly positive in the mouse lymphoma assay and human
lymphocyte cytogenetic assay, and was positive in the sister chromatid
exchange assay.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by paraquat as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Paraquat Dichloride. HED Human Health
Risk Assessment for the Expansion of Representative Commodity Use on
Potato to Tuberous and Corm Vegetables Subgroup 1C'' on pages 28-32 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0729.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for paraquat used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of August 9, 2012 (77 FR 47539) (FRL-
9357-1).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to paraquat, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing paraquat tolerances in 40 CFR
180.205. EPA assessed dietary exposures from paraquat in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for paraquat. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, the acute analysis assumed a distribution of
residues based on tolerance level residues. Empirical and Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) default processing factors were used
to modify the field trial data. Maximum screening-level percent crop
treated (PCT) estimates were used for commodities for which data were
available. If no percent crop treated data were available, 100 PCT was
assumed.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/
WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance level
residues and average estimates of PCT.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that paraquat does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on
the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk
only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the
Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To
provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required
by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit
data on PCT.
    The Agency estimated the PCT in the acute dietary risk assessment
for existing uses as follows:
    Almond, 35%; apple, 30%; apricot, 30%; artichoke, 70%; asparagus,
20%; avocado, 5%; barley, 2.5%; green beans, 2.5%; blueberries, 20%;
broccoli, 2.5%; cabbage, 10%; caneberries, 70%; cantaloupe, 10%;
carrots, 2.5%; cauliflower, 2.5%; celery, 2.5%; cherry, 30%; corn,
2.5%; cotton, 40%; cucumber, 10%; dry beans/peas, 5%; figs, 5%; garlic,
2.5%; grapefruit, 15%; grapes, 30%; hazelnut, 70%; kiwifruit, 30%;
lemon, 5%; lettuce, 2.5%; nectarine, 20%; olive, 2.5%; onion, 10%;
orange, 15%; peach, 45%; peanut, 45%; pear, 20%; green peas, 2.5%;
pecan, 10%; peppers, 15%; pistachio, 35%; plum/prune, 20%; potato, 10%;
pumpkin, 10%; rice, 2.5%; sorghum, 2.5%; soybean, 2.5%; spinach, 5%;
squash, 20%; strawberry, 20%; sugar beet, 2.5%; sugarcane, 10%;
sunflower, 2.5%; sweet corn, 2.5%; tangelos, 10%; tangerine, 5%;
tomato, 30%; walnut, 20%; watermelon, 15%; and wheat, 2.5%.
    The Agency estimated the PCT in the chronic dietary risk assessment
for existing uses as follows:
    Almond, 25%; apple, 20%; apricot, 10%; artichoke, 30%; asparagus,
10%; avocado, 5%; barley, 1%; green beans, 1%; blueberries, 15%;
broccoli, 1%; cabbage, 2.5%; caneberries, 45%;

cantaloupe, 5%; carrots, 1%; cauliflower, 1%; celery, 1%; cherry, 20%;
corn, 2.5%; cotton, 20%; cucumber, 5%; dry beans/peas, 2.5%; figs, 5%;
garlic, 1%; grapefruit, 5%; grapes, 15%; hazelnut, 55%; kiwifruit, 30%;
lemon, 2.5%; lettuce, 1%; nectarine, 10%; olive, 2.5%; onion, 5%;
orange, 5%; peach, 30%; peanut, 25%; pear, 10%; green peas, 1%; pecan,
5%; peppers, 10%; pistachio, 25%; plum/prune, 10%; potato, 5%; pumpkin,
5%; rice, 1%; sorghum, 1%; soybean, 1%; spinach, 2.5%; squash, 5%;
strawberry, 5%; sugar beet, 1%; sugarcane, 5%; sunflower, 1%; sweet
corn, 1%; tangelo, 10%; tangerine, 5%; tomato, 10%; walnut, 15%;
watermelon, 5%; and wheat, 1%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7
years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining
available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging
across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for
those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those
cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum
PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey
data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which paraquat may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. In the past the EPA has
concluded that though paraquat undergoes minimal degradation in the
environment, and thus is very persistent (as parent), paraquat residues
are not expected in surface or ground water. Paraquat has a very high
propensity to bind to solids, particularly clay, which makes it very
immobile. In addition, paraquat does not readily appear to desorb from
clay. The greatest cause for concern is likely to be erosion of
contaminated sediments off-site and subsequent redeposition onto non-
target areas (especially surface water bodies). Because of its very low
mobility and strong tendency to bind tightly to soils, paraquat
contamination of drinking water supplies derived from groundwater is
expected to be highly unlikely. In addition, the strong binding
characteristics of paraquat dichloride are likely to render most
residues in raw drinking water sources removable through sedimentation
processes, which are typically included as part of standard drinking
water treatments.
    Because of its strong cation-exchange sorption to soils, modeling
is not appropriate for paraquat. In most circumstances, the levels of
paraquat residues in surface or ground water are expected to be
insignificant. Because it should sorb to suspended sediment,
coagulation and flocculation processes in drinking water treatment
plants are likely to remove any paraquat dichloride residues present in
the raw water. Residues of paraquat dichloride in drinking water
derived from surface supplies can therefore be assumed to be
negligible.
    In order to determine the most appropriate and realistic drinking
water numbers to use in the human health risk assessment, the Agency
reviewed a non-guideline supplemental mobility study that was conducted
to evaluate the effects of traditional water treatment processes on
paraquat and to determine the mobility of paraquat through soil
filtration column. \14\C-paraquat, spiked at around 30 parts per
billion (ppb) into the raw surface water samples from five
representative U.S community water supply facilities, was effectively
removed by a combination of typical water treatment processes conducted
on a laboratory-scale: The ``laboratory jar test'' (coagulation using
alum with either lime or soda ash, flocculation and sedimentation),
followed by duel media filtration (anthracite atop of filtering sand).
The combination process was able to reduce the level of \14\C-paraquat
to approximate or below the limit of detection of approximately 0.15
[micro]g/L (ppb). The level of paraquat in the finished water of 0.15
ppb was used in both the acute and chronic assessments.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Paraquat is not registered for any specific use patterns that would
result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found paraquat to share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and paraquat does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that paraquat 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.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Prenatal developmental
studies in rats and mice show that developmental effects only occur in
the presence of maternal toxicity. No effect on reproduction was
observed. Fetal effects were limited to delayed ossification and
decreased body weights, which are considered lesser in severity than
the effects observed in maternal animals. There was no indication from
these studies that paraquat dichloride is involved in endocrine
disruption.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for paraquat is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that paraquat is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that paraquat results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute dietary exposure analysis is based on tolerance
level residues and maximum estimates of percent crop treated. The
chronic analysis is based on tolerance level residues and average
estimates of PCT. For estimating levels of paraquat in drinking water,
the Agency relied on a study that evaluated the effects of traditional
water treatment processes on paraquat. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by paraquat.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to paraquat will occupy 75% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the
population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
paraquat from food and water will utilize 27% of the cPAD for children
1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
There are no residential uses for paraquat.
    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). A short- and
intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, paraquat is
not registered for any use patterns that would result in short- and/or
intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on short- and intermediate-term residential
exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short- and
intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has
already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is
at least as protective as the POD used to assess short- and
intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of short- and
intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term
risk for paraquat.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, paraquat is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to paraquat residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate spectrophotometric method, Method I of the Pesticide
Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II, is available for enforcing tolerances
for residues of paraquat in/on plant commodities.

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 United Nations
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 established MRLs for paraquat in or on root and tuber
vegetables at 0.05 ppm. These MRLs are different than the tolerance of
5.0 ppm that will be established for the tuberous and corm vegetables
subgroup 1C for residues of paraquat in the United States. The Agency
cannot harmonize with the Codex MRL because available residue data
demonstrates that application of paraquat in accordance with approved
label directions could result in residues that exceed 0.05 ppm.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of paraquat,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the tuberous and
corm vegetables subgroup 1C at 0.50 ppm.
    In addition, EPA is removing the separate tolerances for cassava,
ginger, potato, tanier, and true yam tuber because those are subsumed
within the new tolerance for subgroup 1C.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances 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 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 FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of 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 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) (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 of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. 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.

    Dated: October 16, 2014.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration 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. In Sec.  180.205:
0
a. In the table for paragraph (a), remove the entries for ``Ginger''
and ``Potato'' and add alphabetically the entry ``Vegetable, tuberous
and corm, subgroup 1C'';
0
b. In the table for paragraph (c), remove the entries for and
``Cassava,'' ``Tanier,'' and ``Yam, true, tuber''.
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  180.205  Paraquat; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Parts  per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, tuberous and corn, subgroup 1C...............            0.50

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-25592 Filed 10-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3069]
[DOCID:fr19ja06-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF06-4021-000]

United States Department of Energy; Southwestern Power
Administration, Sam Rayburn Dam Project Rate; Notice of Filing

January 9, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 23, 2005, the Deputy Secretary of the
Department of Energy, confirmed and approved on an interim basis Rate
Order No. SWPA-54 effective January 1, 2006 through September 30, 2009,
which establishes the annual rate of $2,816,064 for the sale of power
and energy by the Southwestern Power Administration from the Sam
Rayburn Dam Project to the Sam Rayburn Dam Electric Cooperative, Inc.
The Rate Order states this rate supersedes the annual rate which was
confirmed, approved and placed in effect on an interim basis by the
Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy on November 16, 2004, for
the period January 1, 2005 through September 20, 2008. The new rate was
submitted to the Commission for final confirmation and approval on
December 27, 2005.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 26, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-480 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 62)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16782-16784]
[DOCID:fr31mr08-23]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0368; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-007-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited Models DHC-6-1, DHC-
6-100, DHC-6-200, and DHC-6-300 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    There have been reports of inter-rivet cracking on several wing
front spar adapter assemblies (P/N C6WM1027-1) on the horizontal and
vertical flanges. It was determined that the cracking was caused by
stress corrosion in the short transverse grain initiated by local
riveting induced stresses.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pong Lee, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (516) 794-
5531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0368;
Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-007-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued AD No. CF-2007-31, dated December 17, 2007 (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    There have been reports of inter-rivet cracking on several wing
front spar adapter assemblies (P/N C6WM1027-1) on the horizontal and
vertical flanges. It was determined that the cracking was caused by
stress corrosion in the short transverse grain initiated by local
riveting induced stresses. This directive mandates modification and
inspection of the wing front spar adapter fitting and replacement of
cracked fittings.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Viking Air Limited has issued the following DHC-6 Twin Otter
Service Bulletins:
     No. V6/540, dated October 1, 2007;
     No. V6/541, dated October 1, 2007; and
     No. V6/542, dated October 1, 2007.
    R.W. Martin, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin No. 00160/2, Revision
A, dated November 15, 2007.
    The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 157 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 18 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $226,080 or $1,440 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 200 work-hours and require parts costing $3,696 for a cost
of $19,696 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with

this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Viking Air Limited: Docket No. FAA-2008-0368; Directorate Identifier
2008-CE-007-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 30, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Models DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, and
DHC-6-300 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are:
    (1) Equipped with wing boxes, part numbers (P/Ns) C6W1002-1,
C6W1002-3, WR6-1002-59, or WR6-1002-61, that incorporate a P/N
C6WM1027-1 front spar adapter assembly with 10 or more years of
service; and
    (2) Certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    There have been reports of inter-rivet cracking on several wing
front spar adapter assemblies (P/N C6WM1027-1) on the horizontal and
vertical flanges. It was determined that the cracking was caused by
stress corrosion in the short transverse grain initiated by local
riveting induced stresses. This directive mandates modification and
inspection of the wing front spar adapter fitting and replacement of
cracked fittings.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 180 days after the effective date of this
AD, install inspection holes in the left-hand (LH) and right-hand
(RH) lower wing skins following Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Service
Bulletin Number V6/541, dated October 1, 2007.
    (2) Before further flight after installing the inspection holes
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, inspect the LH and RH front
spar adapter assemblies for cracks. For wing box P/Ns C6W1002-1 and
C6W1002-3, inspect following Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Service
Bulletin Number V6/540, dated October 1, 2007. For wing box P/Ns
WR6-1002-59 and WR6-1002-61, inspect following R.W. Martin, Inc.
Service Bulletin No. 00160/2, Revision A, dated November 15, 2007.
Repetitively inspect all affected wing box P/Ns thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 1,200 hours time-in-service or 12 months,
whichever occurs first, until the replacement required in paragraph
(f)(3) of this AD is done.
    (3) Before further flight after doing any inspection required in
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD where cracks are found, replace the
cracked front spar adapter assembly with a front spar adapter
assembly, P/N C6WM1027-3. Do the replacement following Viking DHC-6
Twin Otter Service Bulletin Number V6/542, dated October 1, 2007.
This replacement terminates the repetitive inspections required in
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD for the replaced front spar adapter
assembly.
    (4) As a terminating action for the repetitive inspections
required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, at any time after the
initial inspection required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, you may
replace P/N C6WM1027-1 with P/N C6WM1027-3.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: (1) MCAI Transport Canada AD No. CF-2007-31, dated
December 17, 2007, requires incorporating task C57-10-18 of the DHC-
6 Corrosion Prevention and Control Manual (CPCM), PSM 1-6-5, within
90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) We are not incorporating task C57-10-18 of the DHC-6 CPCM,
PSM 1-6-5, into this AD because we are currently examining Transport
Canada AD No. CF-94-12R1, dated April 13, 1999; and AD No. CF-99-11,
dated May 28, 1999. Transport Canada issued these ADs to incorporate
a Corrosion Prevention and Control Program that identifies specific
areas that must be inspected to ensure the structural integrity of
the DHC-6 fleet.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Pong Lee, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office,1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone: (516) 228-
7324; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD No. CF-2007-31, dated
December 17, 2007; Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Service Bulletins No. V6/
540, dated October 1, 2007; No. V6/541, dated October 1, 2007; and
No. V6/542, dated October 1, 2007; and R.W. Martin, Inc. Service
Bulletin No. 00160/2, Revision A, dated November 15, 2007, for
related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 8, 2008.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-6469 Filed 3-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


July 1, 2002 Mr. Dirk V. Helder Office of Pesticide Programs (H7508C) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1921 Jefferson Highway Arlington, VA 22202 Dear Mr. Helder Subject: Dupont Response to Draft Hexazinone Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Document (TRED)

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft TRED for hexazinone. First, we compliment the Agency on the depth completeness of the data base review.

In some areas covered in the review we have no significant comments and in others, particularly toxicology, we have extensive comments which are contained in the attached documents identified for each section.

The most significant recommendation, in our view, contained in the draft documents pertains to the revocation of tolerances associated use of hexazinone on grass. We acknowledge that guidelines and interpretations regarding the practicality of grower over cattle grazing intervals have changed since data supporting this use pattern were last submitted. However, as indicated review, this is a rather minor use and our information indicates that the current label restrictions regarding cutting and grazing being complied with. Therefore, the tolerances supporting the use are sufficient. Given the foregoing, we request that the existing tolerances and use pattern be maintained while we conduct new residue work to support EPA's interpretation regarding a zero grazing interval.

We understand that our recently submitted Rabbit Developmental Toxicity Study (DuPont 7405, MRID 45677801) was not in time to be included in the Draft TRED. In view of the pivotal importance of this study to the overall conclusions of the final (specifically, the current proposal to declare a significant gap in the toxicology data base, the selection of appropriate end points regulatory purposes and the imposition of an additional 10X safety factor due to an incomplete data base), we respectfully request this study be reviewed as quickly as possible to be included in the final TRED.

We also note in the toxicology review that "Gene mutation – bacterial" is listed as an unsatisfied requirement. We have recently submitted (June 28, 2002, no MRID yet assigned) a new Ames assay with the 75 DF formulation which we believe will satisfy requirement.

Finally, we do not believe a 28 day inhalation study should be required until the existing and submitted 21 day inhalation study (MRID 00063972) has been reviewed Again, we appreciate this opportunity to comment and look forward to our continued collaboration.

Sincerely,

Thomas F. Stommel Global Product Reg. Mgr.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37158]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13664]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0427]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Narrow Bay, Suffolk County, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Smith Point Bridge, mile 6.1,
across Narrow Bay, at Suffolk County, New York. This temporary
deviation is necessary to facility public safety during a public event,
the annual 5K Run for Literacy.

DATES: This deviation is effective on September 10, 2016 between 9:00
a.m. and 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0427] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project
Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Community Family Literacy Project, Inc.
requested and Suffolk County Department of Public Works, the bridge
owner concurred with this temporary deviation from the normal operating
schedule to facilitate a public event, the annual 5K Run for Literacy.
    The Smith Point Bridge, mile 6.1, across Narrow Bay has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 18 feet at mean high water and 19
feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are
found at 33 CFR 117.799(d).
    Narrow Bay is transited by seasonal recreational vessels of various
sizes.
    Under this temporary deviation, the Smith Point Bridges may remain
in the closed position on Saturday September 10, 2016 between 9:00 a.m.
and 10 a.m.
    Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do
so at anytime. The bridges will not be able to open for emergencies and
there are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 3, 2016.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-13664 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 13114]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-461-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of
Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Proposed Southside Reliability Enhancement Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Southside Reliability Enhancement Project (Project), proposed
by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) in the above-
referenced docket. Transco requests authorization to construct and
operate one new compressor station and modify two existing compressor
stations and three existing meter stations in North Carolina and
Virginia. The Project would provide an incremental 423,400 dekatherms
per day (Dth/d) of year-round firm transportation capacity from
Transco's Compressor Station 165 and Pine Needle Storage Facility along
the mainline and South Virginia Lateral pipeline systems to delivery
points in North Carolina.
    The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC
staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with the
mitigation measures recommended in the EIS, would result in some
adverse environmental impacts; however, impacts would be reduced to
less-than-significant levels. Regarding climate change impacts, the
Project's construction and operation emissions would increase the
atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG), in combination
with past, present, and future emissions from all other sources.
Climate change impacts are not characterized in the EIS as significant
or insignificant because the Commission is conducting a generic
proceeding to determine whether and how the Commission will conduct
significance determinations going forward.\1\ The EIS also concludes
that no system or other alternative site would meet the Project
objective while providing a significant environmental advantage over
the Project as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Natural Gas
Infrastructure Project Reviews, 178 FERC ] 61,108 (2022); 178 FERC ]
61,197 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following Project facilities:
     installation of a new compressor station (Compressor
Station 168) which includes one new 33,000 horsepower electric motor-
driven compressor unit, and installation of new mainline valves on
South Virginia Lateral A-Line and B-Line at the new Compressor Station
168 in Mecklenburg County, Virginia;
     addition of one 16,000 horsepower electric motor-driven
compressor unit at existing Compressor Station 166 in Pittsylvania
County, Virginia;
     installation of piping modifications to allow for flow
reversal at existing Compressor Station 155 in Davidson County, North
Carolina;
     replacement of one meter run to increase delivery volumes
at the existing Ahoskie Meter Station in Hertford County, North
Carolina;
     installation of new facilities to increase delivery
volumes at the existing Pleasant Hill Meter Station in Northampton
County, North Carolina; and
     upgrade meter and controls and debottleneck piping at the
existing Iredell Meter Station in Iredell County, North Carolina.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability of the
final EIS to Federal, State, and local government representatives and
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other
interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the
Project area. The final EIS is only available in electronic format. It
may be viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on
the natural gas environmental documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). In
addition, the final EIS may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on
the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search), select ``General Search'', and
enter the docket number in the ``Docket Number'' field (i.e., CP22-
461). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The final EIS is not a decision document. It presents Commission
staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the
Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this
proceeding.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: February 24, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04310 Filed 3-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


10    MIKE STANLEY AND JOSEPH BONETTI.  WE HAVE A TIMER

           11    SYSTEM.  EACH PERSON IS LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES, AND THE

           12    YELLOW LIGHT WILL COME ON AT ONE MINUTE LETTING YOU KNOW

           13    YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT TO SPEAK, AND THEN THE RED

           14    LIGHT WILL COME ON AT THE END OF THE FIVE MINUTES.

           15             SO WITH THAT, I THINK WE'LL MOVE FORWARD IF

           16    MIKE STANLEY AND JOSEPH BONETTI WILL COME UP.

           17             WE DO HAVE A COURT REPORTER IF YOU HAVE

           18    ANYTHING IN WRITING THAT YOU WANT TO GIVE HER.

           19             PLEASE, DO STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION FOR

           20    HER.

           21        MIKE STANLEY:  MY NAME IS MIKE STANLEY,

           22    S-T-A-N-L-E-Y, MIKE, AND I HAVE NO AFFILIATION.

           23        MS. WEGMAN:  YOU CAN GO AHEAD.

           24        MIKE STANLEY:  I'M GOING TO RUN OUT OF TIME.

           25        MS. WEGMAN:  TAKE YOUR TIME.

                                                                                265

            1        MIKE STANLEY:  THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE

            2    MEDICATIONS I HAVE TO TAKE SINCE I WAS DIAGNOSED WITH

            3    ASTHMA AND SINUSITIS.  I'M A HEALTHY 37-YEAR-OLD.  I

            4    MOVED HERE TEN YEARS AGO.  I LIVED IN A RURAL

            5    ENVIRONMENT.  I'D NEVER HAD ANY MEDICAL PROBLEMS BEFORE

            6    MOVING HERE.

            7             I REALIZE MY PROBLEMS ARE ANECDOTAL AND NOT

            8    SCIENTIFIC, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO PUT THIS AWAY

            9    AND LIVE IN A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT WHERE MEDICATION WOULD

           10    BE NOT NECESSARY TO BASICALLY SURVIVE.  SPEAKING OF

           11    ANECDOTAL, THERE ARE -- I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS

           12    TOWN, AND A LOT OF ALLERGIST DOCTORS, AND THEY SAY THEY

           13    HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH A HIGH RATE OF ALLERGIES AND ASTHMA

           14    THAN WITHIN THE LAST TEN YEARS AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT

           15    THAT'S COMING FROM.

           16             YOU CAN TALK ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING OR GRAND

           17    SCHEMES LIKE THAT, BUT THIS IS A VERY POLLUTED PLACE BY

           18    NATURE, LOS ANGELES, AND I'M VERY PLEASED THAT WE DON'T

           19    LIVE HERE IN THE '70S WHERE IT WAS AWFUL POLLUTION.  BUT

           20    I THINK WE CAN DO BETTER.

           21             MY WIFE IS FROM GERMANY AND WHEN I GO THERE,

           22    SHE TALKS ABOUT THE OZONE LEVELS.  SHE'S TALKED ABOUT

           23    THAT SINCE THE EARLY '90S, AND I NEVER KNEW WHAT THAT

           24    WAS; BUT THEY HAVE OZONE ALERTS THERE, AND I BELIEVE

           25    THEIR PART PER MILLION IS .06, BUT I'M NOT SURE.  I KNOW

                                                                                266

            1    THAT WHEN THEY HAVE A HIGH OZONE, MY ASTHMA GETS WORSE.

            2    I'VE EXPERIENCED THAT.  I DON'T SEE IN THE MEDIA HERE

            3    ANY TALK OF OZONE.  IT'S NOT A COMMON THING.  IT'S

            4    USUALLY ABOUT SMOG OR JUST GENERALLY THE WEATHER, BUT

            5    I'M HERE TO SAY THAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED A HIGH OZONE AND

            6    THAT RELATES TO MY PERSONAL HEALTH IN A VERY DIRECT WAY.

            7             SO YOU KNOW, I -- I RECEIVED AN E-MAIL ABOUT

            8    THE PARTS PER MILLION.  THERE IS SOME DEBATE ON HOW LOW

            9    THEY SHOULD GO, SO I AM HERE TO SAY I THINK THEY SHOULD

           10    GO AS LOW AS POSSIBLE.  I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HURT

           11    ANYTHING, AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT INDUSTRY CAN DO.

           12    THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS TO MAKE MONEY OFF THE ENVIRONMENT,

           13    AS WE'RE SEEING THESE DAYS, AND I URGE YOU TO GO AS LOW

           14    AS YOU CAN GO AND TRY TO HELP PEOPLE LIKE ME OUT.

           15             I DON'T WANT TO BE ON THIS ANY MORE.  I'M A

           16    HEALTHY PERSON.  I EXERCISE, I RUN, AND I SWIM.  I DON'T

           17    WANT TO BE INFLICTED WITH THE POLLUTION ANYMORE.

           18    THANKS.

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  I JUST DO WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WHEN

           20    YOU HEAR ABOUT SMOG ALERTS, THAT IS OZONE, SO THAT YOU

           21    ARE, IN FACT, GETTING OZONE ALERTS HERE IN L.A.  THOSE

           22    ARE -- YOU SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF THEM, AND I CERTAINLY

           23    UNDERSTAND YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE AN END TO THE AIR

           24    POLLUTION THAT IS EXACERBATING YOUR HEALTH PROBLEM, BUT

           25    DO BE MINDFUL OF THE SMOG ALERTS BECAUSE THAT IS OZONE.

                                                                                267

            1        JOSEPH BONETTI:  MY NAME IS JOSEPH BONETTI.  MY

            2    AFFILIATION IS CAL TECH, WHICH IS HERE IN PASADENA.  SO

            3    I, TOO, HAVE SOME PERSONAL STORIES TO SHARE BUT LUCKILY

            4    THEY'RE NOT NEARLY AS EXTREME AS MIKE'S.

            5             ANYWAY, SO MY BACKGROUND IS ACTUALLY -- I SAID

            6    FROM CAL TECH.  I SHOULD SPECIFY THAT I'M NOT AN

            7    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST OR AN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENTIST OR

            8    MEDICAL RESEARCHER.  MY BACKGROUND IS IN EXPERIMENTAL

            9    PHYSICS; HOWEVER, JUST THE GENERAL TRAINING IN SCIENCE

           10    GIVES ME AN ABILITY TO RESEARCH THE DATA OR, YOU KNOW,

           11    RESEARCH PAPERS AND UNDERSTAND DATA AND ANALYZE DATA AND

           12    BE SKEPTICAL.

           13             BUT BEFORE I GET INTO THAT, I'M GOING TO SHARE

           14    SOME PERSONAL STORIES.  WHENEVER -- MY MOM SUFFERS FROM

           15    ASTHMA.  IT'S NOT A SEVERE CASE, BUT ANYWAY, SHE HAS

           16    ASTHMATIC SYMPTOMS.  WHENEVER MY PARENTS COME TO LOS

           17    ANGELES TO VISIT ME, SHE NOTICES A DRASTIC CHANGE IN HER

           18    SYMPTOMS AND SHE HAS DIFFICULTY BREATHING AND GETTING

           19    AROUND IN LOS ANGELES.  SO THAT'S ONE PERSONAL WAY THAT

           20    IT AFFECTS ME.

           21             SIMILAR, ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBER, MY GRANDFATHER

           22    WAS HERE TWO SUMMERS AGO.  AS YOU KNOW SMOG AND OZONE

           23    ARE WORSE IN THE SUMMER.  MY GRANDFATHER SUFFERED A

           24    MINOR STROKE IN LOS ANGELES.  I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT

           25    THE OZONE CAUSED THE STROKE.  I MEAN, I'M SURE HE WOULD

                                                                                268

            1    HAVE HAD ONE ANYWAY, BUT I THINK IT WAS SORT OF THE

            2    BUTTERFLY THAT LANDED ON THE BALANCE SCALE THAT TIPPED

            3    IT AND MADE IT HAPPEN WHILE HE WAS HERE.

            4             THE OTHER PERSONAL STORY IS ME.  YOU KNOW, SOME

            5    OF THE RESEARCH REPORTS LIST PEOPLE WHO EXERCISE

            6    VIGOROUSLY AND FREQUENTLY OUTDOORS AS BEING AT RISK AND

            7    IN A SENSITIVE GROUP.  SO I'M AN AVID HIKER.  I'M AN

            8    AVID RUNNER.  I ALSO BIKE BACK AND FORTH TO WORK.  SO I,

            9    MYSELF, AM IN A SENSITIVE GROUP, AND I REALLY DON'T WANT

           10    TO BE PUTTING MY HEALTH AT RISK.

           11             SO I'VE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT SOME OF THE

           12    RESEARCH, AND AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN OVERWHELMING

           13    AMOUNT OF RESEARCH THAT SUGGESTS THAT THERE REALLY IS NO

           14    SAFE LEVEL OF OZONE.  I MEAN, THERE IS SOME NATURAL

           15    BACKGROUND LEVEL WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH, SO THAT YOU CAN'T

           16    GET RID OF.  BUT EVEN AT LOW VALUES, THE MOST CONVINCING

           17    PAPER I FOUND WAS BY MICHELLE BELL FROM YALE UNIVERSITY.

           18    I ACTUALLY READ THIS PAPER.  IT WAS QUITE CONVINCING.

           19             WHAT HER RESEARCH SHOWED IS THAT FOR EVERY TEN

           20    PARTS PER BILLION INCREASE IN OZONE -- AND I SHOULD SAY

           21    THAT'S -- I USE TEN PARTS PER BILLION INSTEAD OF PARTS

           22    PER MILLION BECAUSE THE NUMBERS MAKE MORE SENSE.  SO

           23    ANYWAY, FOR EVERY TEN PARTS PER BILLION INCREASE IN

           24    OZONE, THERE'S A .3 INCREASE IN THE MORTALITY RATE.

           25             SO TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT MEANS WITH

                                                                                269

            1    NORMAL NUMBERS, CURRENTLY THE SAFE GUIDELINE IS LIKE 84

            2    PARTS PER BILLION.  SO LET'S ASSUME IF IT WERE 50 PARTS

            3    PER BILLION, AND THEN YOU INCREASED TO 90, THAT'S A 40

            4    PART PER BILLION CHANGE OR FOUR 10 PARTS PER BILLION

            5    CHANGES.  SO THEN YOU MULTIPLE .3 PERCENT TIMES 4, YOU

            6    GET 1.2 PERCENT INCREASE IN THE MORTALITY RATE JUST FROM

            7    JUMPING FROM 50 TO 90.  SO CHANGING FROM 84 DOWN TO

            8    SOMETHING LIKE 50, WHICH IS -- OR 50 OR 60, WHICH IS

            9    ABOUT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO, THAT WOULD ROUGHLY

           10    DECREASE THE MORTALITY RATE BY 1 PERCENT.

           11             A 1 PERCENT CHANGE DOESN'T SOUND LIKE MUCH, BUT

           12    YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HUMAN LIVES.  IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE

           13    TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF RAINY DAYS OR SOMETHING.  SO

           14    THAT'S -- THAT'S SIGNIFICANT IN MY OPINION.

           15             ON THE OTHER ISSUE, JUST A LEGAL ISSUE.

           16    BECAUSE OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT, THE EPA IS REQUIRED BY LAW

           17    UNDER ONE INTERPRETATION, WHICH MIGHT BE THE ONLY

           18    REASONABLE INTERPRETATION, OF THE LAW TO SET LEVELS THAT

           19    MAKE PEOPLE NOT AT RISK.  AND THE PEOPLE ALSO INCLUDES

           20    PEOPLE AT RISK, PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM ASTHMA, THE

           21    ELDERLY, AND CHILDREN.  SO IN MY OPINION, I THINK

           22    THERE'S A VERY UNEQUIVOCAL PRESSING NEED TO LOWER THE

           23    STANDARD.  I THINK IT SHOULD BE LOWERED EVEN LOWER THAN

           24    60.

           25             SO ONE BIG QUESTION IS, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO DO

                                                                                270

            1    THIS.  I MEAN, YOU CAN MAKE ALL OF THE RULES AND ALL OF

            2    THE REGULATIONS YOU CAN WANT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY,

            3    IF YOU DON'T ACTUALLY DECREASE THE AMOUNT, THEN SOMEONE

            4    JUST GETS FINED AND WE KEEP ON GOING THE WAY WE HAVE

            5    BEEN.  BUT INTERESTINGLY, THE WAYS TO DECREASE OZONE ARE

            6    THE SAME AS TO DECREASE OIL USE IN GENERAL, AND I THINK

            7    THAT'S THE MAIN CULPRIT; RIGHT?  FOSSIL FUEL AND OIL

            8    USE.

            9             THERE'S AN ENORMOUS NUMBER OF REASONS TO

           10    DECREASE OUR USE OF FOSSIL FUELS IN GENERAL, SO I THINK

           11    THERE'S AN ENORMOUS NUMBER OF THINGS YOU CAN DO.  ANY

           12    SORT OF INCENTIVES THAT WOULD CONVINCE PEOPLE TO USE

           13    LESS OIL.  LIKE, PRESIDENT BUSH GAVE EVERYONE A $300

           14    REFUND A FEW YEARS AGO DURING HIS FIRST TERM, SO WHY NOT

           15    GIVE A $300 REFUND FOR PEOPLE THAT PURCHASE SCOOTERS OR

           16    BICYCLES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

           17             ALSO, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE REAL FUEL

           18    EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CARS WITH NO LOOPHOLES AND THIS

           19    IS NO -- IT'S NO FUN, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD DECREASE THE

           20    SPEED LIMIT, PERHAPS.  I'M NOT SURE I WOULD AGREE WITH

           21    THAT ONE QUITE YET, BUT IT WOULD CERTAINLY HELP.  AND

           22    PHASE OUT INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS.  ALLOW PEOPLE TO

           23    DRESS CASUALLY AT WORK SO THEY WOULD BE MORE WILLING TO

           24    RIDE THEIR BIKES.  IF THEY HAVE TO WEAR A SUIT AND TIE,

           25    NO ONE'S GOING TO RIDE A BIKE.

                                                                                271

            1             SO THERE'S AN ENORMOUS NUMBER OF THINGS YOU CAN

            2    DO, BUT I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THE COUNTRY

            3    NEEDS TO REALIZE WE NEED TO SPEND THE ORDER OF TRILLIONS

            4    OF DOLLARS TO BUILD A NEW ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE BASED ON

            5    RENEWABLES.  YOU KNOW, POLITICIANS GIVE LIP SERVICE AND

            6    THEY SAY, "OH, WE'RE GOING TO INVEST A BILLION DOLLARS

            7    IN THIS AND TWO BILLION DOLLARS IN THAT."  BUT YOU

            8    REALLY NEED ON THE ORDER OF TENS OF TRILLIONS OR ON THE

            9    ORDER OF TRILLIONS.  BUT IT COULD BE DONE IF IT'S

           10    FINANCED, YOU KNOW, OVER TWO DECADES; RIGHT?  THANK YOU.

           11        MR. HANNON:  I JUST HAVE A QUESTION BUT ALSO MORE OF

           12    A COMMENT.

           13             YOU REFER TO THE BELL STUDY.  THAT'S ONE OF

           14    EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES THAT ACTUALLY CAME OUT OF THE

           15    SIGNIFICANT RESEARCH ON PARTICULATE MATTER SINCE THE

           16    LAST REVIEW.  AND WHILE THEY'RE RESEARCHING THE HEALTH

           17    EFFECTS OF PARTICULATE MATTER, THEY'RE MEASURING ALL OF

           18    THE OTHER POLLUTANTS IN THE AIR AT THE SAME TIME, SO THE

           19    SAME GROUP OF EPI STUDIES RELEVANT FOR OZONE AS WELL.

           20    BUT THAT STUDY AND OTHERS, IT TALKS ABOUT THE PERCENT

           21    CHANGE IN MORTALITY EFFECT OR HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS OR

           22    INCREMENT OF TEN PARTS PER BILLION GOES DOWN ALMOST TO

           23    ZERO.  IT DOESN'T CHANGE.  IT'S A RELATIVELY LINEAR

           24    RELATIONSHIP.

           25             SO THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH

                                                                                272

            1    IS HOW FAR DOWN DO YOU TRUST THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY A

            2    CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WHAT YOU'RE FINDING IN THE

            3    STATISTICS AND WHETHER IT'S REALLY OCCURRING IN THE REAL

            4    WORLD, WHETHER OZONE IS REALLY CAUSING IT.

            5             SO CASAC, FOR EXAMPLE, RECOMMENDED THAT WE GO

            6    NO LOWER THAN 60 PARTS PER MILLION EVEN THOUGH THE --

            7        MS. WEGMAN:  TELL HIM WHAT CASAC IS.

            8        MR. HANNON:  CLEAN AIR SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

            9    RECOMMENDED THAT WE GO NO LOWER THAN 60 AND NO HIGHER

           10    THAN 70 PARTS PER BILLION LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE

           11    COMBINATION OF CLINICAL STUDIES, EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES.

           12    SO I'M NOT REALLY ASKING YOU A QUESTION.  I JUST REALLY

           13    WANTED TO REACT TO THE RESPONSE.

           14        JOSEPH BONETTI:  AT SOME POINT YOU GET DOWN INTO THE

           15    NOISE, AND IT BECOMES HARD TO TELL WHETHER YOU'RE HAVING

           16    AN EFFECT.

           17        MR. HANNON:  AND THAT'S A PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY

           18    JUDGMENT THAT EPA'S SUPPOSED TO MAKE, HOW FAR DOWN DO WE

           19    GO IN BALANCING WHETHER THERE REALLY IS A PUBLIC HEALTH

           20    ISSUE.

           21        JOSEPH BONETTI:  THE BEST ARGUMENT AGAINST THAT

           22    OR -- NOT AGAINST IT, BUT JUST SOMETHING TO SAY IN

           23    OPPOSITION IS THAT IT MAY NOT BE OZONE, BUT MAYBE

           24    EVEN -- OZONE IS A FACTOR, BUT YOU'RE SAYING OTHER

           25    STUDIES THAT STUDY ALL SORTS OF POLLUTION PARTICULATE

                                                                                273

            1    MATTER AND OTHER GASES; BUT TO REDUCE THOSE OTHER GASES

            2    AND PARTICULATES AND POLLUTION IN GENERAL, THE WAY TO

            3    REDUCE THOSE IS ALL THE SAME WAY.  SO IF YOU DECREASE

            4    FOSSIL FUEL USE IN GENERAL, YOU REDUCE ALL THAT ACROSS

            5    THE BOARD; RIGHT?

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

            7        JOSEPH BONETTI:  THANKS FOR LISTENING TO US.

            8        MS. WEGMAN:  LUIS SUAREZ.

            9        LUIS SUAREZ:  GOOD EVENING.  ALL RIGHT.  SO I'M HERE

           10    TO INFORM YOU GUYS ABOUT MY STORY AND MY DAILY

           11    INTERACTION WITH SMOG.

           12             I DON'T HAVE A CAR, SO I TAKE THE BUS AND

           13    BICYCLE WHEREVER I GO.  EVERY MORNING BEGINNING AT 7:00

           14    IN THE MORNING I CAN SEE ON THE L.A. SKYLINE WHEN I GOT

           15    OUT OF MY APARTMENT BUILDING, WHEN I'M RIDING TO GO TO

           16    THE BUS TO TAKE THE BUS TO SANTA MONICA COLLEGE, WHERE I

           17    AM A STUDENT AT, I CAN SEE AT 7:00 IN THE MORNING THE

           18    SMOG.  YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW DURING THE SUMMER.

           19             THIS PAST COUPLE MONTHS I'VE SEEN SMOG PRETTY

           20    MUCH AT 7:00 IN THE MORNING, SOMETIMES EVEN 6:00 IN THE

           21    MORNING, AND IT REMAINS THERE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DAY.

           22             I CYCLE EVERY DAY AROUND THE CITY BREATHING IN,

           23    YOU KNOW, CARCINOGENIC AND NITROGEN MONOXIDE AS I HEAD

           24    TO SANTA COLLEGE, WHICH IS TEN MILES AWAY.  SO EVERY

           25    MORNING I WAKE UP AT 7:00 IN THE MORNING, RIDE MY

                                                                                274

            1    BICYCLE TO THE BUS, AND IN BETWEEN THAT I HAVE TO RIDE

            2    BEHIND CARS, RIDE IN FRONT OF THE BUS.  LIKE PRETTY MUCH

            3    FROM HERE TO THE END OF THE TABLE, THERE'S A BUS IN

            4    FRONT OF ME.  AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH EVERY DAY AND

            5    THAT'S -- WHEN I GO -- THAT'S RUSH HOUR IN THE MORNING.

            6    AND THEN AT THE END WHEN I GET OUT OF SCHOOL, IT'S RUSH

            7    HOUR, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN 4:00 TO 7:00.

            8             COMING HERE I HAD TO TAKE MY BIKE.  SO I HAD TO

            9    COME INTO DOWNTOWN L.A.  THE SMOG IS WORSE, SO I HAVE TO

           10    BREATHE IT IN.

           11             I KNOW THE EPA IS A BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT

           12    ESTABLISHED BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC

           13    AND THE PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF SOLELY -- I SOLELY -- YOU

           14    HAVE TO SOLELY BASE YOUR DECISION ON THE PUBLIC'S

           15    HEALTH.  BY SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING AND REGULATING SMOG

           16    REMISSIONS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE, YOU WILL NOT ONLY BE

           17    PROTECTING MY HEALTH, MY MOM'S HEALTH, MY SIBLINGS, BUT

           18    YOU WILL ALSO BE PROTECTING YOUR HEALTH.  YOU KNOW, WE

           19    ARE -- THE SMOG IS EVERYWHERE.  YOU CAN TAKE YOUR

           20    FAMILY'S HEALTH AS WELL, YOUR SIBLING'S HEALTH, YOUR

           21    NEPHEWS, YOUR UNCLES.  SO WE ALL WANT THAT.

           22             SO THAT'S MY SHORT STORY.  AND I DON'T WANT TO,

           23    YOU KNOW, BE NEGATIVE, BUT BE POSITIVE, AND IT ALL HELPS

           24    OUT.  IT HELPS YOU.  YOU COME HERE, AND YOU CAME HERE TO

           25    BREATHE THE SMOG, THE L.A. SMOG.  PEOPLE WOULD LIVE

                                                                                275

            1    LONGER IF THERE WAS HEALTHY AIR.

            2        MS. WEGMAN:  WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING

            3    THE TIME TO COME AND OFFER YOUR PERSONAL TESTIMONY.  WE

            4    APPRECIATE IT.

            5        LUIS SUAREZ:  YOU'RE WELCOME.

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE HERE

            7    WHO WANTS TO SPEAK THIS EVENING.

            8             WE ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HERE UNTIL 9:00, SO IF

            9    ANYBODY ELSE SHOWS UP, SOMEONE WILL BE HERE.  I THANK

           10    YOU ALL FOR COMING AND TAKING THE TIME.

           11             (PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 9:00 P.M.)

           12

           13

           14

           15

           16

           17

           18

           19

           20

           21

           22

           23

           24

           25

                                                                                276