[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55252-55253]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21992]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0291; FRL-9900-88-OECA]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; State
Review Framework

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit a
request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request
(ICR) State Review Framework (EPA ICR No. 2185.05, OMB Control No.
2020-0031) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on
specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described
below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through December 31, 2013. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2010-0291, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or
by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Knopes, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Compliance, MC: 2221A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
564-0027; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
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. 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. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The State Review Framework (``Framework'') is an
oversight tool designed to assess state performance in enforcement and
compliance assurance. The Framework's goal is to evaluate state
performance by examining existing data to provide a consistent level of
oversight and develop a uniform mechanism by which EPA Regions, working
collaboratively with their states, can ensure that state environmental
agencies are consistently implementing the national compliance and
enforcement program in order to

meet agreed-upon goals. Furthermore, the Framework is designed to
foster dialogue on enforcement and compliance performance between the
states that will enhance relationships and increase feedback, which
will in turn lead to consistent program management and improved
environmental results. The Framework is described in the April 26, 2005
Federal Register Notice (79 FR 21408). This amendment will allow OECA
to collect information from enforcement and compliance files reviewed
during routine on-site visits of state or local agency offices that
will assist in the evaluation of the State Review Framework
implementation from FY 2014 to the end of FY 2016. This request will
allow EPA to make inquiries to assess the State Review Framework
process, including the consistency achieved among the EPA Regions and
states, the resources required to conduct the reviews, and the overall
effectiveness of the program.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: States, localities, and territories.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required as part of program
authorization under the Clean Water, Clean Air, and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Acts.
    Estimated number of respondents: 54.
    Frequency of response: Once every five years.
    Total estimated burden: 11,016 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $393,342.84 (per year), includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is likely to be no change in hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB.

    Dated: August 29, 2013.
Lisa Lund,
Office Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement &
Compliance Assurance.
[FR Doc. 2013-21992 Filed 9-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29371-29375]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 744

[Docket No. 190503424-9424-01]
RIN 0694-AH83

Addition of Entities to the Entity List and Revision of an Entry
on the Entity List

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends
the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding five entities to
the Entity List. These five entities have been determined by the U.S.
Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign
policy interests of the United States. These entities will be listed on
the Entity List under the destination of China. This rule also modifies
one entry on the Entity List under the destination of China.

DATES: This rule is effective June 24, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair, End-User Review Committee,
Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of
Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to part 744 of the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR)) identifies entities for which there
is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable
facts, have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of
being or becoming involved in activities contrary to the national
security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The EAR (15
CFR, subchapter C, parts 730-774) imposes additional license
requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions
for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to listed entities.
The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the
``License review policy'' column on the Entity List, and the impact on
the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant
Federal Register notice adding entities to the Entity List. BIS places
entities on the Entity List pursuant to part 744 (Control Policy: End-
User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special
Controls) of the EAR.
    The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of
the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where
appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to,
removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes
all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and
all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

ERC Entity List Decision

Additions to the Entity List

    Under Sec.  744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) of
the EAR, entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based
on specific and articulable facts, have been involved, are involved, or
pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities
that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests
of the United States, and those acting on behalf of such persons, may
be added to the Entity List.
    Pursuant to Sec.  744.11(b) of the EAR, the ERC determined that
Chinese entities Sugon and the Wuxi Jiangnan Institute of Computing
Technology are involved in activities determined to be contrary to the
national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.
Sugon also is, as further described below, the majority owner of Higon,
and Higon has ownership interests in Chengdu Haiguang Integrated
Circuit and Chengdu Haiguang Microelectronics Technology. Accordingly,
the ERC has also determined that Higon, Chengdu Haiguang Integrated
Circuit, and Chengdu Haiguang Microelectronics Technology pose a
significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities contrary
to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United
States.
    Sugon, the Wuxi Jiangnan Institute of Computing Technology, and the
National University of Defense Technology (NUDT) are the three entities
leading China's development of exascale high performance computing.
Sugon has publicly acknowledged a variety of military end uses and end
users of its high-performance computers. Wuxi Jiangnan Institute of
Computing Technology is owned by the 56th Research Institute of the
General Staff of China's People's Liberation Army. Its mission is to
support China's military modernization. NUDT was added to the Entity
List in February 2015, because of its use of U.S-origin multicores,
boards, and (co)processors to power supercomputers believed to support
nuclear explosive simulation and military simulation activities. Since
then, NUDT has procured items under the name Hunan Guofang Kei
University using four separate, additional addresses not already listed
on the Entity List.
    Sugon is the majority owner of Higon, as noted above. Higon's
business activities include integrated circuits, electronic information
systems, software development, and computer system integration. Chengdu
Haiguang Integrated Circuit is majority owned by Higon, and designs X86
architecture computer chips for network information servers. Chengdu
Haiguang Microelectronics Technology is engaged in integrated circuit
production (including design and/or manufacturing) and has a
substantial ownership share by Higon through a second joint venture.
    The ERC determined that the activities of Sugon, the Wuxi Jiangan
Institute of Computing Technology, the NUDT under its alias Hunan
Guofang Kei University, as well as Sugon's majority ownership of Higon
and Higon's ownership interests in Chengdu Haiguang Integrated Circuit
and Chengdu Haiguang Microelectronics Technology, raise sufficient
concern that prior review of exports, reexports, or transfers (in-
country) of items subject to the EAR involving these entities, and the
possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on
shipments to these entities, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent
activities contrary to the national security and foreign policy
interests of the United States.
    For the five entities added to the Entity List in this final rule,
BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and
a license review policy of presumption of denial. In addition, no
license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers
(in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List by this
rule. The acronym ``a.k.a.'' (also known as) is used in entries on the
Entity List to identify aliases, thereby assisting exporters,
reexporters, and transferors in identifying entities on the Entity
List.
    This final rule adds the following five entities to the Entity List
in China:
     Chengdu Haiguang Integrated Circuit, including two aliases
(Hygon and Chengdu Haiguang Jincheng Dianlu Sheji);
     Chengdu Haiguang Microelectronics Technology, including
two aliases (HMC and Chengdu Haiguang Wei Dianzi Jishu);
     Higon, including five aliases (Higon Information
Technology, Haiguang Xinxi Jishu Youxian Gongsi, THATIC, Tianjing
Haiguang Advanced Technology Investment, and Tianjing Haiguang Xianjin
Jishu Touzi Youxian Gongsi);
     Sugon, including nine aliases (Dawning, Dawning
Information Industry, Sugon Information Industry, Shuguang, Shuguang
Information Industry, Zhongke Dawn, Zhongke Shuguang, Dawning Company,
and Tianjin Shuguang Computer Industry);
     Wuxi Jiangnan Institute of Computing Technology, including
two aliases (Jiangnan Institute of Computing Technology and JICT).

Modification to the Entity List

    This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one
existing entry, NUDT, which was added to the Entity List under the
destination of China on February 18, 2015 (80 FR 8527). BIS is
modifying the existing entry National University of Defense Technology
(NUDT) to add one alias (Hunan Guofang Keji University) and four
locations.

Savings Clause

    Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception
or export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this
regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of
export or reexport, on June 24, 2019, pursuant to actual orders for
export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that
destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or
export or reexport without a license (NLR).

Export Control Reform Act of 2018

    On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S.
McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which
included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-
4852), which provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities
and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule. As set
forth in sec. 1768 of ECRA, all delegations, rules, regulations,
orders, determinations, licenses, or other forms of administrative
action that have been made, issued, conducted, or allowed to become
effective under the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4601
et seq.) (as in effect prior to August 13, 2018 and as continued in
effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3
CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of
March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the
Notice of August 8, 2018, 83 FR 39871 (August 13, 2018)), or the Export
Administration Regulations, and were in effect as of August 13, 2018,
shall continue in effect according to their terms until modified,
superseded, set aside, or revoked under the authority of ECRA.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA),
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves
collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088,
Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among
other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of
42.5 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours
associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not
expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments
regarding the collection of information associated with this rule,
including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. Pursuant to sec. 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018
(Title XVII, Subtitle B of Pub. L. 115-232), which was included in the
John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019,
this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for
public participation, and delay in effective date.
    5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for
public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C.
553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none
has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15
CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

PART 744--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 744 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22
U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR,
1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p.
608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947,
60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3
CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp.,
p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O.
13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of August 8,
2018, 83 FR 39871 (August 13, 2018); Notice of September 19, 2018,
83 FR 47799 (September 20, 2018); Notice of November 8, 2018, 83 FR
56253 (November 9, 2018); Notice of January 16, 2019, 84 FR 127
(January 18, 2019).

0
2. Supplement No. 4 to part 744 is amended:
0
a. under CHINA, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF, by adding in alphabetical order,
five Chinese entities, ``Chengdu Haiguang Integrated Circuit,''
``Chengdu Haiguang Microelectronics Technology,'' ``Higon,'' ``Sugon,''
and ``Wuxi Jiangnan Institute of Computing Technology'';
0
b. under CHINA, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF, by revising the entry ``National
University of Defense Technology (NUDT)''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Supplement No. 4 to Part 744--Entity List

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              License review    Federal Register
        Country                     Entity             License requirement        policy            citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHINA, PEOPLE'S                                                 * * * * * *
 REPUBLIC OF.
                         Chengdu Haiguang Integrated   For all items        Presumption of     84 FR [INSERT FR
                          Circuit, a.k.a., the          subject to the       denial.            PAGE NUMBER], 6/
                          following two aliases:        EAR. (See Sec.                          24/19.
                         --Hygon; and                   744.11 of the
                         --Chengdu Haiguang Jincheng    EAR).
                          Dianlu Sheji.
                         China (Sichuan) Free Trade
                          Zone, No. 22-31, 11th
                          Floor, E5, Tianfu Software
                          Park, No. 1366, Middle
                          Section of Tianfu Avenue,
                          Chengdu High-tech Zone,
                          Chengdu, China.
                         Chengdu Haiguang              For all items        Presumption of     84 FR [INSERT FR
                          Microelectronics              subject to the       denial.            PAGE NUMBER], 6/
                          Technology, a.k.a., the       EAR. (See Sec.                          24/19.
                          following two aliases:        744.11 of the
                         --HMC; and                     EAR).
                         --Chengdu Haiguang Wei
                          Dianzi Jishu.

                         China (Sichuan) Free Trade
                          Zone, No. 23-32, 12th
                          Floor, E5, Tianfu Software
                          Park, No. 1366, Middle
                          Section of Tianfu Avenue,
                          Chengdu High-tech Zone,
                          Chengdu, China.
                                                                * * * * * *
                         Higon, a.k.a., the following  For all items        Presumption of     84 FR [INSERT FR
                          five aliases:                 subject to the       denial.            PAGE NUMBER], 6/
                         --Higon Information            EAR. (See Sec.                          24/19.
                          Technology;                   744.11 of the
                         --Haiguang Xinxi Jishu         EAR).
                          Youxian Gongsi;
                         --THATIC;
                         --Tianjing Haiguang Advanced
                          Technology Investment; and
                         --Tianjing Haiguang Xianjin
                          Jishu Touzi Youxian Gongsi.
                         Industrial Incubation-3-8,
                          North 2-204, 18 Haitai West
                          Road, Huayuan Industrial
                          Zone, Tianjin, China.
                                                                * * * * * *
                         National University of        For all items        Presumption of     80 FR 8527, 2/18/
                          Defense Technology (NUDT),    subject to the       denial.            15. 84 FR
                          a.k.a., the following one     EAR. (See Sec.                          [INSERT FR PAGE
                          alias:                        744.11 of the                           NUMBER], 6/24/
                         --Hunan Guofang Keji           EAR).                                   19.
                          University.
                         Garden Road (Metro West),
                          Changsha City, Kaifu
                          District, Hunan Province,
                          China; and 109 Deya Road,
                          Kaifu District, Changsha
                          City, Hunan Province,
                          China, and 47 Deya Road,
                          Kaifu District, Changsha
                          City, Hunan Province,
                          China, and 147 Deya Road,
                          Kaifu District, Changsha
                          City, Hunan Province,
                          China, and 47 Yanwachi,
                          Kaifu District, Changsha,
                          Hunan, China.
                                                                * * * * * *
                         Sugon, a.k.a., the following  For all items        Presumption of     84 FR [INSERT FR
                          nine aliases:                 subject to the       denial.            PAGE NUMBER], 6/
                         --Dawning;                     EAR. (See Sec.                          24/19.
                         --Dawning Information          744.11 of the
                          Industry;                     EAR).
                         --Sugon Information
                          Industry;
                         --Shuguang;
                         --Shuguang Information
                          Industry;
                         --Zhongke Dawn;
                         --Zhongke Shuguang;
                         --Dawning Company; and
                         --Tianjin Shuguang Computer
                          Industry.
                         Sugon Building, No. 36
                          Zhongguancun Software Park,
                          No. 8 Dongbeiwang West
                          Road, Haidian District,
                          Beijing; and No. 15, Haitai
                          Huake Street, Huayuan
                          Industrial Zone, Tianjin;
                          and Sugon Science and
                          Technology Park, No. 64
                          Shuimo West Street, Haidian
                          District, Beijing, China.
                                                                * * * * * *
                         Wuxi Jiangnan Institute of    For all items        Presumption of     84 FR [INSERT FR
                          Computing Technology,         subject to the       denial.            PAGE NUMBER], 6/
                          a.k.a., the following two     EAR. (See Sec.                          24/19.
                          aliases:                      744.11 of the EAR)
                         --Jiangnan Institute of
                          Computing Technology; and
                         --JICT.
                         No. 699, Shanshui East Road,
                          Binhu District, Wuxi City,
                          China, and No. 188,
                          Shanshui East Road, Binhu
                          District, Wuxi City, China.
                                                                * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: June 18, 2019.
Richard E. Ashooh,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019-13245 Filed 6-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

									PC Code: 018101

DP Barcodes: D336717

									Date: March 19, 2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Tier I Drinking Water Assessment for Chlormequat Chloride in
Support of Reregistration Eligibility Decision

TO:		Tracy Perry, Chemical Risk Manager

		Special Review Branch

		Special Review and Reregistration Division

		Elissa Reaves, Risk Assessor

		Donald Wilbur, Risk Assessor

		Reregistration Branch II

		Health Effects Division

FROM:	Marietta Echeverria, Environmental Scientist

		Environmental Risk Branch IV

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division

THROUGH:	R. David Jones, Ph.D., Senior Agronomist

		Environmental Risk Branch IV

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division

APPROVED

BY:		Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief

		Environmental Risk Branch IV

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division

	Attached is the drinking water exposure assessment for chlormequat
chloride in support of the reregistration eligibility decision (RED).
This assessment considers all registered outdoor uses including bedding
plants and ornamentals in shadehouses and nurseries.  If additional
refinements are necessary, please contact Marietta Echeverria at
703-305-8578 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Tier I Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for the Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) for Chlormequat Chloride

Chlormequat Chloride [2-chloroethyltrimethyl ammonium chloride]

CAS No. 000999-81-5

Prepared by:

	Marietta Echeverria, Environmental Scientist

Environmental Risk Branch IV

	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Environmental Risk Branch IV

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P

Washington, DC 20460

Reviewed by:

R. David Jones, Ph.D, Senior Agronomist

Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief

Environmental Risk Branch IV

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Executive Summary

	This document reports the drinking water exposure assessment for
2-chloroethyltrimethyl ammonium chloride (chlormequat chloride) that has
been conducted to support the human health risk assessment for the
rergistration eligibility decision (RED).  Chlormequat chloride is a
plant growth regulator used on bedding plants and containerized
ornamentals in greenhouses, shadehouses, and nurseries.  Foliar spray
applications and drench applications (greenhouse uses only) are allowed
on the label.  Tier 1 surface water and groundwater modeling was
conducted for the labeled shadehouse or container nursery use (EPA Reg.
No. 241-74), which represents the highest use rate of all labeled uses
with an annual application rate of 33.3 lbs. a.i./A/year.  The
recommended estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for the
human health risk assessment are in Table 1.  There were no identified
major degradates of chlormequat chloride in the laboratory studies.
However, all transformation products greater than 10% of the applied may
not have been identified in the aerobic soil and aerobic aquatic
metabolism studies.

Table 1.  Tier I EDWCs for chlormequat chloride for ground boom spray
applications (EPA Reg. No. 241-74)

Drinking Water Source (Model)	Use rate (lbs ai/A/year)	EDWC (ppb)

Surface water (FIRST)

 - Acute (peak)

 - Chronic (annual mean)

33.3

2574

91

Groundwater (SCI-GROW)	33.3	24

Problem Formulation

	This is a Tier I drinking water assessment that uses modeling and
available monitoring data to estimate the groundwater and surface water
concentrations in drinking water sources (pre-treatment) resulting from
pesticide use on sites that are vulnerable.  This initial tier screens
out chemicals with low potential risk and allows OPP to focus resources
on more refined risk assessments for chemicals which potentially present
more significant risks. This drinking water assessment reports potential
exposure concentrations for the human health dietary risk assessment and
provides a description of how those concentrations were determined.

Previous Assessments

EFED completed a Tier I drinking water assessment for the only
registered outdoor use of chlormequat chloride (on ornamentals and
bedding plants in nurseries and shadehouses) in August 2006 (018101
D322925 DWA).  This assessment relies on the previous assessment.
During the registration process the maximum use pattern decreased from
49.5 lbs ai/A/year to 33.3 lbs ai/A/year.  This assessment is based on
the maximum rate of the registered uses of Cycocel® (EPA Reg. No.
241-74; 33.3 lbs ai/A/year).  The previous assessment only considered
exposure to parent chlormequat chloride.  However, since there were
unidentified residues in the metabolism studies that may be of risk
concern, a total toxic residue approach that assumes all uncharacterized
extractable residues are of equal toxicity to chlormequat chloride was
used to estimate exposure in the current assessment.  This results in an
increase in aerobic soil metabolism half-life of ~200% for surface water
modeling and ~27% for groundwater modeling.

Analysis

Use Characterization

Chlormequat chloride is a plant growth regulator (PGR) for use on
bedding plants and containerized ornamentals in greenhouses,
shadehouses, and nurseries as the formulated product Cycocel® (EPA Reg.
No. 241-74).  In open production areas not under cover, Cycocel® use is
restricted to containerized ornamentals only.  Application to
field-grown ornamentals is not allowed by the label.  The label allows
foliar spray applications and drench applications.  Drench applications
are only allowed for the indoor greenhouse uses.  This assessment does
not consider the indoor greenhouse uses because environmental exposures
are expected to be limited to greenhouse discharge which is regulated
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

For the outdoor (shadehouse and nursery) uses, spray volume providing
thorough plant coverage will vary with plant size and foliage coverage
and application rates will vary according specific crop type.  However,
the label states that a single application cannot exceed a rate of 3.7
lbs. ai/A, and the total annual rate can not exceed 33.3 lbs ai/A/year.
The label also limits the number of applications to 3 per crop cycle.
For this assessment, 3 production cycles per year are assumed, resulting
in a maximum of 9 applications per year.  The interval between repeat
applications to the same crop can range from 5 to 21 days.  Table 2
summarizes the maximum application rates used in this assessment.

Table 2. Maximum use patterns for Cycocel on bedding plants and
containerized ornamentals

Uses	App. type	Max app. Rate (lbs ai/A)	Max # of app./ year	Min app.
Interval (days)

Bedding plants, containerized ornamentals	Foliar spray; mechanized
ground boom sprayer	3.7	9	5

Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

	There are a number of data gaps in the chlormequat chloride
environmental fate and transport dataset.  In the absence of data,
assumptions made regarding chlormequat chloride were compared to and
supported by the environmental fate and transport data of
didecyl-dimethylammonium chloride (DDAC, PC code 69149, CAS No.
007173-51-5).  DDAC and chlormequat chloride are both quaternary
ammonium compounds that have been classified according to the Agency’s
PR Notice 88-2 (February 26, 1988) as Group I, alkyl or hydroxyalkyl
(straight chain) substituted quaternary ammonium compounds.

	Chlormequat chloride has variable mobility in the environment.  Batch
equilibrium studies resulted in Freundlich sorption coefficients ranging
1.13 – 9.12 ml/g with corresponding 1/N values ranging 0.511 – 0.955
(MRIDs 46715228, 46715229).  Even though chlormequat chloride is a
cation, the correlation between cation exchange capacity (CEC) and
sorption was not significant in the batch equilibrium studies.  In a
supplemental aged column leaching study 0.3-0.5 % of the applied
radioactivity was found in the leachate after 48 hours of leaching with
4 pore volumes of 0.01 M CaCl2 in a loamy sand soil (MRID 46715230).  In
another supplemental aged column leaching study 2.5% of the applied
radioactivity was found in the leachate following 45 days of leaching
with 0.5 inches of distilled water daily through a 15 inch column filled
with a clay loam soil (MRID 124061).   In a supplemental unaged column
leaching study < 0.1 % of applied radioactivity was found in the
leachate after leaching with 20 inches of distilled water at a rate not
exceeding 1 inch/hour through a 15 inch column filled with a sand, sandy
loam, silt loam and clay loam soil (MRID 124062).  In both of these
studies distilled water was used which could lead to dispersion of clays
that could affect soil structure.

Depending on soil, site and meteorological conditions chlormequat
chloride may be transported off-site via runoff, leaching and/or
erosion.

	Overall, the major route of dissipation for chlormequat chloride
appears to be microbial degradation.  A supplemental aerobic soil
metabolism study showed that chlormequat chloride degraded with
half-lives of 30-43 days in two sandy loam and two silt loam soils (MRID
46715225).  In the study, up to 43.7% and 10.7% of the applied
radioactivity in the soil extracts was unaccounted for in two soils.  No
attempt was made to identify these transformation products and it is not
known whether or not the residues consisted of one or more components.
Consequently, all transformation products detected at >10% of the
applied may not have been identified.  Using a total residue approach
that assumes all uncharacterized extractable residues are of equal
toxicity to chlormequat chloride results in half-lives of 32 – 132
days.  A supplemental aerobic aquatic metabolism study showed that
chlormequat chloride degraded with total system half-lives of 5-9 days
in a river water-sandy loam sediment and pond water-silt loam sediment
system (MRID 46715227).  There were no available acceptable data for
degradation of chlormequat chloride by hydrolysis or photolysis.
Comparison to DDAC data, however, suggests that chlormequat chloride may
be hydrolytically and photolytically stable (MRID 411758-01, 411758-02).
 There are also no data for chlormequat chloride under anaerobic
conditions.  DDAC has, however, been shown to be persistent under
anaerobic conditions (MRID 422538-02).  Table 3 summarizes the
registrant-submitted environmental fate and transport properties of
chlormequat chloride.

	Major degradates (excluding CO2) were not identified in the available
metabolism studies.  In the aerobic aquatic metabolism study, an
unidentified polar compound reached a maximum of 4.8 and 13.4 % in the
total systems.  Choline-chloride was also detected in the aerobic
aquatic metabolism study at a maximum of 2.0 and 5.5% in the total
systems.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 3.  Summary of environmental chemistry and
fate properties of chlormequat chloride  tc "Table 7  Summary of
Environmental Chemistry and Fate Properties of Flurprimidol " \f D

Parameter	Value	Reference/Comments

Selected Physical/Chemical Parameters

PC code	018101

	CAS No.	999-81-5

	Physical state	Liquid	Product chemistry

Chemical name	2-chloro-N,N,N-trimethylethylethanammonium chloride salt
Product chemistry

Chemical formula	C5H13Cl2N	Product chemistry

Molecular weight	158.1 g/mol	Product chemistry

Water solubility	106 mg/L	Product chemistry

Density	1.14 g/mL	Product chemistry

Boiling point	Not reported	Product chemistry

Vapor pressure (20 °C)	7.5 x 10-8 mm Hg	Product chemistry

log KOW	2.51	Product chemistry

Persistence

Hydrolysis t1/2

	pH 5

	pH 7

	pH 9	No data	Likely stable per comparison to DDAC (MRID 411758-01)

Photolysis t1/2in water	No data	Likely stable per comparison to DDAC
(MRID 411758-02)

Photolysis t1/2 in soil	No data	Likely stable per comparison to DDAC
(MRID 411758-02)

Soil metabolism aerobic t1/2

[Total residues]1	43.4, 29.7, 31.5, 43.0 d

[43.4, 32.9, 36.3, 132.3 d]	MRID 46715225

Soil metabolism anaerobic t1/2	No data	Likely stable per comparison to
DDAC (MRID 422538-02)

Aquatic metabolism aerobic t1/2	4.9, 8.7 d	MRID 46715227

Aquatic metabolism anaerobic t1/2	No data	Likely stable per comparison
to DDAC (MRID 422538-02)

Mobility

Batch equilibrium 	Soil Type	Kf2	1/N	Koc3	MRIDs 46715228, 46715229

	Loamy sand	1.25	0.511	55

Sandy loam	4.57	0.691	291

Silt loam	1.13	0.702	81

Sand	1.73	0.543	93

Sandy loam	2.14	0.768	89

Loam	9.12	0.849	912

Silt loam	8.08	0.955	385

Column leaching – aged residues	0.3-0.5 % applied radioactivity in
leachate after 48 hours of leaching with 4 pore volumes of 0.01 M CaCl2
in a loamy sand soil;

2.5% of applied radioactivity in leachate following 45 days of leaching
with 0.5 acre-inches of distilled water daily in a clay loam soil;
MRIDs 46715230, 124061

Column leaching - unaged	< 0.1 % of applied radioactivity in leachate
after leaching with 20 acre-inches of distilled water at a rate < 1
inch/hr in a sand, sandy loam, silt loam and clay loam soil.	MRID 124062

Laboratory volatility	NA

	Field Dissipation

Terrestrial field dissipation	No data

	Aquatic field dissipation	NA

	Bioaccumulation

Accumulation in fish, BCF	No data

	1. Total residue approach assumes uncharacterized extractable residues
are of similar toxicity as parent chlormequat chloride.

2. Units of (mg/kg)/(mg/L)1/N, where 1/N is the Freundlich exponent.

3. Approximation calculated from the Freundlich coefficient, per
standard EFED guidance.

Drinking Water Exposure Modeling

	Tier 1 modeling was used to estimate the drinking water exposure for
use in the dietary risk assessment of chlormequat chloride.  The
following is a description of the models used, the selection of the
model input parameters, and a characterization of the output from these
simulations.

Models

	Tier 1 EDWCs for surface water were generated using FIRST, dated August
5, 2001.  FIRST is a screening model designed by the Environmental Fate
and Effects Division (EFED, 2001a) of the Office of Pesticide Programs
to estimate the concentrations found in drinking water from surface
water sources for use in human health risk assessment.  As such, it
provides upper bound values on the concentrations that might be found in
drinking water due to the use of a pesticide.  FIRST is a single-event
model (one runoff event), but can account for spray drift from multiple
applications.  FIRST is hardwired to represent the Index Reservoir, a
standard water body used by the Office of Pesticide Programs to assess
drinking water exposure (Office of Pesticide Programs, 2002).  It is
based on a real reservoir, Shipman City Lake in Illinois, which is known
to be vulnerable to pesticide contamination. The single runoff event
moves a maximum of 8% of the applied pesticide into the reservoir.  This
amount can be reduced due to degradation on the field and the effects of
binding to soil in the field.  FIRST also uses a Percent Cropped Area
(PCA) factor to adjust for the area within the watershed that is planted
to the modeled crop.  A PCA of unity (the most protective) was applied
in this assessment because there is no PCA for nurseries and shadehouses
and these uses are not included in the “all agricultural land”
classification on which the default PCA of 0.87 was based.

	Tier 1 EDWCs for groundwater were generated with SCIGROW 2.3, dated
July 29, 2003 (EFED, 2001b).  SCIGROW is a regression model used as a
screening tool for ground water used as drinking water.  SCIGROW was
developed by regressing the results of Prospective Ground Water studies
against the Relative Index of Leaching Potential (RILP).  The RILP is
function of aerobic soil metabolism and the soil-water partition
coefficient.  The output of SCIGROW represents the concentrations that
might be expected in shallow unconfined aquifers under sandy soils.

Modeling Approach and Input Parameters

	Tables 4 and 5 summarize the model input parameter values used in FIRST
and SCIGROW, respectively.  These parameters were selected in accordance
with EFED’s input parameter guidance (Environmental Fate and Effects
Division, 2002).

	For the surface water and groundwater assessments, the maximum
application rate, 3.7 lb a.i./A/application, was used and the maximum
number of applications per year was assumed to be 9 (3 applications per
crop cycle and 3 crop cycles per year).  Based on registrant-submitted
data for chlormequat chloride, an aerobic soil metabolism and aerobic
aquatic metabolism half-life of 100 and 12.6 d (the upper 90th
percentile confidence bound on the mean) was used for surface water
modeling with FIRST.  It was assumed that chlormequat chloride was
stable to photolysis.   For groundwater modeling with SCIGROW, the
median of the four values, 39.9 d, was used as the aerobic soil
metabolism input.  The soil-water partitioning coefficient used in FIRST
and SCIGROW was 1.1 ml/g and 55 ml/goc, respectively, the lowest
non-sand Kd/Koc of seven values.  The lowest Koc value was used in
SCIGROW because there was greater than 3-fold variability in the
available data.

Table 4. FIRST (v 1.0) input parameter values for chlormequat chloride
applied by ground boom spray

Parameter	Value	Source	Comments

Application Rate (lb a.i./A)	3.7	EPA Reg. No. 241-74

	Number of Applications	9	EPA Reg. No. 241-74

	Interval between Applications (d)	5	EPA Reg. No. 241-74

	Soil Partitioning Coefficient (Kd; ml/g)	1.1	MRIDs 46715228, 46715229
lowest non-sand value

Aerobic Soil Metabolism t1/2 (d)	100	MRID 46715225	90th percentile upper
confidence bound on the mean (43.4, 32.9, 36.3, 132.3 d) based on total
residues1

Wetted in?	No	foliar applied

	Depth of Incorporation (inches)	0	foliar applied

	Method of Application	ground spray	EPA Reg. No. 241-74

	Percent Cropped Area 	1	Most protective	No PCA for nurseries

Solubility in Water (mg/L)	106	Product chemistry data

	Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism t1/2 (d)	12.6	MRID 46715227 	90th percentile
upper confidence bound on the mean (4.9, 8.7 d)

Aquatic Photolysis t1/2 (d)	0	--	Assumed stable to photolysis (no data)

		1. Total residue approach assumes all unidentified extractable
residues are of similar toxicity to parent chlormequat chloride.

Table 5.  SCIGROW 2.3 input parameter values for chlormequat chloride
applied by ground boom.

Parameter	Value	Source	Comments

Maximum Application Rate (lb a.i./A/application)	3.7	EPA Reg. No. 241-74

	Maximum Number of Applications per Year	9	EPA Reg. No. 241-74

	Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days)	39.9	MRID 46715225 	median
values (43.4, 32.9, 36.3, 132.3 d) based on total residues1

Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (Koc, ml/goc)	55	MRID 46715228,
46715229 	lowest value; > 3-fold variability in Koc data

1. Total residue approach assumes all unidentified extractable residues
are of similar toxicity to parent chlormequat chloride.

Modeling Results

	The FIRST and SCI-GROW output files are located in Appendix A.  Based
on the results of these simulations, EFED recommends an acute surface
water EDWC of 2574 µg/L and a chronic EDWC of 91 µg/L for use in the
human health risk assessment.  These recommendations are based on the
use of chlormequat chloride to ornamentals in nurseries or shadehouses
at an annual application rate of 33.3 lb a.i./A/year.  The recommended
EWDC for groundwater is 23.6 µg/L and is also based on the use of
chlormequat chloride to ornamentals in shadehouses and nurseries at the
previously stated rate.

Monitoring Data

	There were no national-scale monitoring data available for this
assessment.

Drinking Water Treatment

There is no available information on the drinking water treatment
effects on chlormequat chloride.

conclusions

	The estimated concentrations provided in this assessment were generated
from Tier 1 models and are conservative estimates of chlormequat
chloride concentrations in untreated drinking water.  Major sources of
uncertainty include the inadequate identification of degradates in the
metabolism studies, assumptions regarding application intervals, the
appropriate PCA for nursery/shadehouse ornamentals, and the
applicability of the standard Tier 1 models to the nursery/shadehouse
use.

	In the aerobic soil and aerobic aquatic metabolism studies all
transformation products greater than 10% of the applied may not have
been identified.  A total residue approach, which conservatively assumed
that all unidentified extractable residues are of similar toxicity to
parent chlormequat chloride, was used for modeling.

	The application interval was assumed to be 5 days (which is the minimum
permitted by the label) for all 9 applications.  Since there are only 3
allowed applications per crop cycle, it is likely that the interval
between applications of subsequent crop cycles will be greater than 5
days, and thus the 5-day interval was likely a protective assumption.
Also, since there is no standard PCA for nurseries/shadehouses, this
assessment is based on the assumption that an entire 178-ha watershed
consists of containerized nursery/shadehouse ornamentals all of which
are treated simultaneously with chlormequat chloride, again a likely
conservative assumption.  Finally, the standard Tier 1 models used in
this assessment were developed to simulate pesticide applications in
open agricultural fields and not specifically for containerized
ornamentals in nurseries/shadehouses.  The impact of rainfall and
corresponding pesticide transport is likely dampened due to the use of
containers and/or shade covers relative to open agricultural fields,
which also leads to a protective assessment.

	If dietary risks require refinement, higher tiered models and modeling
scenarios can be utilized upon request.

Appendix A:   Input/Output Modeling Files

FIRST File

RUN No.   1 FOR chlormequat chlo ON   nurseries     * INPUT VALUES *

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

   RATE (#/AC)   No.APPS &   SOIL  SOLUBIL   APPL TYPE  %CROPPED INCORP

    ONE(MULT)    INTERVAL     Kd   (PPM )    (%DRIFT)     AREA    (IN)

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

  3.700( 29.106)   9   5       1.1*******   GROUND( 6.4) 100.0      .0

   FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

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

   METABOLIC  DAYS UNTIL  HYDROLYSIS   PHOTOLYSIS   METABOLIC  COMBINED

    (FIELD)  RAIN/RUNOFF  (RESERVOIR)  (RES.-EFF)   (RESER.)   (RESER.)

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

    100.00        2          N/A       .00-     .00    12.60     12.60

   UNTREATED WATER CONC (MILLIGRAMS/LITER (PPM)) Ver 1.1.0 DEC 12, 2005

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

        PEAK DAY  (ACUTE)      ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC)

          CONCENTRATION             CONCENTRATION

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

              2.574                       .091

SCIGROW File

                          SCIGROW

                          VERSION 2.3

            ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION

                 OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

             U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                        SCREENING MODEL

                FOR AQUATIC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE

 SciGrow version 2.3

 chemical:chormequat chloride

 time is  3/ 9/2007  12:43:57

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

  Application      Number of       Total Use    Koc      Soil Aerobic

  rate (lb/acre)  applications   (lb/acre/yr)  (ml/g)   metabolism
(days)

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

      3.700           9.0          33.300      5.50E+01       39.9

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

 groundwater screening cond (ppb) =   2.36E+01

 ***********************************************************************
*

References

Environmental Fate and Effects Division.  2001a.  FIRST (F)IFRA (I)ndex
(R)eservoir (S)creening (T)ool. Tier 1 Model for Drinking Water
Exposure: User's Manual.     HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/first_users_manual.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/first_users_manual.htm

Environmental Fate and Effects Division.  2001b.  SCI-GROW - (S)creening
(C)oncentration (I)n (GRO)und (W)ater: User's Manual.     HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/scigrow_users_manual.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/scigrow_users_manual.htm

Environmental Fate and Effects Division.  2002.  Guidance for Selecting
Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of
Pesticides, Version II. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C.      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/"
http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models water/input_guidance2_28_02.htm/

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2000.  Part A. Guidance for Use of the
Index Reservoir in Drinking Water Assessments.     HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/reservoir.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/reservoir.pdf

  PAGE

  PAGE

  PAGE   2

  PAGE   3

  PAGE   4


innovative environmental solutions, inc.

MEMORANDUM

Date:	July 27, 2011

To:	Lisa Beal, INGAA

From:	Jim McCarthy and Jeff Panek, IES Inc.

Re:	Concentration versus distance profiles from reciprocating internal
combustion engines – Dispersion modeling results for two example
engines from previous INGAA modeling.

Emission impacts from reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE)
have been discussed in conjunction with ongoing negotiations regarding
the RICE NESHAP, 40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ.  In a recent conference call,
it was noted that RICE dispersion modeling could be used to show
concentration degradation versus distance plots for example RICE.  In
the call, it was noted that previously completed modeling may be
available to demonstrate how modeled ground-level impacts decrease with
distance from the stack.  The concentration versus distance plots could
thus support approaches being discussed for establishing a distance
criterion for RICE located in sparsely populated areas.

IES completed dispersion modeling for INGAA in 2002 and early 2003
during development of the original RICE NESHAP.  That rule was proposed
in December 2002 and promulgated in June 2004.  Although the rule was a
technology-based standard, modeling was conducted to understand the
range of modeled impacts from example engines to support comments on the
proposed rule and discussion associated with the Industrial Combustion
Coordinated Rulemaking process.  Modeling was completed for two example
reciprocating engines, and the effect of stack height on modeled impacts
was assessed.  Dispersion modeling was completed using ISC3, the
preferred EPA model at that time.  Assumptions associated with the two
examples are:

Example engine #1 – Natural gas-fired lean burn engine

800 hp capacity (modeling based on full load operation)

30% efficiency (i.e., 8,470 Btu/hp-hr heat rate based on lower heating
value)

8% oxygen in the exhaust (i.e., commensurate with 4-stroke lean burn
engine)

700 oF exhaust temperature

15 inch stack diameter

18 ft stack height (“baseline” – a range of stack heights were
investigated)

Exhaust velocity based on the above parameters of 51.1 ft/sec

Example engine #2 – Natural gas-fired rich burn engine

1,000 hp capacity (modeling based on full load operation)

27% efficiency (i.e., 9,400 Btu/hp-hr heat rate based on lower heating
value)

0.5% oxygen in the exhaust (i.e., commensurate with 4-stroke rich burn
engine)

1,000 oF exhaust temperature

12 inch stack diameter

12 ft stack height (“baseline” – a range of stack heights were
investigated)

Associated exhaust velocity based on the above parameters of 91.5 ft/sec

The concentration versus distance plots for the two example engines are
presented in two figures below.  The concentration plotted is the
maximum modeled 1-hour average concentration associated with RICE
emissions.  These graphs were developed in the 2002 – 2003 timeframe
and were not created for this memo (e.g., not updated using AERMOD, the
currently preferred model).  The range of stack heights shown were
modeled to assess the effect of stack height, and the taller heights
modeled are not indicative of actual installations or stacks that could
actually be installed.  Flat terrain was assumed for the modeling runs.

Modeling was conducted using a “unitized” emission rate of one gram
per second.  Pollutant-specific impacts can easily be scaled based on
proportionality to the unitized emission rate. Thus, the modeled impact
(shown on the y-axis) is not based on any particular exhaust pollutant.
This is a standard approach for dispersion modeling when pollutant
in-plume reactions are not assumed – i.e., the exhaust species does
not change from the stack to the point of impact – because it
eliminates the need for multiple, pollutant specific model runs.  In
contrast, this approach would not be appropriate for modeling NOx
impacts when NO to NO2 conversion reactions are assumed as the plume
disperses downwind.  When applying a unitized emission rates for
modeling, impacts for an array of pollutants can be assessed by scaling
the modeled impact based on the actual emission rate for the
pollutant(s) of interest, as compared to the unitized rate.  Actual RICE
hazardous air pollutant emission rates are much lower than 1 g/s.  Thus,
the scale on the y-axis is not shown in the figures below because it is
not relevant – i.e., the plots are intended to demonstrate how
emission impacts degrade with distance rather than assess the impact for
comparison to a threshold level.

The first figure shows concentration versus distance plots for the
example lean burn engine.  The second figure presents the rich burn
engine results. The RICE NESHAP discussions have considered different
distances. When interpreting downwind impacts with distance on the
x-axis in the figures below, 402 meters is equivalent to a quarter mile
(i.e., the impact at 400 meters is indicative of a ¼ mile radius).

As expected, both figures show that increasing the stack height can
significantly reduce the maximum modeled impact by minimizing or
eliminating the effects of structure-related downwash.  More
importantly, for the recent RICE NESHAP discussions, the distance plots
show that higher modeled impacts (associated with shorter stacks)
decrease rapidly with distance and the results converge over a
relatively short distance.

For the example lean burn engine, maximum model predicted impacts from
all stack heights investigated occurred at a distance of less than 50
meters (equivalent to 164 feet, 55 yards and 1/32nd of a mile).   At a
distance of 100 meters (equivalent to 328 feet, 109 yards and 1/16th of
a mile), higher impacts (from shorter stacks) are greatly diminished and
at a distance of 150 meters (492 feet, 164 yards, just under 1/10th of a
mile) the impacts are minimal and indistinguishable for the broad range
of stack heights modeled.

For the example rich burn engine, the maximum impacts from all stack
heights investigated are predicted to occur at a distance less than 130
meters (equivalent to 427 feet, 142 yards and 1/12th of a mile)
primarily attributable to building “downwash”.  At 200 meters (656
feet, 2190 yards and 1/8th of a mile), the higher impacts from shorter
stacks are greatly diminished and modeled impacts for various stack
heights converge.  At 400 meters (1312 feet, 437 yards, ¼ mile) the
impacts are minimal and indistinguishable for the broad range of stack
heights modeled.

The figures demonstrate the dispersion and rapid decrease in
concentration with distance from “typical” engines, and support the
use of a distance criterion on the order of ¼ mile or less.

  PAGE  3


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 44088]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17819]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Sixty-Fourth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 135, Environmental
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment

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

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 135, Environmental
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Sixty-Fourth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 135, Environmental
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment.

DATES: The meeting will be held October 7-9 2014 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. on October 7 and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on October 8-9.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA 1150 18th Street NW., Suite
450, Washington DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330-
0652/(202) 833-9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or Sophie Bousquet<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-330-0663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 135. The agenda will
include the following:

October 7-9

     Chairmen's Opening Remarks, Introductions.
     Approval of Summary from the Sixty-Third Meeting--(RTCA
Paper No. 123-14/SC135-698).
     Review FRAC Responses and Release the final document for
the PMC and TAC
     Review Revised Terms of Reference.
     Review DO-160G/ED 14G Errata Sheet
     New/Unfinished Business.
     Establish date/locations for Next SC-135 Meetings.
     Closing and Adjourn
    Coordination with EUROCAE WG-14 in Paris will be held by WebEx on
October 7 morning 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. (EDT), October 8-9 morning 8:00
a.m.-12:00 p.m. (EDT). It is focused on item 3 and 5 but may be
expended as far as practicable.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 18 2014.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-17819 Filed 7-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 189 (Wednesday, September 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58637-58640]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24870]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0570; FRL-9934-43-Region 9]

Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and
particulate matter (PM) from wood burning devices. We are proposing to
approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and
plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0570, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and the EPA will
not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in
the body of your comment. If you send email directly to the EPA, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the public comment. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
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.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4118<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board.

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title               Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..........................            4901  Wood Burning Fireplaces and         09/18/14        11/06/14
                                                     Wood Burning Heaters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 18, 2014, the EPA determined that the submittal for
SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 4901 into the SIP on October
11, 2009 (74 FR 57907). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on September 18, 2014 and CARB submitted them to us on
November 6, 2014. While we can act on only the most recently submitted
version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone, smog and PM, which harm human
health and the environment. NOX helps produce ground-level
ozone, smog and PM, which harm human health and the environment. PM,
including PM equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter
(PM2.5) and PM equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter
(PM10), contributes to effects that are harmful to human
health and the environment, including premature mortality, aggravation
of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function,
visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section
110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control
VOC, NOX, and PM emissions.
    Rule 4901 is designed to limit emissions of these pollutants
generated by the use of wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heaters,
and outdoor wood burning devices. The rule establishes requirements for
the sale/transfer, operation, and installation of wood burning devices
and on the advertising of wood for sale intended for burning in a wood
burning fireplace, wood burning heater, or outdoor wood burning device
within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (San Joaquin Valley).
    The SIP-approved rule was modified to replace the existing episodic
curtailment requirement, which required declaration of a mandatory wood
burning curtailment day whenever the PM2.5 concentration was
forecasted to be greater than or equal to 30 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) or the PM10 concentration was forecasted to
be greater than or equal to 135 [micro]g/m\3\, with a new two-tiered
curtailment program. During a Level One Episodic Wood Burning
Curtailment, which is triggered when the PM2.5 concentration
is forecasted to be between 20-65 [micro]g/m\3\, operation of wood
burning fireplaces and unregistered wood burning heaters is prohibited,
but properly operated, wood burning heaters that meet certification
requirements and have a current registration with the District may be
used. Specific certification and registration requirements are outlined
in the rule. During a Level Two Episodic Wood Burning Curtailment,
which is triggered when the PM2.5 concentration is
forecasted to be above 65 [micro]g/m\3\ or the PM10
concentration is forecasted to be above 135 [micro]g/m\3\, operation of
any wood burning device is prohibited.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Locations where natural gas service is not available or
where a wood burning device is the sole source of heat in a
residence are exempt from both levels of curtailment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two-tiered curtailment program also replaces a contingency
measure provision which would have been implemented in the event that
the EPA finalized a rulemaking finding San Joaquin Valley had failed to
attain the 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) by the applicable deadline. The provision would have required a
ban on the operation of all wood burning devices when the
PM2.5 concentration was predicted to be greater than or
equal to 20 [micro]g/m\3\ or the PM10 concentration was
predicted to be greater than or equal to 135 [micro]g/m\3\.
    Additionally, the revised rule adds outdoor wood burning heaters to
the applicability paragraph, explicitly references to the New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) for New Residential Wood Heaters (40 CFR
part 60, subpart AAA) to assure compliance with the latest Federal
requirements, and includes other editorial revisions to improve rule
clarity.
    The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information
about this rule.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater

emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
    The San Joaquin Valley is currently designated and classified as an
extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment area and an extreme 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area under both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone standards
(40 CFR 81.305). CAA section 172(c)(1) requires ozone nonattainment
areas to implement all reasonably available control measures (RACM),
including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the
area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology (RACT), as expeditiously as
practicable. Therefore, SJVUAPCD must implement RACM for ozone
precursors. While our stringency discussion below focuses on PM
emissions, we are not aware of reasonably available controls for these
sources for ozone precursors that are not also reasonably available
controls for PM. In addition, because residential wood burning takes
place in the winter months when ozone concentrations are lower and the
probability of exceeding the ozone NAAQS is low, we do not believe it
is necessary to assess RACM/RACT for ozone and its precursors
independently from our assessment of RACM/RACT for PM.
    San Joaquin Valley is designated and classified as a moderate
nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard (40
CFR 81.305). CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) require moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment areas to implement RACM and RACT as
expeditiously as practicable. Therefore, SJVUAPCD must implement RACM,
including RACT, for PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors.
    San Joaquin Valley is designated and classified as a serious
nonattainment area for the 1997 annual and 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 standards (40 CFR 81.305). CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)
requires serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas to implement best
available control measures (BACM), including best available control
technology (BACT), within 4 years after reclassification of the area to
serious. Therefore, SJVUAPCD must implement BACM, including BACT, for
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors.
    San Joaquin Valley is currently designated attainment for
PM10 (40 CFR 81.305). Accordingly, SJVUAPCD is not required
to implement RACM/RACT or BACM/BACT for PM10 and
PM10 precursors. Therefore, we are not evaluating Rule 4901
for compliance with RACM or BACM requirements for PM10.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
3. ``Restatement to Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs'',
80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015.
4. ``Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke'', EPA-456/B-13-
001, March 2013.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with CAA requirements and
relevant guidance regarding enforceability, SIP revisions, and RACM/
RACT and BACM/BACT.
    The rule requirements and applicability are clear, and the
monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and other provisions sufficiently
ensure that affected sources and regulators can evaluate and determine
compliance with Rule 4901 consistently. Additionally, Rule 4901
includes several provisions that together provide continuous control of
PM emissions consistent with the CAA and EPA guidance on start-up,
shut-down, and malfunction, including an episodic curtailment program,
certification and registration requirements, restrictions concerning
materials that can be burned, and a limit on visible emissions from
residential chimneys.
    The District estimates that the new tiered curtailment program
described in Rule 4901, Paragraph 5.6, would reduce average winter
burning season emissions by 3.27 tons per day (tpd) PM2.5
and would reduce annual average emissions by 1.09 tpd PM2.5,
when compared to the current SIP-approved version of Rule 4901. The
District states that allowing registered devices to operate on
additional days (i.e., during Level One Curtailment days) and
subsidizing change-outs for cleaner burning devices would provide
significant incentive for residents to transition from higher polluting
devices and result in additional emission reductions beyond 3.27 tpd
PM2.5.
    We propose to determine that our approval of the submittal would
comply with CAA section 110(l), because the proposed SIP revision would
not interfere with the on-going process for ensuring that requirements
for RFP and attainment are met and the submitted SIP revision is at
least as stringent as the rule previously approved into the SIP. CAA
section 193 does not apply to this action because the submitted SIP
revision does not weaken any SIP control requirement in effect before
November 15, 1990.
    We assess whether Rule 4901 implements BACM/BACT for
PM2.5,\2\ by using an analysis provided by the District and
comparing provisions found in Rule 4901 with the EPA document
``Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke'', EPA-456/B-13-001,
March 2013 and current State and District wood burning rules. This
evaluation is described in the TSD. Based on this evaluation, we
believe the September 18, 2014 version of Rule 4901 implements BACM/
BACT for wood burning devices in the San Joaquin Valley considering
technological and economic feasibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Because RACM/RACT represents a less stringent level of
control than BACM/BACT, we have not separately evaluated the rule
with respect to RACM/RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rule but are not currently
the basis for rule disapproval.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this
proposal until October 30, 2015. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the SJVUAPCD rule described in Table 1 of this notice. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available
electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the
appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for
more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the

provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C.
7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's
role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes
to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 14, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-24870 Filed 9-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 60012]
[DOCID:fr23oc07-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Meeting, Notice of Vote, Explanation of Action Closing
Meeting and List of Persons To Attend

October 18, 2007.
    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to Section
3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94-409), 5
U.S.C. 552b:

Agency Holding Meeting:  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Date and Time:  October 25, 2007. 10 a.m.

Place:  Room 2C, Commission Meeting Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Non-Public, Investigations and Inquiries,
Enforcement Related Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Chairman Kelliher and Commissioners Kelly, Spitzer, Moeller, and
Wellinghoff voted to hold a closed meeting on October 25, 2007. The
certification of the General Counsel explaining the action closing the
meeting is available for public inspection in the Commission's Public
Reference Room at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Chairman and the Commissioners, their assistants, the
Commission's Secretary, the General Counsel and members of her staff,
and a stenographer are expected to attend the meeting. Other staff
members from the Commission's program offices who will advise the
Commissioners in the matters discussed will also be present.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-20869 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 39988]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17849]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL17-52-000]

Republic Transmission, LLC; Notice of Update to the Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on August 15, 2017, Republic Transmission, LLC
(Republic) filed an update to its March 22, 2017 Petition for
Declaratory Order for Incentive Rate Treatment, as more fully explained
in the update to its petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice
of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on August 22, 2017.

    Dated: August 17, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17849 Filed 8-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34999]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15785]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1442-001.
    Applicants: Citizens Sycamore-Penasquitos Transmission.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Deficiency Letter to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/18/18.
    Accession Number: 20180718-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1777-001.
    Applicants: Meadowlark Wind I LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Market-based Rate
Filing to be effective 8/12/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180717-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2028-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to revisions to OATT Sch
12--Appx A (Dominion) re: b2373 to be effective 6/14/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/18/18.
    Accession Number: 20180718-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2031-000.
    Applicants: HUDSON SHORE ENERGY PARTNERS LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application For Market Based
Rate to be effective 7/18/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180717-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2032-000.
    Applicants: Wildcat Ranch Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Wildcat Ranch Wind Project,
LLC Application for MBR Authority to be effective 10/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180717-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2033-000.
    Applicants: Saavi Energy Solutions, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Succession to
Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 7/18/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180717-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2034-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-07-17 Congestion
Revenue Rights Auction Efficiency Track 1B Amendment to be effective 9/
24/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180717-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2035-000.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Amended and
Restated Service Agreement to be effective 9/17/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180717-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF18-1654-000.
    Applicants: Sappi Cloquet LLC.
    Description: Form 556 of Sappi Cloquet LLC [TG5].
    Filed Date: 7/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180717-5169.
    Comments Due: Non-Applicable.

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

    Dated: July 18, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15785 Filed 7-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P