[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21235-21236]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08400]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD14-16-000]

El Dorado Irrigation District; Notice of Preliminary
Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and
Soliciting Comments and Motions to Intervene

    On March 25, 2014, El Dorado Irrigation District filed a notice of
intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant
to section 30 of the Federal Power Act, as amended by section 4 of the
Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Tank
3 In-conduit Hydroelectric Project would have an installed capacity of
600 kilowatts (kW) and would utilize an existing 30-diameter water
supply pipeline. The project would be located near the Town of Camino,
El Dorado County, California.
    Applicant Contact: Cindy Megerdigan, El Dorado Irrigation District,
2890 Mosquito Road, Placerville, CA 95667 Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) A proposed 20-foot-long, 24-inch diameter
pipeline that branches off the 30-inch diameter main water supply pipe,
which carries water in succession to; (2) three proposed 20-foot-long,
16-inch diameter pipes along which are; (3) three generating units,
with a total installed capacity of 600 kW; (4) a proposed 20-foot-long,
24-inch-diameter discharge pipe that receives water from the three 16-
inch diameter pipes; (5) a proposed 20-foot-long, 24-inch diameter
bypass pipe to be used when the plant is shut down; and (6) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual
generating capacity of 2,900 megawatt-hours.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

      Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Statutory provision              Description       Satisfies (Y/N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by   The conduit the                      Y
 HREA.                            facility uses is a
                                  tunnel, canal,
                                  pipeline, aqueduct,
                                  flume, ditch, or
                                  similar manmade water
                                  conveyance that is
                                  operated for the
                                  distribution of water
                                  for agricultural,
                                  municipal, or
                                  industrial
                                  consumption and not
                                  primarily for the
                                  generation of
                                  electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended   The facility is                      Y
 by HREA.                         constructed,
                                  operated, or
                                  maintained for the
                                  generation of
                                  electric power and
                                  uses for such
                                  generation only the
                                  hydroelectric
                                  potential of a non-
                                  federally owned
                                  conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended  The facility has an                  Y
 by HREA.                         installed capacity
                                  that does not exceed
                                  5 megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as         On or before August 9,               Y
 amended by HREA.                 2013, the facility is
                                  not licensed, or
                                  exempted from the
                                  licensing
                                  requirements of Part
                                  I of the FPA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria,
Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies
the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is
not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can
be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed
and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Enter the docket number (e.g., CD14-16-000) in the docket number field
to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676
or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 8, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08400 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 67 (Monday, April 8, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20852-20855]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08039]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0124]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Marine Week Air Ground Demonstration, Lake
Washington; Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard proposes to establish safety zones around
vessels and persons involved in the Marine Week Seattle Special Marine
Air Ground Task Force Demonstration on Lake Washington, Seattle, WA.
This event will occur from August 9, 2013, until August 11, 2013. A
safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime public
during this event, which involves demonstrations of low flying
aircraft, amphibious vehicles, swimmers, combat equipment, and other
elements that could create safety concerns for waterway users. This
safety zone would ensure the safety of the maritime public by
prohibiting any person or vessel from entering or remaining in the
safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or a
Designated Representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid

duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LTJG Anthony P. LaBoy, Waterways Management Division,
Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

    DHS Department of Homeland Security
    FR Federal Register
    NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number [USCG-2013-0124] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\; by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2013-0124) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a
request for one using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard received a marine event permit application from the
United States Marine Corps on February 5, 2013. From August 5 to August
11, 2013, Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force Marine Week
Seattle will conduct Marine Week Seattle in order to showcase and
demonstrate the value of the Marine Corps; cultivate relationships with
local government, academia, and business communities; reinforce
recruiting efforts; promote modernization of equipment and training;
promote the Corps' Marine Air Ground Task Force and expeditionary
agility; and, emphasize the Corps' diversity in its ``one team-one
fight'' ethos.
    The Ports and Waterways Safety Act, 33 U.S.C. 1221-1232, authorizes
the Coast Guard to establish safety zones under 33 U.S.C. 1226(b)(1).
The Coast Guard proposes to establish this safety zone during the
Marine Week Demonstration on Lake Washington, Seattle, WA. The safety
zone will help ensure the safety of the maritime public by prohibiting
any person or vessel from entering or remaining in the safety zone
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or a Designated
Representative.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Marine Air Ground Task Force Demonstration Area will include
low flying aircraft, amphibious vehicles, swimmers, combat equipment,
and other elements. The following proposed safety zone is for the
Marine Air Ground Task Force Demonstration Area: All waters of Lake
Washington encompassed by the following points: 47[deg]33'50'' N,
122[deg]14'51'' W, thence northwesterly to 47[deg]35'12'' N
122[deg]16'25'' W, thence southwesterly to 47[deg]34'56'' N,
122[deg]17'9'' W; thence south easterly along the shoreline to
47[deg]33'32'' N, 122[deg]15'50'' W, thence northwesterly back to the
point of origin.
    A second proposed safety zone will be used by amphibious vehicles
transiting from Proctor's Landing into the demonstration area and will
be kept clear to allow emergency response vessels to transit and
respond to medical emergencies. The following area is the proposed
safety zone for the Access Lane: All waters of Lake Washington
encompassed by the following points: 47[deg]34'49'' N, 122[deg]14'58''
W, thence northwesterly to 47[deg]34'59'' N, 122[deg]15'10'' W, thence
southwesterly to 47[deg]34'41'' N, 122[deg]15'49'' W; thence
southeasterly to 47[deg]34'27'' N, 122[deg]15'34'' W, thence back to
the point of origin.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under

section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of
Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under those Orders. This finding is based on the fact that
the waters encompassed by the proposed Safety Zone are not frequented
by commercial navigation, and the zone is small in size and short in
duration.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit this portion of Lake Washington during the time
this regulation is in effect. The zone will not have a significant
economic impact because it is limited in size and short in duration.
The only vessels likely to be impacted will be recreational boaters and
small passenger vessel operators.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves the establishment of a safety zone. This rule is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination
are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek
any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L.

107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add section 165.T13-244 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-244  Safety Zone; Marine Week Air Ground Demonstration,
Lake Washington; Seattle, WA.

    (a) Locations. The following areas are designated as a safety zone:
    (1) Marine Air Ground Task Force Demonstration Area: All waters of
Lake Washington encompassed by the following points: 47[deg]33'50'' N,
122[deg]14'51'' W, thence northwesterly to 47[deg]35'12'' N,
122[deg]16'25'' W, thence southwesterly to 47[deg]34'56'' N,
122[deg]17'9'' W; thence southeasterly along the shoreline to
47[deg]33'32'' N, 122[deg]15'50'' W, thence northwesterly back to the
point of origin.
    (2) Access Lane: All waters of Lake Washington encompassed by the
following points: 47[deg]34'49'' N, 122[deg]14'58'' W, thence
northwesterly to 47[deg]34'59'' N, 122[deg]15'10'' W, thence
southwesterly to 47[deg]34'41'' N, 122[deg]15'49'' W; thence
southeasterly to 47[deg]34'27'' N, 122[deg]15'34'' W, thence back to
the point of origin.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR part 165, Subpart C, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the
safety zone created by this section without the permission of the
Captain of the Port or his Designated Representative. Designated
Representatives are Coast Guard Personnel authorized by the Captain of
the Port to grant persons or vessels permission to enter or remain in
the safety zones created by this section. See 33 CFR part 165, Subpart
C, for additional information and requirements. The COTP may be
assisted by other federal, state or local agencies with the enforcement
of this safety zone.
    (c) Authorization. All vessel operators who desire to enter the
safety zone must obtain permission from the COTP or a Designated
Representative by contacting the on-scene Coast Guard patrol craft on
VHF 13 or Ch 16. Requests must include the reason why movement within
this area is necessary. Vessel operators granted permission to enter
the safety zone shall transit at the minimum speed necessary to
maintain course.
    (d) Effective Period. This rule is effective from 6:00 a.m. on
August 9, 2013 through 11:59 p.m. on August 11, 2013.

    Dated: March 4, 2013.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2013-08039 Filed 4-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16727-16728]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2008-0161]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated

December 16, 2014, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) has
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR part 238, Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2008-0161.
    The ARRC, a Class II railroad, petitioned FRA for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of 49 CFR part 238, as prescribed by
49 CFR 238.303(c), Exterior calendar day inspection of passenger
equipment, and 238.313(d), Class I brake test, for one set of
conventional passenger equipment. Specifically, this waiver request
applies to the seasonal Hurricane Turn passenger train. This service is
operated during the months of May through September, 4 days a week with
one round trip per day, between Talkeetna, AK, Milepost (MP) 226, and
Hurricane Gulch Bridge, AK, MP 284. The passenger equipment utilized
for this train consists of two passenger coaches, one baggage car, and
two locomotives (used in push/pull service). This train provides ``flag
stop'' service to residents and visitors to an area that has no road
access.
    The ARRC maintains mechanical facilities in Fairbanks, AK, MP 470,
and Anchorage, AK, MP 114, where qualified maintenance employees are
headquartered. The equipment is stored overnight at Talkeetna during
the work week, and may be moved to Anchorage during rest days for
cleaning, supplies, and servicing. FRA requires a qualified maintenance
person (QMP) to conduct the daily exterior inspection and the Class I
initial terminal airbrake inspection on each day the equipment is used.
This requires the ARRC to assign a QMP to Talkeetna, where there is not
enough work to support a position, or have an employee travel 224 miles
(round trip) each day from Anchorage.
    The ARRC requests that a QMP be authorized to complete the required
daily exterior and airbrake inspections at Talkeetna at least once a
week, during those months when equipment is stationed there. The
equipment may be moved to Anchorage, or a mechanical department road
truck will travel to Talkeetna to have a QMP conduct the required
inspections. Talkeetna is the only location that this relief is sought.
Qualified persons, as defined in 49 CFR 238.5, Definitions, may perform
the exterior calendar-day inspection and Class I brake test on all
other days, provided they are trained, qualified, and designated to
perform such functions in accordance with 49 CFR 238.109, Training,
qualification, and designation program.
    The ARRC has safely operated this equipment under the conditions
set by FRA's Railroad Safety Board since 2009, under Docket Number FRA-
2008-0161. Due to economic growth, the ARRC is looking to expand the
seasonal Hurricane Turn passenger train service and equipment. The ARRC
has petitioned FRA to modify the current waiver of compliance to
increase the service from 4 to 5 days a week and to increase the
passenger train consist from two passenger coaches to three passenger
coaches.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by May 14, 2015 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 24, 2015.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Technical Oversight.
[FR Doc. 2015-07100 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 45 (Thursday, March 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13180-13182]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04693]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0070; FMCSA-2014-0313]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions of 71
individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) in interstate commerce. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt
individuals from this rule if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these CMV drivers.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates
stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before
April 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0070; FMCSA-
2014-0313 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 2-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 71 individuals listed
in this notice have recently become eligible for a renewed exemption
from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. The drivers remain in good
standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical
monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-
year exemption period.

II. Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 71 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. These 71 drivers
remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required
medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-
year exemption period. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to extend each
exemption for a renewable two-year period. Each individual is
identified according to the renewal date.
    The exemptions are renewed subject to the following conditions: (1)
That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed
by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a
comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports
within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe
hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage
diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse
event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an
episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual submit an annual
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) that each individual
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her
driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must
also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to
a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. The following groups of
drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of March and are
discussed below.
    As of March 12, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 16 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (73 FR 6248; 73 FR
13274):

Richard L. Burwell (OH)
David Clemente, Sr. (NJ)
Timothy M. Collier (NY)
William M. Dement (MO)
James O. Hamilton (OH)
William B. Jenks, Jr. (UT)
Timothy L. Johnson (IA)
Douglas O. Krosch (MN)
Robert E. Martin (MO)
Garrett A. Phillips (NY)
Randy L. Quattlebaum (TX)
Mark C. Smith (NE)
Billy J. Stamper (OK)
Robert E. Tauriainen (OR)
David B. Tomlin (AL)
Brian T. Tow (WA)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0070. Their
exemptions are effective as of March 12, 2017, and will expire on March
12, 2019.
    As of March 24, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 55 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 8929; 80 FR
24313):

Timothy E. Adkins (KY)
Daniel S. Arke (HI)
Raul Arlequin Jr. (FL)
Chad W. Beeman (NY)
Jeffrey S. Bohle (IA)
Bradley T. Boyd (IA)
Bradley M. Brauer (NE)
Gary W. Brendel (NY)
Thomas Browning (PA)
Kell D. Busby, Jr. (MI)
Rafael B. Castillo (NJ)
Zachary D. Craig (ND)
Terry R. Darnall (IL)
Raymond W. Dropps (MN)
Curtis W. Fox (IN)
William H. Geiselhart, Jr. (PA)
Darrel G. Goetz (MO)
Chris S. Hammack (CO)
James P. Hancock, Jr. (PA)
Donald S. Hanson (MN)
Michael Hasley (AR)
Gene A. Heibult (SD)
Ronald R. Herrington (WV)
Jay H. Hess (PA)
Kevin L. Holmes (IL)
Claude E. Hoskins (WA)
Ulysses Jones (IN)
Sean M. Jordan (PA)
Steven N. Kemp (TX)
Tracy A. Knake (IA)
Robert E. Lane (IN)
Jason C. Lewis (MD)
Corey A. Maas (KS)
James P. MacDonald (MA)
Timothy D. Maxson (NY)
Guy D. McGuire (MD)
Roy A. Montalvan (PA)
Justin M. Powell (NC)
Jackie Riley (NC)
Rudy A. Rodriguez (OR)
Philip M. Schopp (MO)
Andrew T. Segetti (CT)
Roger L. Shones (MN)
William L. Sirabella (RI)
Ronald D. Strobo (FL)

Rodney H. Swartz (NY)
David A. Tipps (IL)
Keith J. Tschetter (ND)
Sean E. Twohig (NY)
Jimmie W. Ward (NC)
Michael R. Waskow (WI)
James B. Westphal (WI)
John A. Winquist (SD)
Robert J. Wyand (NY)
Michael E. Zincone (RI)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0313. Their
exemptions are effective as of March 24, 2017, and will expire on March
24, 2019.
    Each of the 71 drivers in the aforementioned groups qualifies for a
renewal of the exemption. They have maintained their required medical
monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-
year exemption period.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of the
71 drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of
safety equal to that existing without the exemption. The drivers were
included in docket numbers FMCSA-2007-0070; FMCSA-2014-0313.

IV. Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by April 10, 2017.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 71 individuals from rule
prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate
commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from
rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate
commerce. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Federal Register publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

V. Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket numbers FMCSA-2007-0070; FMCSA-
2014-0313 and click the search button. When the new screen appears,
click on the blue ``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the
page. On the new page, enter information required including the
specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and
provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. If you submit
your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to
know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after
the close of the comment period.

VI. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert
the docket number FMCSA-2007-0070; FMCSA-2014-0313 and click
``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all
documents and comments related to this notice.

    Issued on: February 28, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-04693 Filed 3-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41242-41243]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17617]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0585; FRL-9437-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Application for Reimbursement to Local Governments for
Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases Under CERCLA Section
123

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a
continuing Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on 7/31/11. Before
submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as
described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2011-0585 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: ICR Renewal for Local Goverments Reimbursement
Application, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5104A, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
     Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-SFUND-2011-0585. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. (For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Boynton, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency Management, (5104A)
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
564-8729; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011 which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Superfund Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Superfund Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) evaluate 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;
    (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What should I consider when I prepare my comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

    Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0840.
    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
Local Governments that apply for reimbursement under this program.
    Title: Local Governments Reimbursement Application.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1425.05, OMB Control No. 2050-0077.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on 7/31/11.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The Agency requires applicants for reimbursement under
this program authorized under Section 123 of CERCLA to submit an
application that demonstrates consistency with program eligibility
requirements. This is necessary to ensure proper use of the Superfund.
EPA reviews the information to ensure compliance with all statutory and
program requirements. The applicants are local governments who have
incurred expenses, above and beyond their budgets, for hazardous
substance response. Submission of this information is voluntary and to
the applicant's benefit.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 30.
    Frequency of response: voluntary, on occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 270 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $7,493. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $18.50/hour and there are no capital investment or
maintenance and operational costs.

Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    At this time, the Agency anticipates that because the number of
respondents has decreased, the estimated annual burden has also
decreased.

What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: July 6, 2011.
Kim Jennings,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2011-17617 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 6553]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2835]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

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

    Docket Numbers: EC12-21-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Filing of Clarification of ITC Midwest LLC.
    Filed Date: 02/01/2012.
    Accession Number: 20120201-5181.
    Comment Date: 5 pm ET 2/13/12.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER97-4143-025; ER11-46-002; ER10-2975-002; ER98-
542-027.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation, AEP Energy
Partners, Inc., CSW Energy Services, Inc., Central and South West
Services, Inc.
    Description: Notice of change in status of American Electric Power
Service Corporation, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120131-5418.
    Comments Due: 5 pm ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1827-001; ER10-1825-001.
    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC, Cleco Evangeline LLC.
    Description: Cleco Power LLC, et al submits a notice of non
material change in status.
    Filed Date: 1/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120131-5415.
    Comments Due: 5 pm ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2034-002; ER10-2032-003; ER10-2033-003; ER11-
2064-002; ER11-2079-002; ER11-2069-001; ER11-2063-001; ER11-2066-002;
ER10-1330-002; ER10-1329-002.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.,
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., North Allegheny Wind, LLC, Duke Energy
Vermillion II, LLC, Duke Energy Hanging Rock II, LLC, Duke Energy Lee
II, LLC, Duke Energy Fayette II, LLC,Duke Energy Washington II, LLC,
St. Paul Cogeneration, LLC.
    Description: Notice of change in status of Duke Energy Indiana,
Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 2/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120201-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 pm ET 2/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2502-001; ER11-2474-003; ER10-2081-001; ER10-
2472-001; ER10-2473-001; ER10-2298-002.
    Applicants: Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Co, LP, Black
Hills Colorado IPP, LLC, Black Hills Power, Inc, Black Hills Wyoming,
LLC, Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company, Enserco Energy Inc.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of Black Hills/
Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120131-5414.
    Comments Due: 5 pm ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-962-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Metadata Clean-up Filing to be effective 6/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120201-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 pm ET 2/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-963-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Amended SGIA WDAT SCE-SEPV 2 LLC SEPV 5 Project to be
effective 4/2/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120201-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 pm ET 2/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-964-000.
    Applicants: CalPeak Power LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status--February 1,
2012 to be effective 4/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120201-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 pm ET 2/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-965-000.
    Applicants: Starwood Power-Midway LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status--February 1,
2012 to be effective 4/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120201-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 pm ET 2/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-966-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Notices of Termination of Service Agreement Nos. 37
and 85 under PG&E FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 of Pacific Gas and
Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 1/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120131-5416.
    Comments Due: 5 pm ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-967-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Revised Rate Schedule 212 of Florida Power Corporation
to be effective 8/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 2/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120201-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 pm ET 2/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-968-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: BPA NITSA for Sumas No. 626 to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120201-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 pm ET 2/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-969-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Tampa Electric Company submits tariff filing per 35:
Wholesale Requirements Rate Case Settlement to be effective 3/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 2/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120201-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 pm ET 2/22/12.

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

    Docket Numbers: RD12-1-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Approval of Proposed Texas Reliability Entity Regional
Reliability Standard IRO-006-TRE-1--IROL and SOL Mitigation on the
ERCOT Interconnection.
    Filed Date: 2/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120201-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 pm ET 3/2/12.

    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
pm 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 01, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2835 Filed 2-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30043-30047]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09872]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0788; FRL-10880-01-OCSPP]

Cyflufenamid; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
cyflufenamid in or on sugar beet. Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. requested this
tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective May 10, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 10, 2023 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-2021-0788 is available at https://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 and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Director, Registration
Division (7505T), 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 Office of the
Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

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-2021-0788 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
July 10, 2023. 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-2021-0788, by one of
the following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of March 22, 2022 (87 FR 16135) (FRL-9410-
11-OCSPP), 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
1F8950) by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., ShinOhtemachi Bldg., 2-1, 2-Chome
Ohtemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100-8165, Japan. The petition requested
that 40 CFR 180.667 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues
of the fungicide, cyflufenamid, [N(Z)]-N-
[[(cyclopropylmethoxy)amino][2,3-difluoro-6-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methylene]benzeneacetamide, in or on sugar
beets at 0.07 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., the
registrant, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. One comment was submitted by USDA on the notice of
filing which supported this action.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the commodity definition from Sugar beet to Beet, sugar, roots;
and amended the proposed tolerance from 0.07 ppm to 0.15 ppm. The
reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.D.

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 cyflufenamid including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with cyflufenamid follows.
    In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal
Register, EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been
previously published for tolerance rulemakings of the same pesticide
chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical
remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between
tolerance rulemakings and republishing the same sections are
unnecessary. EPA considers referral back to those sections as
sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA considered
in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.

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 organs for cyflufenamid consist of the liver in mice and
thyroid in rats. Liver toxicity for mice increased as the duration of
exposure increased from subchronic to chronic; increases in toxicity
with exposure duration was not observed in rats and dogs. Adverse liver
toxicity was only observed in the mouse, with rats and dogs only
exhibiting adaptive liver effects.
    Thyroid effects observed in the rat included increased follicular
cell hypertrophy, increased thyroid weight, and neoplastic thyroid
follicular adenomas. There are no concerns for susceptibility
associated with cyflufenamid exposure in developing and post-natal
animals because the effects observed in the fetal and/or offspring
animals in the rat and rabbit developmental and rat two-generation
reproduction toxicity studies were at either the same dose or a higher
dose than the dose in which effects occurred in the maternal and/or
parental animals. Additionally, there are no concerns for neurotoxicity
and immunotoxicity.
    EPA has classified cyflufenamid as ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential'', based on the presence of liver tumors in male
mice. The point of departure (POD) for the chronic dietary exposure
scenario (22 mg/kg/day) is protective of these effects, which were
observed at much higher doses (325 mg/kg/day); therefore,
quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (i.e., reference
dose, RfD, approach) is appropriate to adequately account for all
chronic toxicity, including potential carcinogenicity. Additionally,
there are no concerns for genotoxicity and mutagenicity.

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.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Cyflufenamid for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        RfD, PAD, level
       Exposure  scenario             Point of       Uncertainty/FQPA   of  concern for          Study and
                                  departure (POD)     safety factors    risk  assessment  toxicological  effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for use in Dietary and Residential Human Health Risk Assessments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary, General           An acute dietary assessment is not necessary at this time as there were no
 population (including infants    toxicological effects attributable to a single dose within the cyflufenamid
 and children), Females (13-49    toxicity database.
 years old).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic Dietary................  NOAEL = 22 mg/kg/  UFA = 10X........  cRfD = 0.22 mg/kg/ Chronic Toxicity/
                                  day.              UFH = 10X........   day.               Carcinogenicity Study
                                                    FQPA SF = 1X.....  cPAD = 0.22 mg/kg/  in Rat (MRID
                                                                        day.               47620511)
                                                                                LOAEL = 115 mg/kg/day,
                                                                                based on thyroid
                                                                                effects in both sexes
                                                                                (increased thyroid
                                                                                weight, follicular
                                                                                cell hypertrophy,
                                                                                follicular and
                                                                                parafollicular cell
                                                                                hyperplasia,
                                                                                parathyroid
                                                                                hyperplasia) and
                                                                                pancreas (acinar
                                                                                atrophy with chronic
                                                                                inflammation) effect
                                                                                in females.
Incidental Oral Short-Term (1-   NOAEL = 23 mg/kg/  UFA = 10X........  LOC for MOE = 100  90-day Oral Toxicity
 30 days).                        day.              UFH = 10X........                      Study in Dogs (MRID
                                                    FQPA SF = 1X.....                      47620504) LOAEL = 71
                                                                                mg/kg/day, based on
                                                                                decreased
                                                                                bodyweights, brain
                                                                                histopathology, and
                                                                                thymus atrophy in
                                                                                both sexes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal Short Term (1-30 days)    A toxicity endpoint was not identified. Systemic toxicity was not seen in 28-
 and Intermediate-Term (1-6       day dermal toxicity in rats up to the limit dose (1000 mg/kg/day). There are
 months).                         no concerns for developmental or reproductive toxicity or neurotoxicity in rat
                                  and rabbit studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation Short Term (1-30      Oral NOAEL = 23    UFA = 10X........  LOC for MOE = 100  90-day Oral Toxicity
 days) and Intermediate-Term (1-  mg/kg/day,        UFH = 10X........                      Study in Dogs (MRID
 6 months).                       Inhalation        FQPA SF = 1X.....                      47620504) LOAEL = 71
                                  Absorption =                                             mg/kg/day, based on
                                  100% Oral                                                decreased
                                  Absorption.                                              bodyweights,
                                                                                bodyweight gain, food
                                                                                consumption, and
                                                                                liver ([uarr]liver
                                                                                weight, [uarr]ALP,
                                                                                hepatomegaly
                                                                                accompanied by
                                                                                vacuolated
                                                                                hepatocytes and fa
                                                                                deposition), brain
                                                                                histopathology, and
                                                                                thymus atrophy in
                                                                                both sexes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer.........................  HED classified cyflufenamid as ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenic
                                  potential'' and quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (i.e., RfD
                                  approach) is appropriate (TXR 0057036, J. Rowland, 12/02/2014).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed adverse-effect level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-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).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to cyflufenamid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing cyflufenamid tolerances in 40
CFR 180.667. EPA assessed dietary exposures from cyflufenamid 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. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for cyflufenamid; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What
We Eat in America (USDA's NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food,
EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100% crop treated (100% CT)
for all commodities. Anticipated residues and/or percent crop treated
(PCT) data were not used.
    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 cyflufenamid. 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 residues and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for cyflufenamid. Tolerance level residues and/or
100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Drinking water, non-occupational, and cumulative exposures.
Drinking water and non-occupational exposures are not impacted by the
proposed use of cyflufenamid on sugar beet, and thus have not changed
since the last assessment. For a summary of the dietary exposures from
drinking water, see Unit III.C.2. of the February 9, 2018, rulemaking
(87 FR 5711). There are no proposed residential uses for cyflufenamid
at this time; however, there are existing uses that result in potential
post-application residential exposures which have been previously

assessed using current data and assumptions. The registered uses
anticipated to result in post-application dermal exposure to
cyflufenamid include commercial treatment of outdoor ornamentals.
Because the Agency has not identified a dermal endpoint, a quantitative
residential dermal exposure assessment was not necessary and was not
conducted. EPA's conclusions concerning cumulative risk remain
unchanged from Unit III.C.4. of the February 9, 2018, rulemaking.

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 are no concerns for
susceptibility associated with cyflufenamid exposure in developing and
post-natal animals. Additionally, there are no concerns for
neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity.
    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 cyflufenamid is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that cyflufenamid 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 cyflufenamid results in increased
susceptibility in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental
studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to cyflufenamid 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
cyflufenamid.

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. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
cyflufenamid is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
cyflufenamid from food and water will utilize 1.3% of the cPAD for all
infants <1 year 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
cyflufenamid is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. A short-term adverse effect was identified for
inhalation and oral exposures; however, cyflufenamid is not registered
for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential
exposure. Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term residential
exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short-term
residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further
assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the
chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for
cyflufenamid.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. An intermediate-term adverse effect was
identified; however, cyflufenamid 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 cyflufenamid.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA has determined
that quantification of risk using the RfD approach is appropriate and
will adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including
carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to cyflufenamid. Based
on the conclusions of the chronic dietary assessment, EPA concludes
that exposure to cyflufenamid is unlikely to pose an aggregate cancer
risk.
    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 cyflufenamid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology high-performance liquid
chromatography method with tandem mass spectrometry detection (HPLC/MS/
MS), Method No. RD-01307 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. The Codex has not established a MRL for cyflufenamid.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The Agency is establishing a tolerance for beet, sugar, roots at
0.15 ppm, which is higher than what the petitioner requested at 0.07
ppm based on Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
calculation procedures. Additionally, the Agency is establishing the
tolerance for ``beet, sugar, roots'' rather than ``sugar beet'' to
reflect the common commodity vocabulary currently used by the Agency.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of cyflufenamid,
[N(Z)]-N-[[(cyclopropylmethoxy)amino][2,3-difluoro-6-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methylene]benzeneacetamide, in or on Beet,
sugar, roots at 0.15 ppm.

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), or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This 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: May 4, 2023.
Charles Smith,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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.  180.667, amend the table in paragraph (a) by adding a
heading to the table and adding in alphabetical order the entry ``Beet,
sugar, roots'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.667  Cyflufenamid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Beet, sugar, roots..........................................       0.15

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-09872 Filed 5-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P