[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15098-15099]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL12-44-000; QF87-483-004]

AES Hawaii, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Temporary Waiver

    Take notice that on March 5, 2012, pursuant to section 292.205(c)
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 292.205(c), AES Hawaii, Inc. (AES
Hawaii) filed a Request for Temporary Waiver, for calendar year 2011,
of the five percent operating standard set forth in 18 CFR 292-
205(a)(1) of the Commission's Regulations for the topping-cycle
cogeneration facility located on the island of Oauh, Hawaii. AES Hawaii
makes such a request because of a forced boiler outage in the fourth
quarter of 2011.
    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. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 26, 2012.

    Dated: March 7, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6110 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78691-78694]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26586]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0609; FRL-9953-89-Region 6]

Clean Air Act Redesignation Substitute for the Houston-Galveston-
Brazoria 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
redesignation substitute and making a finding of attainment for the
revoked 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria ozone nonattainment area (HGB area).

DATES: This rule is effective on December 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0609. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracie Donaldson,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our May
25, 2016 proposal (81 FR 33166). In that document we proposed to
approve a redesignation substitute and make a finding of attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria ozone
nonattainment area (HGB area). The redesignation substitute
demonstration indicates that the area has attained the revoked 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions
and that it will maintain that NAAQS for ten years from the date of the
EPA's approval of this demonstration. Final approval of the
redesignation substitute results in the area no longer being subject to
any remaining applicable anti-backsliding requirements, including
nonattainment new source review, associated with the revoked NAAQS. In
general, final approval of the redesignation substitute allows Texas to
seek to revise the Texas SIP for the area to remove anti-backsliding
measures from the active portion of its SIP if it can demonstrate,
pursuant to CAA section 110(1), that such revision would not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of any applicable NAAQS, or any other
requirement of the CAA. Because the EPA believes Texas does not need to
revise its SIP to alter certain provisions for NNSR effective in the
HGB area, the offset and threshold requirements applicable in the HGB
area for NNSR will be automatically altered upon finalization of the
redesignation substitute.
    We previously approved a HGB area redesignation substitute for the
revoked 1-hour ozone standard (80 FR 63429). In this action, we are
also finalizing a non-substantive technical correction to 40 CFR 81.344
to reflect this approval.
    We received comments on the proposal from five commenters. Our
response to the comments are below.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: Three commenters recognized the progress of the area and
the work of TCEQ in making such significant air quality improvements in
the HGB area and urged the EPA to finalize this action to reflect the
changes in the area.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that HGB area has made
progress in meeting air quality standards. No changes were made to the
final action based on these comments.
    Comment: One of the supportive commenters urged the EPA to approve
revisions to the Texas SIP to reflect changes to certain provisions for
the NNSR program effective in the HGB area as a result of the EPA's
approval of the

redesignation substitute. The commenter also asserted that approval of
the redesignation substitute will result in the area no longer being
subject to any remaining applicable anti-backsliding requirements.
    Response: Due to the drafting of the Texas SIP, no revision is
necessary to alter NNSR requirements applicable in the HGB area
following finalization of this redesignation substitute. The NNSR
provisions in the existing Texas SIP contains a provision that cross-
references the designation of the area to 40 CFR part 81. See 30 TAC
section 101.1(71). Because of the structure of this provision, the
identification of an area's classification, and thus the related major
source thresholds and offset ratios, is updated without any additional
revision to the SIP. Therefore, the EPA's approval of the redesignation
substitute automatically updates the applicable NNSR requirements.
Following finalization of this rule, the NNSR requirements applicable
in the HGB area will be in accordance with the HGB area's current
classification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for newly permitted sources.\1\
We note that approval of this redesignation substitute does not relieve
sources in the area of their obligations under previously established
permit conditions.\2\ 81 FR 33161, 33165. The Texas SIP includes a
suite of approved permitting regulations for the Minor and Major NSR,
which will continue to apply after approval of the redesignation
substitute in the HGB area. Each of these programs has been evaluated
and approved by EPA as consistent with the requirements of the CAA and
protective of air quality, including the requirements at 40 CFR 51.160
whereby the TCEQ cannot issue a permit or authorize an activity that
will result in a violation of applicable portions of the control
strategy or that will interfere with attainment or maintenance of a
national standard. So moving forward to a time when the HGB area has a
marginal designation as the only applicable nonattainment designation,
new sources and modifications will continue to be permitted and
authorized under the existing SIP requirements if they are determined
to be protective of air quality. We would also note that EPA has
proposed to reclassify Houston from marginal to moderate for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 66240, September 27, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Section D of the TSD for this action in the docket for
this rulemaking for additional information.
    \2\ See Final Implementation Rule for 2008 Ozone Standard, 80 FR
12264, at 12299, footnote 83 and at 12304, footnote 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA agrees that approval of the redesignation substitute will
result in the HGB area no longer being subject to the regulatory anti-
backsliding requirements for the 1997 ozone standard established
pursuant to the principles of CAA section 172(e). However, if an anti-
backsliding provision is in the Texas SIP and needs to be changed to
reflect the change in this area's status, such change is subject to the
SIP revision process, which in turn is subject to review under CAA
sections 110 and 193, if applicable. To date, Texas has not submitted a
SIP revision concerning any anti-backsliding provisions for the EPA's
consideration.
    Comment: One commenter also recognized the progress and supported
the action but wanted the EPA to clarify that the redesignation
substitute will permanently eliminate the anti-backsliding requirements
for the revoked ozone NAAQS.
    Response: Following finalization of a redesignation substitute, an
area is no longer subject to any remaining applicable anti-backsliding
requirements associated with the specific revoked NAAQS, including the
major source thresholds and offset ratios associated with the area's
classification under those standards. However, as noted previously, any
changes to a SIP are subject to consistency checks with CAA sections
110(l) and 193, if applicable. Because the 1997 ozone NAAQS has been
revoked, no new requirements associated with that NAAQS would come due
at any future date.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the use of the redesignation
substitute mechanism and the implications of such an action. The
commenter incorporates by reference the relevant portions of a brief
filed in a petition challenging the EPA's promulgation of the
redesignation substitute. See South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v.
EPA, No. 15-1115 (D.C. Cir.). They contend that the HGB area continues
to have unhealthy levels of ozone pollution, therefore, raising the
NNSR thresholds and lowering the offset requirements for the area is
inappropriate. The commenter further states that our action will result
``in great expense and inefficiency: because some sources will not
prevent pollution, they and other sources may have to retrofit at
greater expense.'' The commenter asks the EPA to either disapprove the
redesignation substitute or delay action until the underlying
litigation is resolved.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that it is
inappropriate to approve redesignation substitutes for the Houston-
Galveston-Brazoria area for the 1997 ozone standard. As the commenter
noted, the EPA created the redesignation substitute in the 2008 ozone
SIP Requirements Rule as one of two acceptable procedures through which
a state may demonstrate that it is no longer required to adopt any
additional applicable requirements for an area which have not already
been approved into the SIP for a revoked ozone NAAQS. 80 FR 12264,
12304 (March 6, 2015).
    The EPA acknowledges that this rule has been challenged in the D.C.
Circuit by the commenter. However, the rule has not been stayed pending
resolution of the litigation, and as such, it is appropriate to
continue to implement the 2008 ozone SIP Requirements Rule during the
pendency of the litigation.
    The EPA believes the redesignation substitute is an appropriate
mechanism because it serves as a successor to a redesignation to
attainment, for which these areas would have been eligible if the EPA
had not revoked the 1-hour and 1997 ozone standards. For a more
detailed description of why the EPA has determined the HGB area has met
the redesignation criteria for the revoked 1997 ozone standard, see 81
FR 33166 for the proposal and Technical Support Document. Upon approval
of a redesignation substitute, a state may request to revise its SIP to
shift regulatory anti-backsliding requirements contained in the active
portion of the SIP to the contingency measures portion of the SIP,
subject to a showing of consistency with the general anti-backsliding
checks in CAA sections 110(l) and 193 (if applicable). The EPA approval
of the redesignation substitute has the same effect on these areas'
nonattainment regulatory anti-backsliding requirements as would a
redesignation to attainment for the revoked standard. The EPA believes
that, under any view of anti-backsliding for a revoked standard, it
should not mean imposing requirements greater than those that would
apply if the standard had not been revoked.
    An approvable redesignation substitute must include more than a
determination of attainment of the prior NAAQS, and show that it
addresses redesignation criteria for that NAAQS. Moreover, the state
remains subject to ongoing requirements to meet the new more stringent
2008 ozone standard in that area. In this context, the EPA believes
finalizing this action is appropriate--it recognizes and supports
Texas's progress in having attained the

prior standards in the HGB area due to permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions, and reinforces continued attainment by
demonstrating that the HGB area can maintain the revoked standard. See
80 FR 12264, 12305.

III. Final Action

    We find that Texas has successfully demonstrated it has met the
requirements for approval of a redesignation substitute for the revoked
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the HGB area. We are approving the
redesignation substitute for the HGB area based on our determination
that the demonstration provided by the State of Texas shows that the
HGB area has attained the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS due to
permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and that it will
maintain that NAAQS for ten years from the date of the EPA's approval
of this demonstration. As we no longer redesignate nonattainment areas
to attainment for the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, approval of the
demonstration serves as a redesignation substitute under the EPA's
implementing regulations. As a result of this action, Texas is no
longer required to adopt any additional applicable 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS requirements for the area which have not already been approved
into the SIP (40 CFR 51.1105(b)(1)). It also allows the state to
request that the EPA approve the shifting of planning and control
requirements implemented pursuant to the 1997 ozone NAAQS from the
active portion of the SIP to the contingency measures portion of the
SIP, upon a showing of consistency with CAA sections 110(l) and 193 (if
applicable) (40 CFR 51.1105(b)(2)).
    We are also finalizing a non-substantive technical correction to 40
CFR 81.344 (Section 107 Attainment Status Designations for Texas) to
reflect our previous approval of a HGB area redesignation substitute
demonstration for the revoked 1-hour ozone standard.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is not a
``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely
approves a demonstration provided by the State of Texas and finds that
the HGB area is no longer subject to the regulatory anti-backsliding
requirements under the principles of CAA section 172(e) for the revoked
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and imposes no additional requirements.
Accordingly, I certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
does not impose any additional enforceable duties, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), because it merely approves a demonstration provided by the
State of Texas and find that the HGB area is no longer subject to the
regulatory anti-backsliding requirements under the principles of CAA
section 172(e) for the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is
not economically significant.
    The rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). Additionally, this rule does not involve establishment of
technical standards, and thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) do not apply.
    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. The EPA has determined that this rule
will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it
does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 9, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

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

    Dated: October 27, 2016.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. Section 52.2275 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2275  Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (n) Approval of Redesignation Substitute for the Houston-Galveston-
Brazoria 1997 Ozone Nonattainment Area. EPA has approved the
redesignation substitute for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 ozone
NAAQS nonattainment area submitted by the State of Texas on August 18,

2015. The State is no longer being required to adopt any additional
applicable 1997 ozone NAAQS requirements for the area.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. Section 81.344 is amended:
0
a. In the table for ``Texas--Ozone (1-Hour Standard)'' by revising the
entries for ``Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX'' and revising footnote 4;
and
0
b. In the table for ``Texas--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and
Secondary)'' by revising the entries for ``Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,
TX'' and adding footnote 7.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  81.344  Texas.

* * * * *

                                                                    Texas--Ozone \2\
                                                                   [11-Hour standard]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Designation                                           Classification
             Designated area             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date \1\                      Type                      Date \1\                      Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area, TX:
    Brazoria County \4\.................  ...........  Nonattainment............................     11/15/90  Severe-17.
    Chambers County \4\.................  ...........  Nonattainment............................     11/15/90  Severe-17.
    Fort Bend County \4\................  ...........  Nonattainment............................     11/15/90  Severe-17.
    Galveston County \4\................  ...........  Nonattainment............................     11/15/90  Severe-17.
    Harris County \4\...................  ...........  Nonattainment............................     11/15/90  Severe-17.
    Liberty County \4\..................  ...........  Nonattainment............................     11/15/90  Severe-17.
    Montgomery County \4\...............  ...........  Nonattainment............................     11/15/90  Severe-17.
    Waller County \4\...................  ...........  Nonattainment............................     11/15/90  Severe-17.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is October 18, 2000, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ The 1-hour ozone standard is revoked effective June 15, 2005 for all areas in Texas except the San Antonio area where it is revoked effective April
  15, 2009.
 * * * * * * *
\4\ A Redesignation Substitute was approved on October 20, 2015.

* * * * *

                                                             Texas--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                                                 [Primary and secondary]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Designation \a\                                         Classification
             Designated area             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date\1\                       Type                      Date \1\                      Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX:
    Brazoria County \7\.................  ...........  Nonattainment............................        (\4\)  Subpart 2/Severe 15.
    Chambers County \7\.................  ...........  Nonattainment............................        (\4\)  Subpart 2/Severe 15.
    Fort Bend County \7\................  ...........  Nonattainment............................        (\4\)  Subpart 2/Severe 15.
    Galveston County \7\................  ...........  Nonattainment............................        (\4\)  Subpart 2/Severe 15.
    Harris County \7\...................  ...........  Nonattainment............................        (\4\)  Subpart 2/Severe 15.
    Liberty County \7\..................  ...........  Nonattainment............................        (\4\)  Subpart 2/Severe 15.
    Montgomery County \7\...............  ...........  Nonattainment............................        (\4\)  Subpart 2/Severe 15.
    Waller County \7\...................  ...........  Nonattainment............................        (\4\)  Subpart 2/Severe 15.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
 * * * * * * *
\4\ Effective October 31, 2008.
 * * * * * * *
\7\A Redesignation Substitute was approved on November 8, 2016.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-26586 Filed 11-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 6591]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01096]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4291-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Virginia; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-4291-DR), dated November 2,
2016, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective December 19, 2016.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby amended to include the
following area among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of November 2, 2016.

    The independent city of Hampton for Public Assistance.

    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. 2017-01096 Filed 1-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN 3259 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation 2. OMB control number b. X None a 2060  0003 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. New collection b. X Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. Three years from approval date b. X Other Specify: 10 / 31 /_ 2004__

7. Title: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Non Attainment Area New Source Review ( Final Rule for PSD and NSR Applicability)

8. Agency form number( s) ICR 1230.11 ( Final Rule used EPA ICR# 2074.01)

9. Keywords Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control, Clean Air Act 10. Abstract This ICR pertains to changes to the New Source Review program codified in parts 51 and 52 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These requirements govern the state and Federal programs for preconstruction review and permitting of major new or modified sources pursuant to Part C " Prevention of Significant Deterioration" and Part D " Program Requirements for Nonattainment Areas" of the Clean Air Act, as amended. ( ICR 2074 was published in the Rule  but the 1230.11 is actually the ICR for this Rule.)

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 1,022 b. Total annual responses 1,022 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 4,788,507 d. Current OMB inventory 4,715,260 e. Difference 73,247 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 73,247 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 0 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 0 d. Current OMB inventory $ 0 e. Difference $ 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change $ 0 2. Adjustment $ 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Lynn Hutchinson Phone: ( 919) 541 5795 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissionsederal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31599-31600]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13474]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-481-000]

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Application

    On May 13, 2011, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern
Star) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and the Rules
and Regulations of the Commission's Regulations for authority to expand
the existing certificated boundary and buffer zone at Southern Star's
existing Alden Gas Storage Field located in Rice County, Kansas. The
expansion would further the integrity and protection of the gas storage
field. The current operational parameters and capabilities and
certificated service levels to customers will not be affected, as more
fully detailed in the Application. Southern Star requests that the
Commission issue all required authorizations by October 1, 2011.
    Questions concerning this application may be directed to David N.
Roberts, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro,
Kentucky 42301, by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mailing
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.fere.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and seven 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 June 14, 2011.

    Dated: May 24, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-13474 Filed 5-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 38 (Monday, March 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11872-11873]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03985]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0116; FRL-10020-52-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Removal of Variance for Illinois
Power Holdings and AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on
January 23, 2020, by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA). The revision removes the variance from the sulfur dioxide
(SO2) requirements of the Illinois Administrative Code (IAC)
Multi-Pollutant Standard Rule for coal-fired electrical generating
units (EGUs) owned by the Illinois Power Holdings, LLC (IPH) and the
AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC (Medina Valley), and will
reimpose tighter limits on all facilities currently in operation.

DATES: The final is effective March 31, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0116. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID-19. We recommend that you telephone Charles
Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the
Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    This rule approves IEPA's January 23, 2020, submission to remove
the variance (PCB 14-10) from the Illinois SIP, for IPH and Medina
Valley, and will reimpose tighter limits on all facilities currently in
operation under 35 IAC Section 225.233. The background for this action
is discussed in detail in EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
dated September 18, 2020 (85 FR 58320).

II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?

    In the NPRM, EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for
the proposed rule. The comment period ended on October 19, 2020. We
received no adverse comments on the proposed rule.
    EPA did, however, receive one anonymous comment that did not
explain or provide a legal basis for why the proposed action should
differ, and therefore requires no further response.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving IEPA's January 23, 2020, request to revise the
Illinois SIP by removing PCB 14-10 from the SIP for IPH and Medina
Valley.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is amending regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. As described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below, EPA is removing provisions of the EPA-Approved
Illinois Source-Specific Requirements from the Illinois SIP, which is
incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR
part 51. EPA has made, and will continue to make the SIP generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5 Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides

that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 30, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: February 22, 2021.
Cheryl Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Sec.  52.720  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.720, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing
the entry for ``IPH/Ameren Energy''.

[FR Doc. 2021-03985 Filed 2-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Please comment on the format used for EPA’s science and ethics reviews
of Dr. Carroll’s protocols in terms of:

a.	Whether future use of this format is likely to produce reviews that
adequately explain the basis for EPA’s position regarding the ethical
and scientific acceptability of the proposed research; and

b.	Whether presentation of future EPA reviews in such a format will
assist the Board’s review of proposed protocols.

Draft EPA Guidance to the Public Concerning Submission of Proposed and
Completed Human Research to EPA for Review by the HSRB

4:30 p.m.	Background

Mr. John Carley (OPP, EPA)

5:15 p.m.	Adjournment

Thursday, October 19, 2006

8:30 a.m.	Convene Meeting

Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

8:40 a.m.	Follow-up from Previous Day’s Discussion

Mr. William Jordan (OPP, EPA)

Draft EPA Guidance to the Public Concerning Submission of Proposed and
Completed Human Research to EPA for Review by the HSRB (continued)

8:50 a.m.	Public Comments

9:20 a.m.	Board Discussion

Please comment on the approach, as described in EPA’s draft PR Notice,
to organizing materials submitted under 40 CFR § 26.1125 for EPA and
HSRB review.  In particular, please address whether this approach is
appropriate for anticipated types of studies involving intentional
exposure of human subjects, and whether EPA should provide different
guidance for various types of research.

10:15 a.m.	Break

Handling of Material Claimed to be Confidential Business Information for
HSRB Consideration

10:30 a.m.	Introduction

		Mr. William Jordan (OPP, EPA)

10:40 a.m.	CBI Legal Issues

		Mr. Donald Sadowsky (Office of General Counsel, EPA)

10:50 a.m.	OPP Process for Handling CBI

		Mr. John Carley (OPP, EPA)

11:00 a.m.	Federal Advisory Committee Review of CBI

		Ms. Marilyn Kuray (Office of General Counsel, EPA)

11:15 a.m.	Conclusion

		Mr. William Jordan (OPP, EPA)

11:25 a.m.	Public Comments

12:00 p.m.	Lunch

1:00 p.m.	Board Discussion

2:00 p.m.	Adjournment

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate.  For further
information, please contact the Designated Federal Officer for this
meeting, Paul Lewis via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Maria Szilagyi via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

  PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  45


Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory March 6, 2013 Stakeholder Meeting
Teleconference / WebEx Participation Instructions
All NRTL stakeholders registered to attend the meeting via teleconference may view slides and other visual aids presented during the meeting via a WebEx web conference solution.  During the meeting, all teleconference lines will be muted, and teleconference attendees will not be able to participate verbally during the meeting.  Teleconference attendees will be able to submit comments and/or questions during the meeting via the WebEx chat feature.  OSHA will address WebEx communications during the meeting as time permits.
Teleconference Information
To access the audio portion of the meeting, participants should dial: 1-866-793-8050 (international callers dial:  +1.203.480.8163) no earlier than 15 minutes prior to the meeting and use participant code 2364756.  Instructions for dialing into the teleconference, including instructions for international callers, can be found at: https://www.mymeetings.com/audioconferencing/pdf/GlobalAccessDialingInformation.pdf.
WebEx Information
All NRTL stakeholders registered to attend the meeting via teleconference will also receive an email invitation with instructions on how to join the meeting via WebEx.  OSHA will send the email invitations 24 hours prior to the meeting.  Email invitations will be sent to the email provided during the registration process.  If you wish to have the invitation email sent to a different email address, please contact Ms. Lisa Saylor Gentry by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at 1-202-693-2110.


[Federal Register: May 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 27601-27602]
[DOCID:fr16my07-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 15a-6; SEC File No. 270-0329; OMB Control No. 3235-0371.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.

    Rule 15a-6 (17 CFR 240.15a-6) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) provides, among other things, an exemption
from broker-dealer registration for foreign broker-dealers that effect
trades with or for U.S. institutional investors through a U.S.
registered broker-dealer, provided that the U.S. broker-dealer obtains
certain information about, and consents to service of process from, the
personnel of the foreign broker-dealer involved in such transactions,
and maintains certain records in connection therewith.
    These requirements are intended to ensure (a) that the U.S. broker-
dealer will receive notice of the identity of, and has reviewed the
background of, foreign personnel who will contact U.S. institutional
investors, (b) that the foreign broker-dealer and its personnel
effectively may be served with process in the event enforcement action
is necessary, and (c) that the Commission has ready access to
information concerning these persons and their U.S. securities
activities.
    It is estimated that approximately 2,000 respondents will incur an
average burden of three hours per year to comply with this rule, for a
total burden of 6,000 hours. At an average cost per hour of
approximately $100, the resultant total cost of compliance for the
respondents is $600,000 per year (2,000 entities x 3 hours/entity x
$100/hour = $600,000).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
60 days of this notice.

    Dated: May 10, 2007.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9412 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7446]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02634]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER13-395-003.
    Applicants: Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35.37: Safe Harbor MBR Tariff
Filing to be effective 7/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/3/15.
    Accession Number: 20150203-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-876-001.
    Applicants: Malaga Power, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Supplement to MBR
Application to be effective 2/17/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/3/15.
    Accession Number: 20150203-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-964-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): City
Utilities of Springfield Formula Rate Filing to be effective 4/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/3/15.
    Accession Number: 20150203-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-965-000.
    Applicants: PPL Colstrip I, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of
Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 2/4/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/3/15.
    Accession Number: 20150203-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-966-000.
    Applicants: PPL Colstrip II, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of
Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 2/4/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/3/15.
    Accession Number: 20150203-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-967-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Old Dominion Electric
Cooperative.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Revised Service Agreement No. 3746 among PJM and ODEC to be effective
2/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/3/15.
    Accession Number: 20150203-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 3, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02634 Filed 2-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58926-58927]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20534]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0411; FRL-9950-21]

Mercury Compounds; Prohibition of Export

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA was directed by Congress to publish in the Federal
Register a list of mercury compounds that are prohibited from export,
not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the Act), which
amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The Act was enacted on
June 22, 2016. Effective January 1, 2020, the statute prohibits export
of: Mercury (I) chloride or calomel; mercury (II) oxide; mercury (II)
sulfate; mercury (II) nitrate; and cinnabar or mercury sulphide, unless
those mercury compounds are exported to member countries of the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for
environmentally sound disposal, on the condition that no mercury or
mercury compounds so exported are to be recovered, recycled, or
reclaimed for use, or directly reused, after such export. EPA is not
soliciting comments on this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: Sue
Slotnick, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 566-1973; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; 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 manufacture
or export any of the five listed mercury compounds. 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:
     Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code
325180), e.g., manufacturers of basic inorganic chemicals (except
industrial gases and synthetic dyes and pigments);
     All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
Manufacturing (NAICS code 325998), e.g., manufacturers of chemical
products (except basic chemicals, resins, synthetic rubber; cellulosic
and noncellulosic fiber and filaments; pesticides, fertilizers, and
other agricultural chemicals; pharmaceuticals and medicines; paints,
coatings and adhesives; soap, cleaning compounds, and toilet
preparations; printing inks; explosives; custom compounding of
purchased resins; and photographic films, papers, plates, and
chemicals);
     Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing (NAICS code
334516), e.g., manufacturers of instruments and instrumentation systems
for laboratory analysis of the chemical or physical composition or
concentration of samples of solid, fluid, gaseous, or composite
material; or
     Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
(NAICS code 424690), e.g., merchant wholesale distributors of chemicals
and allied products (except agricultural and medicinal chemicals,
paints and varnishes, fireworks, and plastics materials and basic forms
and shapes).

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    As directed in TSCA section 12(c)(7)(B), 15 U.S.C. 2611(c)(7)(B),
EPA is publishing a list of mercury compounds prohibited from export
under TSCA section 12(c), as amended. EPA must publish this list not
later than 90 days after June 22, 2016 (15 U.S.C. 2611(c)(7)(B)).
Effective January 1, 2020, the statute prohibits export of: Mercury (I)
chloride or calomel; mercury (II) oxide; mercury (II) sulfate; mercury
(II) nitrate; and cinnabar or mercury sulphide (15 U.S.C.
2611(c)(7)(A)(i)-(v)). The respective Chemical Abstracts Service
Registry Numbers (CASRN) associated with the enumerated chemical
substances are: 10112-91-1, 21908-53-2, 7783-35-9, 10045-94-0, and
1344-48-5. The statute also provides that EPA, on determining that
exporting any additional mercury compound for the purpose of
regenerating elemental mercury is technically feasible, may add by rule
such mercury compound to the published list (15 U.S.C.
2611(c)(7)(A)(vi)). In addition, any person may petition EPA to add a
mercury compound to this published list (15 U.S.C. 2611(c)(7)(C)). The
statute provides an exception to the export prohibition for export of
listed mercury compounds to member countries of the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development for environmentally sound
disposal, on the condition that no mercury or mercury compounds so
exported are to be recovered, recycled, or reclaimed for use, or
directly reused, after such export (15 U.S.C. 2611(c)(7)(D)). EPA is
not soliciting comments on this notice.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2611(c)

    Dated: August 12, 2016.
Jim Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2016-20534 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Risk from Exposure to Granular Products Page: 147 & 148 (e version) EPA comment: (Text and Table 11) Aventis' response: Text and tables should be revised. A rat LD50 of 307 mg/ kg was used to calculate the acute risk quotients. The correct value is 301 mg/ kg.

Aquatic Plants Page: 152 (e version) EPA comment: Based on a single core aquatic plant toxicity study available… …recommended that toxicity studies with Lemna gibba, Anabaena flos aquae, Skeletonema costatum, and a freshwater diatom be submitted. Aventis' response: The respective studies were submitted to the Agency in 1992 (see comments above to Page 2 of the Memorandum for a complete list and status).

Appendix D: Toxicity Assessment Page: 157 (e version) EPA comment: Table 1 (spelling of author in MRID No. 00160000) 53 Aventis' response: The author of MRID No. 00160000 should be "Hudson et al. ". Also, it is not obvious why the same reference is one time classified "core" and six times "supplemental". The agency should reconsider if the use of a "supplemental" study (i. e., rock dove) in calculating all acute RQ values is justified.

Birds, Chronic Toxicity Page: 158 (e version) Paragraph: 3 EPA comment: Bird kills attributed to carbaryl and involving blackbirds, ducks, starlings, grackles turkey, and cardinals have been reported in Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina and Michigan (# 1002048 001, #1000802 001, #1007720 020, ## 1000799 003, #1004375 004). Aventis' response: The paragraph should be moved to the acute bird section. Also, only individuals familiar with this information will recognize the numbers as the incident numbers from the EIIS database. An appropriate reference should be inserted here and in similar citations.

Page: 158 Paragraph: 1 Line: 2 & 3 EPA comment: Exposure to carbaryl at levels equal to or greater than 1000 ppm in the mallard duck results in adverse reproduction effects, such as decrease in number of eggs produced include cracked eggs, fertility, embryonic mortality, and hatching success. Aventis' response: The sentence should be changed. The embryonic mortality and the hatching success were not different from the control.

Mammals, Acute and Chronic Page: 158 & 159 (e version) EPA comment: (rat LD50 of 307 mg/ kg, NOAEC 80 ppm) Aventis' response: The acute LD50 value for rat should be corrected to 301 mg/ kg, and the chronic NOEAC to 75 ppm from the 2 generation rat study. 54 Freshwater Fish, Acute Page: 161 (e version) EPA comment: Table 6 Aventis' response: The study classification of reference MRID 40098001 (Mayer & Ellersieck, 1986) should be reconsidered (and handled in a consistent fashion). A number of times the reference is classified "core", while in other instances the classification is "supplemental". The reference is an overview article with little description of test methods, analytical procedures, GLP, or study details. The results are generally listed in extensive tables (although summarized in the text for some chemicals). Such a review article cannot be regarded as a "core" study equivalent to the guideline studies that have to be prepared by registrants. Also, such studies with insufficient test method descriptions should not be used in a risk assessment as the primary source of information. A submission based on such data would have certainly been rejected by the Agency Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute Page: 163 (e version) EPA comment: Table 9 Aventis' response: The study classification of reference MRID 40098001 (Mayer & Ellersieck, 1986) should be reconsidered (and handled in a consistent fashion). A number of times the reference is classified "core", while in other instances the classification is "supplemental". The reference is a review article with little description of test methods, analytical procedures, GLP, or study details. The results are generally listed in extensive tables (although summarized in the text for some chemicals). Such an overview article cannot be regarded as a "core" study equivalent to the guideline studies that have to be prepared by registrants. Also, such studies with insufficient test method descriptions should not be used in a risk assessment as the primary source of information.

Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates, Acute Page: 165 (e version) EPA comment: Table 13, reference for glass shrimp: Mayer & Ellerersieck Aventis' response: The reference should be corrected in Mayer & Ellersieck. 55 Page: 167 (e version) Table 15 EPA comment: Table 15, reference for MRID No. 00265665 Aventis' response: The reference for MRID No. 00265665 should also contain the citation of an author. 56 DISCUSSION 1. Surface Water Concentrations Summary of Registrant Surface Water/ Drinking Water Monitoring Program In section V, page 31 EPA states that the modeling simulations provide a conservative, though not unreasonable, estimate on possible concentrations in drinking water. The data from the registrant drinking water monitoring program provide the best estimate of concentrations of carbaryl in drinking water. This study uses the sampling design for acute endpoints recommended in industry/ EPA meetings during 1999 (weekly sampling during times of peak concentrations over a three year period). Twenty sites representing the highest carbaryl use areas were selected based on the information provided in Appendix I. These included 16 sites in agricultural areas and 4 locations in urban areas. Samples were collected from the inlet and outlet water at each sampling interval. Outlet samples were only analyzed when residues were present in the inlet samples. The analytical method had a limit of quantification of 0.030 ppb and a limit of detection of 0.002 ppb.

Table 1 summarizes the results of the monitoring at each of the 20 community water systems. The maximum concentration observed was 0.16 ppb (average of four samples, the highest was 0.18 ppb) in a finished water sample from the Deerfield community water system located on the River Raisin in Lenawee County, Michigan. There were only five other samples above the limit of quantification of 0.030 ppb. One was a raw water sample containing 0.31 ppb from the Little Potato Slough Mutual community water system near Lodi in San Joaquin County, California (the source is the Little Potato Slough). The corresponding finished water sample was 0.007 ppb. A second one was a raw water sample in Brockton, MA which contained 0.031 ppb. No detectable residues were found in the corresponding finish water sample. The last three samples were from the Shades Mountain plant of the Birmingham community water system on the Cahaba River in Jefferson County, Alabama . Two were raw and finished samples of 0.038 and 0.032 ppb at the same sampling interval in 2001. . The other sample was 0.035 ppb in the raw water in a 2000 sample (the corresponding finished sample did not contain carbaryl residues. e. All residues were transient so the time weighted average concentration of carbaryl in each of the years was 0.005 ppb or less at all 20 community water systems. 57 Table 1. Summary of Results from the Carbaryl Drinking Water Monitoring Study.

Site Major Uses Maximum Concentration (ppt) TWA Conc. (ppt)* in Outlet Water Inlet Water Outlet Water 1999 2000 2001* * 1999 2000 2001** 1999 2000 Manatee, FL citrus 9 3 ND 11 ND NA 1 1 West Sacramento, CA orchards, nuts 3 24ND310NA1 1 Lodi, CA orchards, nuts 12 31 ND 4 7 NA 1 1 Riverside, CA grapes, tree crops 8ND ND ND NANA 1 1 Lake Elsinore, CA citrus ND 3 6 NA NA Analysis Pending 1 1 Corona, CA citrus ND ND ND NA NA NA 1 1 Beaumont, TX various agricultural ND ND ND NA NA NA 1 1 Point Comfort, TX rice, tree crops 18 5ND ND NDNA 1 1 Penn Yan, NY grapes, apples ND 23 ND NA ND NA 1 1 Westfield, NY grapes, apples 21 5 ND ND 9 NA 1 1 Jefferson, OR vegetables, strawberries ND 10 ND NA ND NA 1 1 Coweta, OK pecans 4 ND *** ND NA *** 1 1 Pasco, WA apples, potatoes 2 3 ND ND ND NA 1 1 Manson, WA apples ND ND ND NA NA NA 1 1 Deerfield, MI vegetables 10 4 ND 160 ND NA 5 1 Brockton, MA cranberries 31 27 ND ND 3 NA 1 1 East Point, GA home and garden 18 18 4 3 8 ND 1 1 Midlothian, TX home and garden 14 ND 14 ND NA ND 1 1 Cary, NC home and garden 4ND ND ND NANA 1 1 Birmingham, AL home and garden 23 35 38 ND ND 32 1 1 * Annual Time Weighted Concentration, outlet values substituted for inlet values when available; values below the detection limit were considered to be half the detection limit. ** Results represent one to six months of sampling into the third year program. *** No results available for the third year of sampling. 58 ND Not detected. NA No outlet samples analyzed due to carbaryl residues not being detected in inlet samples.

Summary of Surface Water Data from the NAWQA Program In Section 1 page 3, Section 4 page 28 and in Section 5 page 34, EPA has summarized the available surface water monitoring data from the NAWQA program as having detections in 46% of the 36 NAWQA study units between 1991 and 1998 with a maximum concentration of 5.5 ppb. The following tables summarize the carbaryl analyses presently available from this database.

Table 2 is a summary of the carbaryl detections in the updated database analysis recently reported by Larson (2001). This analysis was conducted only for samples collected during a one year period of the most intensive sampling from each of the sampling sites. Numerous samples were excluded from this analysis as described by Larson:

"A few sites with sufficient sampling for pesticides were excluded from the analysis, in order to minimize bias caused by over representation of a particular land use or agricultural setting. … The sampling requirements for a site to be included in the analysis were a minimum of 8 samples collected in 6 or more months during the 1 year period. In addition, samples must have been collected during the expected period of elevated pesticide concentrations. At most of the sites used in this analysis, 20 to 30 samples were collected during the selected 1 year period.… Not all samples collected during the year at each site were used in the calculation of the summary statistics, however. Samples collected as part of a fixed frequency sampling schedule were included, along with a much smaller number of samples collected during selected high or low flow conditions. Samples collected over a storm hydrograph, or as part of a study of diurnal variability, were excluded in order to avoid bias resulting from repeated sampling during extreme conditions. "

Table 2. Carbaryl Detections Reported in Pesticides in Streams Update (Larson, 2001)

Site Type Number of Sites Number of Samples Carbaryl Detection Frequency (%) Maximum Estimated Concentration ( µ g/ L) All >= 0.01 ( µ g/ L) >= 0.05 ( µ g/ L) >= 0.10 ( µ g/ L) Agricultural Streams 62 1560 9.2 5. 7 1.8 0. 9 5.2 Urban Streams 22 611 43 37 19 12 3.2 Integrator A 31 595 15 11 2.7 1. 2 0.43 A Large streams and rivers 59 Results in Table 3 and Table 4 show a breakdown of all the carbaryl analyses reported in the USGS NAWQA database, which was downloaded from their web site July 16, 2001. The data are reported separately for the GC/ MS and HPLC/ PDA analyses.

Table 3. Frequency of Carbaryl Detections by GC/ MS in Different Concentration Ranges Reported in the NAWQA Database as of July 16, 2001 Land Use Type Number of Samples <= MDL C >0.003 to 0.01 >0.01 to 0.1 ppb >0.1 to 1 ppb >1 ppb No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

All Samples 10379 8388 80.82 617 5.94 1065 10.26 283 2.73 26 0.25 Agricultural 4349 3888 89.40 188 4.32 225 5.17 46 1.06 2 0. 05 Urban 1763 921 52.24 161 9.13 463 26.26 195 11.06 23 1.30 Mixed A 3648 3022 82.84 247 6.77 345 9.46 33 0.90 1 0. 03 Other B 619 557 89.98 21 3.39 32 5.17 9 1. 45 0 0 A Large streams and rivers. Includes all of the "Integrator" sites listed in Larson, et al. ., 1999 and many more. B Includes forest, rangeland, mining, etc. C The method detection limit (MDL) for carbaryl analyzed by the GC/ MS method is 0.003 µ g/ L, but updated MDLs presented in the database may be higher for some analyses and are included in this category.

Table 4. Frequency of Carbaryl Detections by LC/ PDA in Different Concentration Ranges Reported in the NAWQA Database as of July 16, 2001 Land Use Type Number of Samples <= MDL C >0.008 to 0.01 >0.01 to 0.1 ppb >0.1 to 1 ppb >1 ppb No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

All Types 5516 5348 96.9 5 9 0. 16 93 1. 69 54 0. 98 12 0. 22 Agricultural 2528 2509 99.2 5 1 0. 04 13 0. 51 3 0.12 2 0. 08 Urban 1189 1064 89.4 9 4 0. 34 64 5. 38 47 3. 95 10 0. 84 Mixed A 1523 1501 98.5 6 4 0. 26 15 0. 98 3 0.2 0 0 Other B 276 274 99.2 8 0 0 1 0. 3610. 360 0 A Large streams and rivers. Includes all of the "Integrator" sites listed in Larson, et al. ., 1999 and many more. B Includes forest, rangeland, mining, etc. C The method detection limit (MDL) for carbaryl analyzed by the LC/ PDA method is 0.008 µ g/ L, but updated MDLs presented in the database may be higher for some analyses and are included in this category. 60 Summary of Carbaryl Analytical Methods used in the NAWQA Program In a number of instances throughout their review, EPA has made reference to the "poor recovery" for carbaryl noted in a NAWQA summary document (Larson, 1999). In this document, reference is made to mean percent recovery of 24% for carbaryl with a method detection limit (MDL) of 0.003 ppb. The Agency cites this low mean recovery several times as evidence that the concentrations of carbaryl reported in the database widely underestimate the actual concentrations of carbaryl in the water samples. This claim is misleading and should be removed from each location in the draft RED for reasons discussed below.

Two analytical methods were developed as part of the NAWQA program and both of them have been used in the analysis of carbaryl. The first method, used for a majority of the NAWQA data reported for carbaryl, is a GC/ MS method with an MDL of 0.003 ppb (Zaugg, et al., 1995). The second method, used for a limited number of samples in which carbaryl was analyzed, is an LC/ Photodiode Array (PDA) method with an MDL of 0.008 ppb (Werner et al. ., 1996). In the NAWQA database the quantitative data for carbaryl determined by the GC/ MS method are flagged with an "E", as are data for several other analytes, indicating that the analysts have noted "the potential for variable performance" in the analysis of carbaryl. None of the carbaryl data in the NAWQA database has been corrected for procedural recoveries that were noted in the documents described above. Both of these methods are discussed below in relation to the recoveries found for the methods and the potential impact this could have on the analytical data for carbaryl.

Gas Chromatography/ Mass Spectroscopy Method The analytical method most used in the NAWQA program for the analysis of carbaryl in water samples is the GC/ MS method described by Zaugg, et al., 1995. In this multi residue method, the analytes are first removed from the water sample by sorption on a C 18 solid phase and are subsequently eluted from the solid phase, separated by GC and quantified by mass spectroscopy with selected ion monitoring. The identity of each analyte is confirmed by the appropriate combination of retention time and the ratios of three mass ions that are characteristic for the analyte.

The recoveries for carbaryl spiked at different levels into three different types of water and analyzed by the GC/ MS method are shown in Table 5 Mean percent recoveries of 151 and 202% were found for carbaryl fortified at 0.1 and 1.0 µ g/ L in reagent grade water. A preliminary MDL of 0.046 µ g/ L was calculated for the 0.1 µ g/ L spiking level. Mean percent recoveries of 10 and 75% were found for carbaryl fortified at 0.1 and 1.0 µ g/ L in a surface water sample collected from the South Platte River. However, carbaryl was detected at 0.18 µ g/ L in this water, or nearly twice the low spike level, raising questions about the validity of this result. Mean percent recoveries of 94 and 86% were found for carbaryl fortified at 0.1 and 1.0 µ g/ L in a ground water sample collected from a well in Denver. A mean recovery value of 24% was reported for reagent grade water fortified at a level of 0.03 µ g/ L with a method detection limit calculated at 0.003 µ g/ L. 61 Table 5. Recovery and Precision for Multiple Determinations of Carbaryl in GC/ MS Method for Carbaryl Spiked in Different Water Samples Water type Spike Concentration ( µ g/ L) Mean Recovery (%) MDL Calculated Reagent Grade 0. 1 151 0.046 Reagent Grade 1. 0 202 Surface A 0.1 10 Surface A 1.0 75 Ground B 0.1 94 Ground B 1.0 86 Reagent Grade 0. 03 24 0. 003 A Surface water was collected from the South Platte River near Henderson, Colorado. This water was found to contain significant concentrations of several pesticides including 0.18 µ g/ L carbaryl. This concentration was subtracted from the values determined to give corrected results. B Ground water was collected from the Denver Federal Center Well 15.

Whereas the values reported by Zaugg, et al. (1995) are of interest in validating the analytical method, they are not as useful in evaluating the validity of the data contained in the NAWQA database. Therefore, quoting the mean recovery value of 24% for reagent grade water spiked with carbaryl at 0.03 µ g/ L as evidence that the concentrations reported in the database underestimate the actual concentrations of carbaryl present in the water samples is misleading. A more useful measure of the validity of the values in the database lies with the quality control checks that have been incorporated into the analysis of samples in the NAWQA program.

In a preliminary report, Martin (1999) reported the quality control data collected as part of the NAWQA surface and ground water programs by the 1991 NAWQA Study Unit teams or the National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) during 1992 to 1996. The data that were compiled includes field blanks, laboratory control spikes and field matrix spikes, which are defined below by Martin.

"Field blanks were collected at the field site with pesticide grade blank water and are exposed to the field and laboratory environments and equipment similarly to environmental samples. Field blanks measure the frequency and magnitude of contamination (one type of positive bias) in environmental water samples from sources in the field and/ or laboratory. Contamination is the main cause of falsepositive detections (detecting a pesticide in a sample when, in truth, it is absent)."

"Laboratory control spikes measure the bias and variability of the analytical method at a particular concentration. One laboratory control spike is measured in each analytical set of environmental samples. The laboratory control spike has 62 the target pesticides spiked into pesticide grade blank water at the laboratory and extracted, processed, and analyzed like environmental samples. Laboratory control spikes analyzed by GCMS were spiked at 0.1 : g/ L…"

"Field matrix spikes measure the bias and variability of the analytical method PLUS any potential effects caused by (1) degradation of pesticides during shipment to the laboratory, (2) inferences in the determination of pesticides from unusual characteristics of the environmental water sample (" matrix effects"), and (3) other chemical processes that cause bias or variability in the measurements of pesticides in environmental water samples. Field matrix spikes analyzed by GCMS were spiked at 0.1 : g/ L,…"

All of the carbaryl analyses in the field blanks, field matrix spikes and lab control spikes were conducted following the same method described by Zaugg et al., 1995 that was used to generate a majority of the carbaryl data contained in the NAWQA database. The data below were excerpted from Tables 1 to 4 of the Martin report. Carbaryl is found in these tables under parameter 82680.

Out of 145 samples taken as ground water field blanks, carbaryl was not detected in any of the samples indicating a lack of false positives. Out of 171 samples taken as surface water field blanks, carbaryl was reported in two samples (1.2% false positives) at reported concentrations of 0.009 and 0.012 µ g/ L.

A summary of the results for the field matrix spikes and the lab control spikes is presented in Table 6 Mean recovery for the 306 field matrix spikes was 115% of the spiking level of 0.1 µ g/ L with a median recovery of 94.4% and a 90 th percentile recovery of 200%. This indicates the potential for the method to over estimate the concentration of carbaryl present in the water samples and is consistent with the initial data reported for the reagent water samples by Zaugg et al. (1995). Mean recovery for the 1000 lab control spikes was 99.6% of the spiking level of 0.1 µ g/ L with a median recovery of 93% and a 90 th percentile recovery of 185%. These data suggest an adequate level of detection of carbaryl in QC samples that were analyzed as part of the same process used in the NAWQA survey of pesticides in surface and ground water. 63 Table 6. Percent Recoveries of Carbaryl Detected by the NAWQA GC/ MS Method in Laboratory Control Spikes and Field Matrix Spikes at a Spiking level of 0.1 µ g/ L Sample Type Number of Samples 10 th Percentile Recovery (%) Median Recovery (%) Mean Recovery (%) 90 th Percentile Recovery (%) Maximum Recovery (%)

Field Matrix Spike 306 40 94.4 115.0 199.9 456 Laboratory Control Spike 1000 20 93.0 99.6 185.1 329 The following disclaimer was taken verbatim from the provisional report by Martin (1999) and pertains to the data provided above on the recovery of carbaryl in the field matrix spike samples. "The field matrix spike data have not been reviewed thoroughly, are provisional, and are subject to change. Further review of the field spike data is expected to identify spikes that have extremely high or low recoveries because the spikes either were improperly collected or incorrectly documented in the NAWQA QC data base. The expected result of further review is a data set of field matrix spikes with fewer extreme values than the provisional data set described in this paper; consequently, the provisional data set provides a conservative estimate of the quality of the NAWQA pesticide data. Interpretations of field matrix spike data in this paper are not expected to change greatly as a result of further review of the data, however, the statistics and confidence limits reported in the text and tables will change on further review (especially for pesticides with low numbers of field spikes [less than 50])." 64 High Performance Liquid Chromatography/ Photodiode Array Method Another analytical method used in the NAWQA program for the analysis of carbaryl in water samples is the LC/ PDA method described by Werner, et al., 1996. This method was used for the analysis of carbaryl in a limited number of samples as noted above. In this multi residue method, the analytes are first removed from the water sample by sorption on a Carbopak B solid phase extraction cartridge and are subsequently eluted from the solid phase, separated by HPLC and quantified by light absorption using a photodiode array detector. The identity of each analyte is confirmed by the appropriate combination of retention time and light absorption characteristics. The recoveries for carbaryl spiked at different levels into three water samples and analyzed by this method is shown in Table 7 The recoveries ranged from 58% to 84% for the different water and spiking levels. Laboratory control spikes in organic free water resulted in a mean recovery of 61% over a two year sampling period. These results indicate reasonable levels of carbaryl recovery from each of the different types of water evaluated for the method.

Table 7. Recovery and Precision for Multiple Determinations of Carbaryl in LC/ PDA Method for Carbaryl Spiked in Different Water Samples Water type Spike Concentration ( µ g/ L) Mean Recovery (%) MDL Calculated Organic Free 0.1 82 0. 008 Organic Free 1.0 70 Surface A 0.1 84 0. 016 Surface A 1.0 84 Ground B 0.1 58 0. 018 Ground B 1.0 64 Organic Free 0.5 61 C A Surface water was collected from the South Platte River at Englewood, Colorado. B Ground water was collected from Jefferson County, Colorado (Arvada Well 14). C National Water Quality Laboratory results produced using 5 operators and 7 instruments over 2 years (about 350 data points).

Summary of Surface Water Data from the California DPR Surface Water Database In Section 5 pages 34 to 37 EPA has summarized surface water monitoring data from various sources. One source not included in this discussion is the California Surface Water Monitoring Database. The number of analyses and the detections of carbaryl residues reported in the database are summarized in Table 8. Carbaryl was detected at levels above the LOQ in only 5.1% of the 2,690 samples analyzed. The mean concentration of carbaryl in the 140 samples above the LOQ was 0.42 ppb. The highest concentration of carbaryl that was detected was 8.4 ppb. 65 An analysis of the data in the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's surface water database as of July 15, 2000 was conducted for carbaryl. The following summary of the contents of the database is adapted from information provided by the California DPR. The database contains monitoring results for pesticides in samples taken from California rivers, creeks, urban streams, agricultural drains, the Delta, and urban stormwater runoff. As of July 15, 2000, the database contained the results of 30 studies conducted by federal, state, and local agencies, private industry, and an environmental group. A total of 4,660 samples were taken in 16 counties from January 1991 through March 2000. Each record in the database is the result of one analysis for a pesticide active ingredient or breakdown product. The database contains a total of 92,296 analytical records. Only information on the analytical detection of carbaryl in these water samples is summarized in Table 8 below.

Table 8. Carbaryl Detections Reported in California DPR Surface Water Monitoring Database Land Use Type Number of Samples <= LOQ >0.003 to 0.01 >0.01 to 0.1 ppb >0.1 to 1 ppb >1 ppb No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

All Samples 2690 2553 94.9 1 13 0.48 55 2.04 55 2.04 14 0.52 Concentrations of analytical results that are reported below the limit of quantification are reported as a zero in the database concentration field. The LOQs for the different methods used to generate the data contained in the database ranged from 0.003 to 0.5 µ g/ L, with a majority of the samples analyzed with an LOQ of 0.05 µ g/ L or less (Table 9) .

Table 9. Limits of Quantification for Carbaryl Analytical Methods Reported in California DPR Surface Water Monitoring Database LOQ ( µ g/ L) 0.003 0.041 0.044 0.05 0.07 0.1 0. 5 Number of Samples Analyzed 267 238 168 1353 92 53 146 66 2. Ground Water Concentrations In Section 5 page 34 EPA summarized information on the detection of carbaryl in groundwater from the EPA Pesticides in Groundwater Database, the EPA STORET database and the NAWQA database. Each of the databases shows a pattern of very low levels of carbaryl detection in few groundwater resources. These analyses confirm several statements made by the Agency that carbaryl has limited potential to impact groundwater resources. However, on page 2 of the Memorandum issued June 28, 2001, in conjunction with the EFED RED chapter for carbaryl, EPA is requiring additional information on "Surface and groundwater monitoring in urban and suburban use areas (non guideline)." Based on the characteristics of carbaryl and the available data demonstrating limited impact of carbaryl on ground water resources, additional studies to evaluate the potential for carbaryl to contaminate groundwater are unnecessary and unwarranted.

Summary of Ground Water Data from the NAWQA Program In Section 5, pages 33  34, EPA has summarized ground water monitoring data available for carbaryl. The database that contains the most extensive evaluation of the impact of the most recent uses of carbaryl on ground water is the NAWQA database. One deficiency of the NAWQA program is that samples are targeted to agricultural and urban areas but not to areas treated with the specific chemical being analyzed. However, given the use patterns of carbaryl, the use of carbaryl has certainly occurred near a number of these wells. Another deficiency is that when residues are found, that while they may be representative of residues in ground water, they may not be representative of residues in ground water used for drinking water due to the location of the sampled wells relative to potable drinking water wells.

EPA cited a 1998 review of the NAWQA database by Kolpin and stated:

"Carbaryl was detected at greater than the detection limit (0.003 : g/ L) in 1.1 % of groundwater samples from 1034 sites across the U. S. by U. S. G. S. NAQWA (sic) program. The maximum observed concentration was 0.021 : g/ L."

This 1998 analysis has been extended by additional study data collected by the NAWQA program. The additional data continue to show a limited number of low level detections of carbaryl in ground water samples. Table 10 below summarizes a more recent provisional review by Kolpin (2001) of the updated NAWQA database. Not all of the water samples were used to calculate the summary statistics as noted by Kolpin:

"To preclude bias in these summary statistics from wells that were sampled more than once, the data set was condensed such that each well had a single pesticide analysis. This generally was the first sample collected. However, subsequent samples were selected if these samples contained more pesticide data (i. e., a larger number of pesticides were analyzed). Wells that were designed to be a part of both a land use study and a major aquifer survey were used in each summary. 67 Because of uncertainties in the source of water and contributing land use area, springs and drains were excluded from these summaries."

Table 10. Carbaryl Detections Reported in Pesticides in Ground Water Update (Kolpin, 2001)

Site Type Number of Samples Carbaryl Detection Frequency (%) Maximum Estimated Concentration ( µ g/ L) All >= 0.01 ( µ g/ L) >= 0.05 ( µ g/ L) >= 0.10 ( µ g/ L) Agricultural LandUse Wells 1244 0.40 0.16 0.0 0. 0 0.019 Urban Land Use Wells 634 2.1 1. 3 0.0 0. 0 0.031 Major Aquifers 1849 0.59 0.54 0.05 0.05 0.539 68 REFERENCES Burgos, W. D., J. T. Novak and D. F. Berry. 1996. Reversible Sorption and Irreversible Binding of Naphthalene and   Naphthol to Soil: Elucidation of Processes. Environ. Sci. Technol., 30: 1205 1211.

Burgos, W. D., D. F. Berry, A. Bhandair, and J. T. Novak. 1999. Impact of Soil Chemical Interactions on the Bioavailability of Naphthalene and 1 Naphthol. Water Research, 33: 3789 3795.

Hassett, J. J., W. L. Banwart, S. G. Wood, and J. C. Means. 1981. Sorption of   naphthol: Implications concerning the limits of hydrophobic sorption. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 45( 1): 38 42.

Kolpin, D. W. June 11, 2001. Pesticides in Ground Water, Summary statistics; Results of the National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA), 1992 1998. Available for download from http:// water. wr. usgs. gov/ pnsp/ pestgw/.

Larson, S. J. June 11, 2001. Pesticides in Streams, Summary statistics; Results of the National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA), 1992 1998. Available for download from http:// water. wr. usgs. gov/ pnsp/ pestsw/.

Martin, J. D. October 27, 1999 .Quality of Pesticide Data for Environmental Water Samples Collected for the National Water Quality Assessment Program, 1992 96 and Examples of the Use of Quality Control Information in Water Quality Assessments. Available for review at: http:// water. wr. usgs. gov/ pnsp/ rep/ qcsummary/

McCall, P., D. Laskowski, R. Swann, and H. Dishburger. 1980. Measurement of Sorption Coefficients of Organic Chemicals and Their Use in Environmental Fate Analysis. In: Test Protocols for Environmental Fate & Movement of Toxicants. Proceedings of a Symposium, Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 94th Annual Meeting, October 21, 22, 1980. pp 89 109.

Werner, I., L. A. Denovic, V. Conner, V. De Vlaming, H. Bailey and D. E. Hinton. 2000. Insecticide Caused Toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia (Cladocera) in the Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta, California. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 19: 215 227.

Werner, S. L., M. R. Burkhardt and S. N. DeRusseau. 1996. METHODS OF ANALYSIS BY THE U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NATIONAL WATER QUALITY LABORATORY— DETERMINATION OF PESTICIDES IN WATER BY CARBOPAK B SOLIDPHASE EXTRACTION AND HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY. U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 96 216, 42 pp. Available for download from http:// wwwnwql. cr. usgs. gov/ Public/ pubs/ OFR96 216/ OFR96 216. html. 69 Zaugg, S. D., M. W. Sandstrom, S. G. Smith and K. M. Fehlberg. 1995. METHODS OF ANALYSIS BY THE U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NATIONAL WATER QUALITY LABORATORY— DETERMINATION OF PESTICIDES IN WATER BY C 18 SOLID PHASE EXTRACTION AND CAPILLARY COLUMN GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY/ MASS SPECTROMETRY WITH SELECTED ION MONITORING. U. S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 95 181, 49 pp. Available for download from http:// wwwnwql. cr. usgs. gov/ Public/ pubs/ OFR95 181/ OFR95 181. html. 70 Confidential Business Attachment APPENDIX 1 Surface Water Monitoring for Residues of Carbaryl in High Use Areas of the United States (Stone Environmental, Inc. Report #99 1005 F) (hard copy provided). 71 Confidential Business Attachment APPENDIX 2 Calculation of County Average Carbaryl Use Rates (hard copy provided)