[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 33 (Friday, February 16, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6975-6981]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03277]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0247; FRL-9973-03]

Pendimethalin; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends the tolerances for residues of
pendimethalin in or on alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay. BASF
Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 16, 2018. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 17, 2018, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0247, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, Director,
Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0247 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 17, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0247, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 1, 2014 (79 FR 44729) (FRL-9911-
67), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
4F8245) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.361 be amended by
increasing the tolerances for residues of the herbicide pendimethalin,
[N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine], and its
metabolite, 4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl
alcohol, in or on alfalfa, forage to 80 parts per million (ppm) and
alfalfa, hay to 150 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by BASF Corporation, the registrant, which is
available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0397 at http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The target organ for pendimethalin is the thyroid. Thyroid toxicity
in chronic and subchronic rat and mouse studies was manifested as
alterations in thyroid hormones (decreased total T4 and T3,

increased percent of free T4 and T3), increased thyroid weight, and
microscopic thyroid lesions (including increased thyroid follicular
cell height, follicular cell hyperplasia, as well as follicular cell
adenomas). Due to these effects, the Agency required that a
developmental thyroid assay be conducted to evaluate the impact of
pendimethalin on thyroid hormones, structure, and/or thyroid hormone
homeostasis during development. A developmental thyroid study was
submitted and demonstrated that there is no potential thyroid toxicity
following pre- and/or post-natal exposure to pendimethalin.
    There is no evidence that pendimethalin is a developmental,
reproductive, neurotoxic, or immunotoxic chemical. There is no evidence
of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in the young.
EPA classified pendimethalin as a ``Group C'', possible human
carcinogen based on a statistically significant increased trend and
pair-wise comparison between the high-dose group and controls for
thyroid follicular cell adenomas in male and female rats. A non-
quantitative approach (i.e., non-linear, reference dose (RfD) approach)
was used to assess cancer risk since mode-of-action studies are
available to demonstrate that the thyroid tumors are due to a thyroid-
pituitary imbalance, and also since pendimethalin was shown to be non-
mutagenic in mammalian somatic cells and germ cells.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by pendimethalin as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule
published in the Federal Register of December 21, 2015 (80 FR 79267)
(FRL-9937-18).

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pendimethalin used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Pendimethalin for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population  NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/    Acute RfD = 1 mg/kg/ Acute neurotoxicity study.
 including infants and children).   day.                  day.                LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFA = 10x...........  aPAD = 1 mg/kg/day.   reduced motor activity for males
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        and females on Day 0.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 10 mg/kg/day.  Chronic RfD = 0.3    92-Day thyroid function study in
                                   UFA = 3x............   mg/kg/day.           rats; 56-day thyroid study in
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.3 mg/kg/     rats; 14-day intra thyroid
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 metabolism study in rats.
                                                                              LOAEL = 31 mg/kg/day based on
                                                                               hormonal and histopathological
                                                                               changes in the thyroid.
Incidental oral short-term (1 to   NOAEL= 10 mg/kg/day.  LOC for MOE = 30...  92-Day thyroid function study in
 30 days).                         UFA = 3x............                        rats; 56-day thyroid study in
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        rats; 14-day intra thyroid
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        metabolism study in rats.
                                                                              LOAEL = 31 mg/kg/day based on
                                                                               hormonal and histopathological
                                                                               changes in the thyroid.
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days).  Dermal (or oral)      LOC for MOE = 30...  92-Day thyroid function study in
                                    study NOAEL = 10 mg/                       rats; 56-day thyroid study in
                                    kg/day (dermal                             rats; 14-day intra thyroid
                                    absorption rate =                          metabolism study in rats.
                                    3%.                                       LOAEL = 31 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFA = 3x............                        hormonal and histopathological
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        changes in the thyroid.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........
Dermal intermediate-term (1 to 6   Dermal (or oral)      LOC for MOE = 30...  92-Day thyroid function study in
 months).                           study NOAEL = 10 mg/                       rats; 56-day thyroid study in
                                    kg/day (dermal                             rats; 14-day intra thyroid
                                    absorption rate =                          metabolism study in rats.
                                    3%.                                       LOAEL = 31 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFA = 3x............                        hormonal and histopathological
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        changes in the thyroid.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........

Inhalation short-term (1 to 30     Inhalation (or oral)  LOC for MOE = 30...  92-Day thyroid function study in
 days).                             study NOAEL= 10 mg/                        rats; 56-day thyroid study in
                                    kg/day (inhalation                         rats; 14-day intra thyroid
                                    absorption rate =                          metabolism study in rats.
                                    100%).                                    LOAEL = 31 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFA = 3x............                        hormonal and histopathological
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        changes in the thyroid.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........
Inhalation (1 to 6 months).......  Inhalation (or oral)  LOC for MOE = 30...  92-Day thyroid function study in
                                    study NOAEL= 10 mg/                        rats; 56-day thyroid study in
                                    kg/day (inhalation                         rats; 14-day intra thyroid
                                    absorption rate =                          metabolism study in rats.
                                    100%).                                    LOAEL = 31 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFA = 3x............                        hormonal and histopathological
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        changes in the thyroid.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)  Group C, possible
                                    human carcinogen
                                    based on a
                                    statistically
                                    significant
                                    increased trend and
                                    pair-wise
                                    comparison between
                                    the high dose group
                                    and controls for
                                    thyroid follicular
                                    cell adenomas in
                                    male and female
                                    rats. The chronic
                                    RfD will be
                                    protective of
                                    cancer effects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day.
  MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other
  data deficiency. UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population
  (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. UFS = use of a short-term study for long-term
  risk assessment.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pendimethalin, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing pendimethalin
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.361. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
pendimethalin in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for pendimethalin. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with
the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16. This
software uses 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in
food, EPA used tolerance-level residues, and 100 percent crop treated
(PCT) for all commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the DEEM-FCID, Version 3.16 software with 2003-2008
food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue
levels in food, EPA used tolerance-level residues, and 100 PCT for all
commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk to pendimethalin. Cancer risk was assessed using the same
exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for pendimethalin. Tolerance-level residues and 100
PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. In drinking water, the
residue of concern is pendimethalin, parent only. The Agency used
screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis
and risk assessment for pendimethalin in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and
fate/transport characteristics of pendimethalin. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) and

Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) models, the estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of pendimethalin for acute
exposures are estimated to be 96.4 parts per billion (ppb) for surface
water and 4.38 x 10\-9\ ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for
non-cancer assessments, they are estimated to be 9.73 ppb for surface
water.
    For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of
96.4 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For
chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 9.73
ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Pendimethalin is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Turf, home gardens, and
ornamentals. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following
assumptions:
     For handlers, it is assumed that residential use will
result in short-term (1 to 30 days) duration dermal and inhalation
exposures.
     Residential post-application exposure is also assumed to
be short-term (1-30 days) in duration, resulting from the following
exposure scenarios:
     Gardening: Adults (dermal) and children 6 < 11 years old
(dermal);
     Physical activities on turf: Adults (dermal) and children
1-2 years old (dermal and incidental oral);
     Mowing turf: Adults (dermal) and children 11 < 16 years
old (dermal); and
     Exposure to golf courses during golfing: Adults (dermal),
children 11 < 16 years old (dermal), and children 6 < 11 years old
(dermal).
    EPA did not combine exposure resulting from adult handler and post-
application exposure resulting from treated gardens, lawns, and/or
golfing because the conservative assumptions and inputs within each
estimated exposure scenario would result in an overestimate of adult
exposure. EPA selected the most conservative adult residential scenario
(adult dermal post-application exposure from gardening) as the
contributing source of residential exposure to be combined with the
dietary exposure for the aggregate assessment. The children's oral
exposure is based on post-application hand-to-mouth exposures. To
include exposure from object-to-mouth and soil ingestion in addition to
hand-to-mouth would overestimate the potential for oral exposure.
However, there is the potential for co-occurrence of dermal and oral
exposure, since the toxicological effects from the dermal and oral
routes of exposure are the same. As a result, the children's aggregate
assessment combines post-application dermal and oral exposure along
with dietary exposure from food and water. Further information
regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential
exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found pendimethalin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and pendimethalin does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
pendimethalin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no indication of
pre- and/or post-natal qualitative or quantitative increased
susceptibility in the developmental studies in rats and rabbits or the
2-generation reproduction studies in rats. A developmental thyroid
toxicity study demonstrated that there is no potential thyroid toxicity
following pre- and/or post-natal exposure to pendimethalin.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for pendimethalin is complete. Although a
subchronic inhalation study was not available in the database, EPA
determined that one is not needed at this time based on a weight-of-
evidence analysis, considering the following: (1) All relevant hazard
and exposure information, which indicates its low acute inhalation
toxicity; (2) its physical/chemical properties, which indicate its low
volatility; and (3) the use of an oral POD that results in a
residential inhalation margin of exposure (MOE) more than 10X the level
of concern (in the case of pendimethalin MOE = 30 based on thyroid
POD).
    ii. There is no indication that pendimethalin is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that pendimethalin results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study. In addition, a developmental thyroid toxicity study demonstrated
that there is no potential thyroid toxicity following pre- and/or post-
natal exposure to pendimethalin.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to pendimethalin in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure
of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
pendimethalin.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are

safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD)
and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the
lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate
exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated
by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential
exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to pendimethalin will occupy 2% of the aPAD for all infants less than 1
year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
pendimethalin from food and water will utilize 2.4% of the cPAD for
children one to two years old the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
pendimethalin is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Pendimethalin is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to pendimethalin.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 130 for adults
and 92 for children 1-2 years old, the two population subgroups
receiving the greatest combined dietary and non-dietary exposure.
Because EPA's level of concern for pendimethalin is a MOE of 30 or
below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
pendimethalin is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
pendimethalin.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit
III.A., EPA has determined that an RfD approach based on the chronic
point of departure is appropriate for evaluating cancer risk. As there
are not chronic aggregate risks of concern, there are no cancer
aggregate risk concerns.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to pendimethalin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, gas chromatography with electron
capture detection (GC/ECD), is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    There are currently no established Codex MRLs for the residues of
pendimethalin on alfalfa hay, although Codex has established an MRL for
residues of pendimethalin in alfalfa fodder (which is equivalent to the
US commodity of alfalfa forage) at 4 ppm. Harmonization is not possible
because use of the Codex MRL would result in residues of pendimethalin
exceeding tolerances in the U.S. as a result of use in accordance with
the approved label.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for plant residues by
measuring only the sum of pendimethalin, [N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-
dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine], and its metabolite, 4-[(1-
ethylpropyl)amino]-2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of pendimethalin, in or on alfalfa, forage at
80 ppm and alfalfa, hay at 150 ppm. In addition, the Agency is revising
the tolerance expression for paragraph (a)(1) to clarify that the
residues of the parent compound are to be summed with the residues of
the metabolite in order to determine compliance with the tolerance.
This revision does not substantively change the existing language; the
current language already requires measurement of both residues. The
insertion of the words ``the sum'' just provides a small clarification
for measuring residues to determine compliance with the tolerance.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771,
entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations

under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: January 30, 2018.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.361:
0
a. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1).
0
b. Revise the entries for ``Alfalfa, forage''; and ``Alfalfa, hay'' in
the table in paragraph (a)(1).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  180.361  Pendimethalin; tolerances for residues.

    (a)(1) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide pendimethalin, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the commodities. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified
in the following table below is to be determined by measuring only the
sum of pendimethalin, [N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-
dinitrobenzenamine] and its metabolite, 4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-
methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of pendimethalin, in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa, forage............................................           80
Alfalfa, hay...............................................          150

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-03277 Filed 2-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


$84.08/hour. The resulting wage figure is rounded to $84.00/hour for
use in calculating wage figures in the final rule in Docket No.
RM19-5-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \164\ One-time burdens apply in Year 1 only. The ongoing annual
burden starting in Year 2 covers the annual requirement to update
the worksheet, mentioned below.
    \165\ Total for Public Utilities with Transmission Stated Rates.
    \166\ Total for Public Utilities with Transmission Formula
Rates.

                                                 Changes Due to the Final Rule in Docket No. RM19-5-000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Annual number                                                                                Cost per
                                    Number of     of responses    Total number    Average burden hours & cost   Total annual burden hours &   respondent
                                   respondents   per respondent   of responses         ($) per response            total annual cost ($)         ($)
                                            (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).........................  (3) * (4) = (5).............    (5) / (1)
                                                                            (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revising transmission formula               106               1             106  8 hours; $672...............  848 hours; $71,232..........         $672
 rates so that excess ADIT is
 deducted and/or deficient ADIT
 is added to rate base (one-
 time) \164\.
Revising transmission formula               106               1             106  8 hours; $672...............  848 hours; $71,232..........          672
 rates so that any excess and/
 or deficient ADIT is amortized
 (one-time).
Revising transmission stated                  0               0               0  0; $0.......................  0 hours; $0.................            0
 rates to return or recover
 excess or deficient ADIT (one-
 time).
Requiring public utilities with             106               1             106  44 hours; $3,696............  4,664 hours; $391,776.......        3,696
 transmission formula rates to
 incorporate a new permanent
 worksheet that will annually
 track ADIT information (one-
 time).
Requiring public utilities with             106               1             106  4 hours; $336...............  424 hours; $35,616..........          336
 transmission formula rates to
 update their ADIT worksheet
 (annual, starting in Year 2).
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (Stated Rates) \165\.  ..............  ..............               0  ............................  0 hours; $0.................  ...........
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (Formula Rates), one-  ..............  ..............             318  ............................  6,360 hours; $534,240.......  ...........
     time in Year 1 \166\.
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (Formula Rates         ..............  ..............             106  ............................  424 hours; $35,616..........  ...........
     (annual, starting in Year
     2)).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost to Comply: We have projected the total cost of compliance as
follows: \167\
     Year 1: $534,240 ($5,040/utility) for public utilities
with transmission formula rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ For a public utility with a transmission formula rate, the
costs for Year 1 would consist of filing proposed changes to its
transmission formula rate, including the addition of the ADIT
Worksheet, with the Commission based on the compliance schedule laid
out in this final rule plus the initial implementation. The annual
ongoing cost starting in Year 2 relates to updating the worksheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Year 2 and continuing annually: $35,616 ($336/utility) for
public utilities with transmission formula rates.
    Title: FERC-516, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings.
    Action: Proposed revisions to an information collection.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0096.
    Respondents for this Proposal: Businesses or other for profit and/
or not-for-profit institutions.
    Frequency of Information: One-time implementation burden during
Year 1, and ongoing annual burden starting in Year 2.
    Necessity of Information: The Commission requires information in
order to ensure for public utilities with transmission formula rates
that (1) rate base neutrality is preserved following enactment of the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act; (2) the reduction in ADIT on the books of public
utilities with transmission formula rates that was collected from
customers but is no longer payable to the IRS due to the Tax Cuts and
Jobs Act is returned to or recovered from customers consistent with
general ratemaking principles; and (3) there is increased transparency
for the process of excess and deficient ADIT calculation and
amortization.
    Internal Review: We have reviewed the proposed changes and have
determined that such changes are necessary. These requirements conform
to the Commission's need for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the electric industry. We have
specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with
the information collection requirements.
    121. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director], email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Comments concerning the collection of information and the associated
burden estimate(s), may also be sent to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission]. Due to security concerns, comments
should be sent electronically to the following email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments submitted to OMB should include
FERC-516 and OMB Control No. 1902-0096.

V. Environmental Analysis

    122. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\168\ The
actions taken here fall within categorical exclusions in the
Commission's regulations for approval of actions under sections 205 and
206 of the FPA relating to the filing of schedules containing all rates
and charges for the transmission or sale of electric energy subject to
the Commission's jurisdiction, plus the classification, practices,
contracts and regulations that affect rates, charges, classification,
and services.\169\ Therefore, an environmental review is unnecessary
and has not been prepared in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987) (cross-
referenced at 41 FERC ] 61,284).
    \169\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    123. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \170\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    124. The Small Business Administration (SBA) revised its size
standards (effective January 22, 2014) for electric utilities from a
standard based on megawatt hours to a standard based on the number of
employees, including affiliates. Under SBA's standards, some
transmission owners will fall under the following category and
associated size threshold: electric bulk power transmission and
control, at 500 employees.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22 (Utilities), NAICS code 221121
(Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    125. As noted in the above Information Collection Statement, we
estimate that 106 public utilities with transmission formula rates,
both large and small, are subject to the requirements adopted by this
rule. Of these, we estimate that approximately 43 percent are small
entities (approximately 46 entities). We estimate the average total
cost to each of these entities will be $5,040 in Year 1 and $336 in
subsequent years.
    126. According to SBA guidance, the determination of significance
of impact ``should be seen as relative to the size of the business, the
size of the competitor's business, and the impact the regulation has on
larger competitors.'' \172\ We do not consider the estimated burden to
be a significant economic impact. As a result, we certify that the
revisions proposed in this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ U.S. Small Business Administration, A Guide for Government
Agencies How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 18
(May 2012), https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/rfaguide_0512_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Document Availability

    127. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in
the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426.
    128. From FERC's Home Page on the internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    129. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    130. These regulations are effective January 27, 2020. The
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule
is not a ``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: November 21, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

    Note: Appendix A will not be published in the Federal Register.

Appendix A--List of Commenters

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Short name                            Commenter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPA..............................  American Public Power Association.
AMP...............................  American Municipal Power, Inc.
Avista............................  Avista Corporation.
DEMEC.............................  Delaware Municipal Electric
                                     Corporation, Inc.
EEI...............................  Edison Electric Institute.
Eversource........................  Eversource Energy Service Company.
FirstEnergy.......................  FirstEnergy Service Company filing
                                     on behalf of its affiliates
                                     American Transmission Systems,
                                     Incorporated, Jersey Central Power
                                     & Light Company, Mid-Atlantic
                                     Interstate Transmission LLC, West
                                     Penn Power Company, the Potomac
                                     Edison Company, Monongahela Power
                                     Company, and Trans-Allegheny
                                     Interstate Line Company.
Industrial Customers..............  Electricity Consumers Resource
                                     Council, the American Forest &
                                     Paper Association, and the American
                                     Chemistry Council.
MISO Transmission Owners..........  Ameren Services Company, as agent
                                     for Union Electric Company and
                                     Ameren Illinois Company; American
                                     Transmission Company LLC; Central
                                     Minnesota Municipal Power Agency;
                                     City Water, Light & Power
                                     (Springfield, IL); Cleco Power LLC;
                                     Cooperative Energy; Dairyland Power
                                     Cooperative; Duke Energy Business
                                     Services, LLC for Duke Energy
                                     Indiana, LLC; East Texas Electric
                                     Cooperative; Entergy Arkansas,
                                     Inc.; Entergy Louisiana, LLC;
                                     Entergy Mississippi, Inc.; Entergy
                                     New Orleans, LLC; Entergy Texas,
                                     Inc.; Great River Energy; Indiana
                                     Municipal Power Agency;
                                     Indianapolis Power & Light Company;
                                     International Transmission Company;
                                     ITC Midwest LLC; Lafayette
                                     Utilities System; Michigan Electric
                                     Transmission Company, LLC;
                                     MidAmerican Energy Company;
                                     Minnesota Power (and its subsidiary
                                     Superior Water, L&P); Missouri
                                     River Energy Services; Montana-
                                     Dakota Utilities Co.; Northern
                                     Indiana Public Service Company LLC;
                                     Northern States Power Company, a
                                     Minnesota corporation, and Northern
                                     States Power Company, a Wisconsin
                                     corporation, subsidiaries of Xcel
                                     Energy Inc.; Northwestern Wisconsin
                                     Electric Company; Otter Tail Power
                                     Company; Prairie Power Inc.;
                                     Southern Indiana Gas & Electric
                                     Company; Southern Minnesota
                                     Municipal Power Agency; Wabash
                                     Valley Power Association, Inc.; and
                                     Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative,
                                     Inc.
NRECA.............................  National Rural Electric Cooperative
                                     Association.
PSEG..............................  Public Service Electric and Gas
                                     Company.
Six Cities........................  The Cities of Anaheim, Azusa,
                                     Banning, Colton, Pasadena, and
                                     Riverside, CA.
TAPS..............................  Transmission Access Policy Study
                                     Group.
Xcel..............................  Xcel Energy Services Inc., on behalf
                                     of the Xcel Energy Operating
                                     Companies including Northern States
                                     Power Company; Northern States
                                     Power Company; Public Service
                                     Company of Colorado; and
                                     Southwestern Public Service
                                     Company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-25724 Filed 11-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56048-56051]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19720]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-493-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Cumberland Project,
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Schedule for
Environmental Review

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will discuss the environmental

impacts of the Cumberland Project (Project) involving construction and
operation of facilities by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC
(Tennessee Gas) in Dickson, Houston, and Stewart County, Tennessee. The
Commission will use the EIS in its decision-making process to determine
whether the Project is in the public convenience and necessity. The
schedule for preparation of the EIS is discussed in the Schedule for
Environmental Review section of this notice.
    As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review
process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have
about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result
whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred
to as ``scoping.'' By notice issued on March 2, 2022, in Docket No.
PF22-2-000, the Commission opened a scoping period during Tennessee
Gas' planning process for the Project and prior to filing a formal
application with the Commission, a process referred to as ``pre-
filing.'' Tennessee Gas has now filed an application with the
Commission, and staff intends to prepare an EIS that will address the
concerns raised during the pre-filing scoping process and comments
received in response to this notice.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the environmental document, including
comments on potential alternatives and impacts, and any relevant
information, studies, or analyses of any kind concerning impacts
affecting the quality of the human environment. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 7, 2022. Further details on how to
submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of
this notice.
    As mentioned above, during the pre-filing process the Commission
opened a scoping period which expired on April 4, 2022; however,
Commission staff continued to accept comments during the entire pre-
filing process. All substantive written and oral comments provided
during pre-filing will be addressed in the EIS. Therefore, if you
submitted comments on this Project to the Commission during the pre-
filing process in Docket No. PF22-02-000 you do not need to file those
comments again.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the Project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent
domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach
an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does
not grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of eminent domain
authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain
cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these matters.
    Tennessee Gas provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?'' which addresses typically asked questions, including
the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's
proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of
interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov)
under the Natural Gas Questions or Landowner Topics link.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]. Please carefully follow these instructions
so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP22-
493-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings
made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the
documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register
for eSubscription.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Tennessee Gas requests authorization to construct, own, operate,
and maintain 32 miles of new 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline
(Cumberland Pipeline) from its existing Lines 100-3 and 100-4 to the
Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) existing Cumberland Fossil Plant,
which is currently coal-fired. TVA is evaluating options to replace the
coal-fired capability of the Cumberland Fossil Plant; including the
option of constructing a new natural-gas-fired power plant at the same
site.\1\ The Cumberland Pipeline would be in Dickson, Houston, and
Steward counties, Tennessee; and it would provide about 245,000
dekatherms per day of natural gas per day to TVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In its draft environmental impact statement (87 Federal
Register 25485; April 29, 2022), TVA identifies constructing a new
natural gas-fired combined cycle power plant at its Cumberland
Fossil Plant Reservation and associated Cumberland Pipeline (the
subject of Tennessee Gas' proposal with FERC as described in this
Notice) as its preferred alternative to replace part of the retired
generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Cumberland Project would consist of the following facilities:
     Approximately 32 miles of new 30-inch-diameter natural gas
lateral pipeline, as described above.
     New Pressure Regulation Station comprised of bi-
directional back pressure regulation facilities (including a new
Mainline Valve on each of TGP's Lines 100-3 and 100-4 at the origin of
the newly planned Cumberland Pipeline in Dickson County, Tennessee.
     New Cumberland Meter Station at the terminus of the
planned Cumberland Pipeline within TVA's

newly proposed power plant in Steward County, Tennessee.
     New in-line inspection traps at each end of the planned
Cumberland Pipeline.
     New Mainline Valve located at an intermediate location
along the planned Cumberland Pipeline.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on connecting to
eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on environmental information provided by Tennessee Gas,
construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 507.6 acres
of land for the pipeline and the aboveground facilities. Following
construction, Tennessee Gas would maintain about 193.5 acres for
permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage
would be restored and revert to former uses.
    Based on an initial review of Tennessee Gas' proposal and public
comments received during the pre-filing process, Commission staff have
identified several expected impacts that deserve attention in the EIS.
These include: impacts on air quality (greenhouse gases), alternatives,
environmental justice, wildlife habitat, streams, and wetlands.

The NEPA Process and the EIS

    The EIS issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could
occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed
Project under the relevant general resource areas:

 geology and soils;
 water resources and wetlands;
 vegetation and wildlife;
 threatened and endangered species;
 cultural resources;
 land use;
 environmental justice;
 greenhouse gas and climate;
 air quality and noise; and
 reliability and safety.

    Commission staff will also make recommendations on how to lessen or
avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help
Commission staff focus its analysis on the issues that may have a
significant effect on the human environment.
    The EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the
issues. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Nashville District) is a
cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS.\3\ Staff will prepare
a draft EIS which will be issued for public comment. Commission staff
will consider all timely comments received during the comment period on
the draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a
final EIS. Any draft and final EIS will be available in electronic
format in the public record through eLibrary \4\ and the Commission's
natural gas environmental documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If
eSubscribed, you will receive instant email notification when the
environmental document is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Section 1501.8.
    \4\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives Under Consideration

    The EIS will evaluate reasonable alternatives that are technically
and economically feasible and meet the purpose and need for the
proposed action.\5\ Alternatives currently under consideration include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 40 CFR 1508.1(z).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the no-action alternative, meaning the Project is not
implemented; and
     a system alternative evaluating whether the Project
purpose could be met by use of an existing pipeline system.
    With this notice, the Commission requests specific comments
regarding any additional potential alternatives to the proposed action
or segments of the proposed action. Please focus your comments on
reasonable alternatives (including alternative facility sites and
pipeline routes) that meet the Project objectives, are technically and
economically feasible, and avoid or lessen environmental impact.

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission initiated section 106 consultation for
the Project in the notice issued on March 3, 2022, with the Tennessee
State Historic Preservation Office, and other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public to solicit their views and
concerns regarding the project's potential effects on historic
properties.\6\ This notice is a continuation of section 106
consultation for the Project. The Project EIS will document findings on
the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schedule for Environmental Review

    On July 29, 2022, the Commission issued its Notice of Application
for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted other agencies
issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all
necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on the request for a
federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the
Commission staff's final EIS for the Project. This notice identifies
the Commission staff's planned schedule for completion of a final EIS
for the Project, which is based on an issuance of the draft EIS in
February 2023.

Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS,--June 30, 2023
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline,\7\--September 28, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Commission's deadline applies to the decisions of other
federal agencies, and state agencies acting under federally
delegated authority, that are responsible for federal
authorizations, permits, and other approvals necessary for proposed
projects under the Natural Gas Act. Per 18 CFR 157.22(a), the
Commission's deadline for other agency's decisions applies unless a
schedule is otherwise established by federal law.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an
additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are
kept informed of the Project's progress.

Permits and Authorizations

    The table below lists the anticipated permits and authorizations
for the Project required under federal law. This list may not be all-
inclusive and does not preclude any permit or authorization if it is
not listed here. Agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special
expertise may formally cooperate in the preparation of the Commission's
EIS and may adopt the EIS to satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related
to this Project. Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency
status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided
under the Public Participation section of this notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Permit                               Agency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWA Section 404 Discharges to Waters of     U.S. Army Corps of
 the United States.                          Engineers.

CWA Section 402 Stormwater and              Tennessee Department of
 Construction Dewatering Permits.            Environment and
                                             Conservation.
NHPA Section 106 Consultation.............  Tennessee State Historic
                                             Preservation Office.
ESA Section 7 Consultation................  U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                                             Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for the Project which includes the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, federal, state, and
local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with their
comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to
this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by
the proposed Project. State and local government representatives should
notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them
to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to [email protected] stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP22-493-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.
    OR
    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP22-493). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Any planned public sessions or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with other related information.

    Dated: September 7, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19720 Filed 9-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P