[Federal Register: March 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 49)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13129-13131]
[DOCID:fr12mr08-29]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0195]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Waters Surrounding U.S. Forces Vessel SBX-1, HI

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent security zone
around the U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 during transits within the Honolulu
Captain of the Port Zone. This zone is necessary to protect the SBX-1
from threats associated with vessels and persons approaching too close
during transit. Entry of persons or vessels into this security zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP).

DATES: This rule is effective April 11, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2007-0195 and are available online at
www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: The 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, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Honolulu, 400 Sand Island Parkway, Honolulu, Hawaii 96819-
4398 between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Jasmin
Parker, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On January 7, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Security Zone; Waters Surrounding U.S. Forces Vessel
SBX-1, HI in the Federal Register (73 FR 1133).

We received one letter commenting on the proposed rule. No public
meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 will enter the Honolulu Captain of the
Port Zone and transit to Pearl Harbor, HI for maintenance at least once
each year. The SBX-1 is easy to recognize because it contains a large
white object shaped like an egg supported by a platform that is larger
than a football field. The platform in turn is supported by six pillars
similar to those on large oil-drilling platforms.
    The Coast Guard's reaction to such transits thus far has been to
await a final voyage plan and then establish a security zone using a
temporary final rule applicable to that particular voyage. Such action
diminished the public's opportunity for formal comment and imposed a
pressing administrative burden each time the SBX-1 arrived. This
permanent SBX-1 security zone affords the public consistent regulation
regarding the SBX-1 and promotes relief from the emergency rulemakings
currently necessary to protect each transit.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received one comment regarding this proposed rule
through www.regulations.gov. The commenter wrote that the size of the
security zone seems to be excessive, and that it may interfere with the
transit of recreational boaters. This person suggested that those who
approach the SBX-1 may be doing so just to get a better look at it. The
commenter also asked whether the Coast Guard conducted a study to
determine SBX-1's protection needs.
    Coast Guard's Response: While the zone is large, it is the same
size as Naval vessel protective zones. That comparison determined the
size of the zone; no further study was conducted for this particular
vessel. The SBX-1's transits are infrequent, so the size of the
security zone typically will not affect normal recreational boating
traffic. We have considered reducing the zone but determined that
reduction would present an unacceptable level of risk. Additionally, we
have determined that the need to provide an adequate security buffer
for the vessel outweighs the public's interest in a better view of it.

Discussion of Rule

    This security zone is established permanently. It is automatically
activated, meaning it is subject to enforcement, whenever the U.S.
Forces vessel SBX-1 is in U.S. navigable waters within the Honolulu
COTP Zone (see 33 CFR 3.70-10). The security zone includes all waters
extending 500 yards in all directions from the SBX-1, from the surface
of the water to the ocean floor.
    The security zone moves with the SBX-1 while it is in transit. The
zone becomes fixed around the SBX-1 while it is anchored, position-
keeping, or moored, and it remains activated until the SBX-1 either
departs U.S. navigable waters within the Honolulu COTP zone or enters
the Honolulu Naval Defensive Sea Area established by Executive Order
8987 (6 FR 6675, December 24, 1941). The COTP will notify the public of
the enforcement of the zone through a broadcast notice to mariners.
    The general regulations governing security zones contained in 33
CFR 165.33 apply. Entry into, transit through, or anchoring within the
zone while it is activated and enforced is prohibited unless authorized
by the COTP or a designated representative thereof. Any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other COTP
representative permitted by law, is authorized to enforce the zone. The
COTP may waive any of the requirements of this rule for any person,
vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that application of the
security zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime
security. Vessels or persons violating this rule would be subject to
the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This expectation is based on
the limited duration of the zone, the constricted geographic area
affected by it, and its ability to move with the protected vessel.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We expect that there will be little or no impact to small
entities due to the narrowly tailored scope of this security zone.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small
businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who
enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and
the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman
evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness
to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of
the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such

an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation because it is a security zone. A final
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final ``Categorical
Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. A new Sec.  165.1411 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1411  Security zone; waters surrounding U.S. Forces vessel
SBX-1, HI.

    (a) Location. The following area, in U.S. navigable waters within
the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone (see 33 CFR 3.70-10), from the
surface of the water to the ocean floor, is a security zone: All waters
extending 500 yards in all directions from U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1.
The security zone moves with the SBX-1 while it is in transit and
becomes fixed when the SBX-1 is anchored, position-keeping, or moored.
    (b) Regulations. The general regulations governing security zones
contained in 33 CFR 165.33 apply. Entry into, transit through, or
anchoring within this zone while it is activated, and thus subject to
enforcement, is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
or a designated representative thereof.
    (c) Suspension of Enforcement. The Coast Guard will suspend
enforcement of the security zone described in this section whenever the
SBX-1 is within the Honolulu Defensive Sea Area (see 6 FR 6675).
    (d) Informational notice. The Captain of the Port of Honolulu will
cause notice of the enforcement of the security zone described in this
section to be made by broadcast notice to mariners. The SBX-1 is easy
to recognize because it contains a large white object shaped like an
egg supported by a platform that is larger than a football field. The
platform in turn is supported by six pillars similar to those on large
oil-drilling platforms.
    (e) Authority to enforce. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or
petty officer, and any other Captain of the Port representative
permitted by law, may enforce the security zone described in this
section.
    (f) Waiver. The Captain of the Port may waive any of the
requirements of this rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel
upon finding that application of the security zone is unnecessary or
impractical for the purpose of maritime security.
    (g) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: March 3, 2008.
Barry A. Compagnoni,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Honolulu.
[FR Doc. E8-4946 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: July 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 38799-38800]
[DOCID:fr06jy10-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-459-000]

ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Application

June 25, 2010.
    Take notice that on June 15, 2010, ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC (ETC
Tiger), 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 900, Houston, Texas 77002, filed an
application in Docket No. CP10-459-000 pursuant to section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157, Subpart A of the Commission's
regulations requesting: (1) Authorization to construct, own, operate
and maintain approximately 20.5 miles of 42-inch diameter natural gas
pipeline and 30,565 horsepower of compression located in Louisiana
capable of transporting up to 400,000 Mcf/day (Expansion Project); (2)
a pre-determination of rolled-in rate treatment for the costs
associated with the Expansion Project; and (3) approval of incremental
fuel charges for transportation service provided by the proposed
facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on
file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
    Any questions regarding the applications should be directed to Joey
Mahmoud, Vice President, Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., 711 Louisiana
Street, Suite 900, Houston, Texas 77002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Lisa M. Tonery, Fulbright &
Jaworski L.L.P., 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10103, 212-318-
3009<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit

14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to
the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties
to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: July 16, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16282 Filed 7-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

                     Issued by the Department of Transportation on July
21, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-21321

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant: COMPANIA MEXICANA de AVIACION, S.A. de C.V. (Mexicana)		Date
Filed: May 23, 2005

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to permit the
applicant to conduct scheduled foreign air transportation of persons,
property and mail between Queretaro, Mexico, and Los Angeles,
California.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New Authority.

Applicant representative:  Charles F. Donley II,<PHONE_NUMBER>  	DOT
analyst:  George Wellington,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
                                          Action date:  July 21, 2005

Effective dates of authority granted:  July 21, 2005, through July 21,
2006.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations of our standard exemption conditions
(attached) and to the otherwise applicable terms, conditions, and
limitations of Mexicana’s foreign air carrier permit (Order 78-6-127).

Special conditions/Remarks: None.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director, Office of International
Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

FOREIGN CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
                              ATTACHMENT

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

1) Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

2) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

3) Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage contained
in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any operations
under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the form of a
completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation Administration’s
Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards Service (any
changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be filed with that
office);

4) Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

5) Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

6) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

7) Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: a) based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or b) based on
a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term “international air transportation” means “international
transportation” as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

8) Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

9) Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department’s
rules governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations
required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department,
with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S. agencies and
courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 05/2004


\* MERGEFORMAT
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                                                      OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND
                                                     POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

DATE: 	08/27/2013

SUBJECT:	Indoxacarb:  Residential Exposure and Aggregate Human-Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Amendment for Indoor Uses of Arilon (EPA reg. No 100-1501) Label.

PC Code:  067710
DP Barcode:  D413735
Decision No.:   481544
Registration No.: EPA Reg. No. 100-1501
Petition No.:
Regulatory Action: Label Amendment/Section 3
Risk Assessment Type Single Chemical Aggregate
Case No.:  NA
TXR No.:  NA
CAS No.: 173584-44-6
MRID Nos.:  NA
40 CFR: §180.564

FROM:	Ana Rivera-Lupiáñez, Chemist
			Risk Assessment Branch V
			Health Effects Division (7509P)

	THROUGH: 	Danette Drew, Chemist
			Kelly Lowe, Environmental Scientist
			Michael Metzger, Branch Chief
		Risk Assessment Branch V
		Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		Jennifer Urbanski/John Hebert, Risk Manager
	Registration Division (7505P)

1.0    Executive Summary

Indoxacarb, (S)-methyl 7-chloro-2,5-dihydro-2-[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl] amino]carbonyl]indeno[1,2-e][1,3,4]oxadiazine-4a(3H)-carboxylate, a reduced risk pesticide, is an oxadiazine class insecticide active ingredient (ai).  It is formulated as granular, impregnated materials, water dispersible granules, emulsifiable, flowable, soluble concentrates, and solution-ready-to-use. Indoxacarb formulations can be used by homeowners and by commercial applicators in agricultural and non-agricultural use sites.

THE LAST HUMAN-Health Risk Assessment for indoxacarb (5/2/13, D402099, D. Drew, et al, Indoxacarb. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Use on Dry Beans, Succulent Beans, Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup (except kiwifruit) 13-07F and Low Growing Berry Subgroup (except strawberry) 13-07H; (PP#2E8029)) identified post-application risk estimates of concern for children (hand-to-mouth oral exposure) as a result of spot-directed treatment scenarios to indoor surfaces. The Health Effects Division (HED) recommended amending the EPA Reg. No. 100-1501 label to withdraw indoor spot treatments, and restrict indoor residential uses to only crack and crevice treatments limiting applications to areas not accessible to young children. The registrant had been notified of this and responded by submitting an amended label which, rather than restrict the use to crack and crevice only, reduced the maximum spray volume allowed to be applied for indoor spot treatments. The Registration Division (RD) requested that HED determine if this labeling language is acceptable. The residential exposure and risk estimates were also revised, as was the aggregate (residential plus dietary) assessment, for the amended indoor use.

Proposed Use Profile
Indoxacarb products are frequently formulated as a mixture of the insecticidally active S-enantiomer and the insecticidally inactive R-enantiomer.  The percentage of active ingredient and application rates listed on the product labels only reflect the S-enantiomer and not the R-enantiomer.  Adjustments are made in this assessment to add in the percent of R-enantiomer in product mixtures so that the total amount of indoxacarb (both S- and R- enantiomers) applied is accounted for as both are residues of toxicological concern.

Arilon Insecticide 20% ai (EPA Reg. No. 100-1501, a water-soluble packaging (WSP) formulation of indoxacarb (75:25 ratio of S- and R-enantiomers), is registered for insect control on households and domestic dwellings. The product registrant, Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, has submitted a proposed label amendment to the indoor surface use directions for crack and crevice and spot directed spray applications.

The original indoor application (i.e., crack and crevice and spot directed spray treatment) allowed for a maximum application rate of 0.66 oz product (dry) per gallon of water (i.e., 0.011 lb ai total isomer /gal) with a maximum application volume of 4 gallons diluted product per 1000 sq ft (equivalent to a maximum application rate of 0.00004 lb ai total isomer/ft[2]). The amended label proposes to limit the maximum volume of product used for indoor applications to 1 gallon diluted product per 1000 sq ft, equivalent to a maximum application rate of 0.00001 lb ai total isomer/ft[2].

Hazard Profile

The toxicology database for indoxacarb is complete and is sufficient for characterizing hazard.  The indoxacarb endpoints that most frequently defined the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) in laboratory animals were non-specific, and included decreases in body weight, weight gain, food consumption and food efficiency.  Indoxacarb also affected the hematopoietic system in animals by decreasing the red blood cell count, hemoglobin and hematocrit.

The FQPA safety factor (SF) for indoxacarb is reduced to 1X based on the following:  1) the hazard and exposure databases are complete; 2) there are no concerns for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity; 3) there are no residual uncertainties with regard to pre- and/or post-natal toxicity; and 4) the acute neurotoxicity (ACN), subchronic neurotoxicity (SCN) and developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) studies are available and all endpoints used in this risk assessment are protective of any neurotoxic effects.

See the 5/2013 risk assessment (D402099) for the complete details regarding the hazard characterization and selection of  toxicity endpoints and points of departure for indoxacarb.

Residential Exposure/Risk
The residential exposure and risk estimates were revised for the amended indoor use label since they will impact the aggregate (residential plus dietary exposures) assessment for indoxacarb. Dermal exposures resulting from residential uses are not quantitatively assessed as a dermal toxicity endpoint is not identified for indoxacarb. Only inhalation (adult and children) and incidental oral (children) exposures are assessed. The handler and post-application exposures for this residential use are expected to be short-term in duration.

Residential handler (adults) risk estimates result in inhalation MOEs that do not exceed HED's level of concern (i.e., MOEs >= 100) from the Arilon indoor application exposure scenarios. All adult and children post-application risk estimates from the Arilon indoor surface directed sprays scenarios (crack and crevice and spot treatments) do not exceed HED's level of concern (MOEs are  >= 100) at the proposed reduced maximum volume rate of 1 gallon diluted product per 1000 sq ft.

Aggregate Risk
The short- term aggregate (residential plus dietary food and water) risk estimates for adults and children are below HED's level of concern when considering the post-application exposure to indoor spray treated surfaces assuming a reduced volume application rate of 1 gallon diluted product per 1000 sq. ft.

2.0	Risk Assessment Conclusions and Recommendations

2.1	Summary of Risk Estimates

The residential handler scenarios assessed resulted in inhalation MOEs that do not exceed HED's level of concern (i.e., MOEs >= 100 for short-term exposure durations). All adult and children inhalation and incidental oral post-application short-term risk estimates from indoor surface directed sprays scenarios (crack and crevice and spot treatments) resulted in MOEs that do not exceed HED's level of concern (i.e., MOEs >= 100) at the proposed reduced maximum volume rate of 1 gallon diluted product per 1000 sq ft. The short- term aggregate (residential plus dietary food and water) risk estimates for adults and children are below HED's level of concern when considering residential exposures from indoor surface directed sprays (spot treatments) assuming a reduced volume application rate of 1 gallon diluted product per 1000 sq. ft.

2.2	Label Recommendations from Residential Assessment

HED recommends amending the "Application Directions" section of the Arilon label (EPA Reg. No. 100-1501) to list the maximum spray volume allowed (i.e., 1 gallon diluted product per 1000 sq ft) for all indoor application scenarios.

3.0	Residential Exposure and Risk Estimates

Both residential handler and post-application exposures have been previously assessed for the indoor uses of indoxacarb (05/01/2013, D464583, A. Rivera-Lupianez).  The residential exposures for the proposed amendment to the Arilon indoor use label are reassessed below.

Dermal exposures resulting from residential uses are not quantitatively assessed as a dermal toxicity endpoint is not identified for indoxacarb. Only inhalation and incidental oral exposures are assessed for the indoor residential uses of indoxacarb. The handler and post-application exposures for this residential use are expected to be short-term in duration. The risk estimates from residential exposures will impact the human health aggregate risk assessment for indoxacarb.
3.1	Residential Handler Exposure/Risk Estimates

HED uses the term "handlers" to describe those individuals who are involved in the pesticide application process.  HED believes that there are distinct tasks related to applications and that exposures can vary depending on the specifics of each task.  Residential handlers are addressed somewhat differently by HED as homeowners are assumed to complete all elements of an application without use of any protective equipment.

The quantitative exposure/risk assessment developed for residential handlers for the indoxacarb indoor use is based on the following scenario:

   (1) Mixing/loading/applying water-soluble packaging formulation for indoor spray applications with manually-pressurized hand wand (crack and crevice and spot directed treatments) for insect control on households/domestic dwellings.

Residential Handler Exposure Data and Assumptions
A series of assumptions and exposure factors served as the basis for completing the residential post-application risk assessment for indoxacarb. Each assumption and factor is detailed in the previous occupational and residential assessment (D464583).

Application Rate:
0.011 lb ai total isomer/gal for indoor spray applications of water-soluble packaging formulation.

Summary of Residential Handler Non-Cancer Exposure and Risk Estimates

The residential handler scenarios assessed resulted in inhalation MOEs that do not exceed HED's level of concern (i.e., MOEs >= 100 for short-term exposure durations). Table 3.1 presents a summary of the residential handler scenario assessed.

Table 3.1.  Residential Handler Short -Term Exposure and Risk Estimates for Indoxacarb Indoor Surface Treatments of Arilon 20% (KN128/KN127:75:25 Isomeric Mixture).
                               Exposure Scenario
                               Level of Concern
                           Inhalation Unit Exposure
                                  (mg/lb ai)
                          Maximum Application Rate[a]
                    Area Treated or Amount Handled Daily[b]
                                  Inhalation

                              Dose (mg/kg/day)[c]
                                    MOE[d]
                        Mixer/Loader/Applicator (M/L/A)
     Crack and Crevice and Spot-Directed Treatments (Indoor Environments)
              Arilon Insecticide 20% ai  - EPA Reg. No. 100-1501
Manually Pressurized Hand Wand (water dispersible packets)
                                      100
                                      1.1
                                0.011 lb ai/gal

                             (0.00001 lb ai/ft[2])
                                    0.5 gal
                                   0.000076
                                    80,000
a..	Based on registered label (EPA Reg. No.100-1501). Application rates = maximum application rates from label (EPA Reg. No.: 100-1501). The application rates have been adjusted by a 4/3 factor to account for 4 parts of total (S- and R-) indoxacarb for every 3 parts of S- indoxacarb.
b..Based on HED's 2012 Residential SOPs (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/residential-exposure-sop.html).
c.	Inhalation Dose = Inhalation Unit Exposure (mg/lb ai) x Application Rate (lb ai/acre or gal) x Area Treated or Amount Handled (A/day or gallons/day) / Body Weight (80 kg).
d.	Inhalation MOE = Inhalation NOAEL (6 mg/kg/day) / Inhalation Dose (mg/kg/day).
3.2	Residential Post-application Exposure/Risk Estimates from Indoor Surfaces Directed Spray Scenarios (Crack and Crevice and Spot Treatments)

Post-application exposure can result from pesticide residue transfer to the skin of individuals who contact previously treated indoor surfaces (e.g., carpets, floors, furniture, and other surfaces) during standard activities and/or who inhale pesticide vapors that emit from treated surfaces after application.  Such exposure is assumed to occur for adults and small children.  An assessment has been conducted for inhalation (adults and children 1 to < 2 years), and incidental oral (children 1 to < 2 years) exposures from the proposed amended indoor use of indoxacarb. These lifestages are not the only lifestages that could be potentially exposed for these post-application scenarios; however, the assessment of these lifestages is health protective for the exposures and risk estimates for any other potentially exposed lifestages.

Residential Post-application Exposure Data and Assumptions
A series of assumptions and exposure factors served as the basis for completing the residential post-application risk assessment for indoxacarb. Each assumption and factor is detailed in the previous occupational and residential assessment (D464583).

Application Rate:
0.011 lb ai total isomer/gal and maximum spray volume allowed of 1 gallon diluted product per 1000 sq ft equivalent to 0.00001 lb ai total isomer /ft[2].

Summary of Residential Post-application Non-Cancer Exposure and Risk Estimates
A summary of the adult and children short-term exposure and risk estimates from the proposed indoor surfaces directed spray scenarios is shown in Table 3.2.  All adult and children inhalation risk estimates do not exceed HED's level of concern (MOEs >= 100). All children oral non-dietary ingestion risk estimates for indoor treatments do not exceed HED's level of concern (MOEs >= 100). Combined inhalation and oral non-dietary ingestion risk estimates for children are not of concern to the Agency at the proposed reduced maximum volume rate of 1 gallon diluted product per 1000 sq ft.

Table 3.2.  Residential Post-application ST (Non-Cancer) Exposure and Risk Estimates for Indoxacarb Indoor Surface Treatments of Arilon 20% (KN128/KN127:75:25 Isomeric Mixture).
                                   Lifestage
                      Post-application Exposure Scenario
                                  Application
                                   Rate [a,]
                                 (lb ai/ft[2])
                             Dose [b], (mg/kg/day)
                                   MOEs [c]
                                Combined Routes
                    (X indicates included in Combined MOE)
                               Combined MOEs [d]

                               Route of Exposure
                                   Use Site

Crack and Crevice and Spot Directed Treatments (Indoor Surface Directed Sprays Scenario)
               Arilon Insecticide 20% ai- EPA Reg. No. 100-1501
                                     Adult
                                  Inhalation
                            Surface directed sprays

                      0.00001 lb ai  total isomer /ft[2]
                               (0.011 lb ai/gal)

                                 2.5x 10[-][8]
                                  2.4 x 10[8]

                                      NA
                           Child 1 < 2 years old
                                     Oral
           Hand-to-Mouth from carpets (crack and crevice treatment)

                                    0.0032
                                      630

                                      130

             Hand-to-Mouth from carpets (spot directed Treatment)

                                    0.0158
                                      130
                                       X

          Object-to- Mouth from carpets (crack and crevice treatment)

                                    0.0004
                                     4,800

            Object-to- Mouth from carpets (spot directed Treatment)

                                    0.0021
                                      950

                                  Inhalation
                            Surface directed sprays

                                 1.1x 10[-][7]
                                  5.7x 10[7]
                                       X

Note: Assumes both spot treatment and crack and crevice directions are amended to reduce the maximum volume of product used to 1 gallon diluted product per 1000 sq. ft.

a. Based on maximum application rates from proposed amended label (EPA Reg. No.: 100-1501). The application rate
   have been adjusted by a 4/3 factor to account for 4 parts of total (S- and R-) indoxacarb for every 3 parts of S
   indoxacarb.

b. Crack and Crevice and Spot Directed Treatment Scenarios Dose Equations
    Hand-to-Mouth Dose (mg/kg/day) = [(Fraction of ai on Hands (0.15) x Dermal Exposure (0.14)) / (2 x Surface Area
    of 1 hand (150 cm[2]) ) x Fraction of Hand Mouthed  (0.13) x Exposure Time per Day (carpet, 4; hard  surfaces, 2
    hours hrs/day) x # of Replenishment Intervals per Hour (4 int/hr) x (1-((1-Saliva Extraction Factor (0.5)) ^ (Number
    of Hand-to-Mouth Events per Hour (20 events/hr)  /  ( # of Replenishment Intervals per Hour (4)))]  / Body
    Weight (child, 11 kg)]

    Object-to-Mouth Dose (mg/kg/day) = [(Deposited Residue (1.0 μg/cm[2]) x Fraction of Residue Transferred to an  Object(carpet, 0.06; hard  surface, 0.08)) x Unit Conversion Factor (0.001 mg/ug) x Object Surface Area Mouthed  (10 cm[2]/event) x Exposure Time (carpet, 4; hard surface, 2 hrs/day) x # Replenishment Intervals per Hour (4 int/hr) x (1-((1- Saliva Extraction Factor (0.50)) ^ (# Object-to-Mouth Events per Hour (14 events/hr) / # Replenishment Intervals per Hour (4/ hr))) / Body Weight (child, 11 kg)]

   Inhalation Daily Dose (mg/kg/day) = [(Inhalation Rate (0.64, adult; 0.33 child m[3]/hr) x Mass of Active Ingredient Applied (298 mg ai)) / (Air Exchanges per Hour (0.45/hr) x Volume of Room (33 m[3])) / [1  -  ((Air Exchanges per Hour (0.45/hr) x e ^ (-First Order Decay Rate (2.1 x 10[-5]) x Exposure Time (hr)))  -  (First Order Decay Rate (2.1 x 10[-5]) x e ^ (-Air Exchanges per Hour (0.45/hr) x Exposure Time (hr))) / (Air Exchanges per Hour (0.45/hr)  -  First Order Decay Rate (2.1 x 10[-5]))] / Body Weight (child, 11 kg)]

c. MOEs: Inhalation MOE = Inhalation NOAEL (6 mg/kg/day) / Inhalation Dose (mg/kg/day).
   Oral MOE = NOAEL (2 mg/kg/day) / Oral Dose (mg/kg/day)
d. Combined MOE = 1 / [(1/incidental oral MOE) + (1/ Inhalation MOE)], where applicable.
3.3	Short-Term Aggregate Assessment

The short- term aggregate risk for indoxacarb includes background contribution from dietary (food and drinking water) exposure plus the short- and/or intermediate-term post-application exposure to spray-treated indoor areas. The scenarios used in the aggregate assessment for indoxacarb are detailed below:
   * The short -term residential exposure for use in the adult aggregate assessment reflects residential handler inhalation from indoor treatments with surface directed sprays (spot treatments).
   * The short -term residential exposure for use in the child (1<2 years) aggregate assessment reflects combined post-application inhalation and incidental oral (hand-to-mouth) exposures from indoor treatments with surface directed sprays (spot treatments).

The short- term aggregate (residential plus dietary) risk estimates for adults and children are below HED's level of concern when considering residential exposures from indoor surface directed sprays (spot treatments) assuming a reduced spray volume application rate of 1 gallon diluted product per 1000 sq. ft (Table 3.3).

Table 3.3.   Short-Term Aggregate Risk Calculations
Residential (Indoor Spray) plus Dietary (Food and Water) Exposures
Population
Short- Term Scenario

LOC for Aggregate Risk[a]
Dietary
MOE[b]
MOE Oral Residential Exposure[c]
MOE Inhalation Residential Exposure[d]
Aggregate MOE (food, water, and residential)[e]
Adult
100
1,800
NA
80,000
1,800
Child (1<2 yrs)
100
840
130
5.7 x 10[7]
110
[a] LOC=100 (10x inter- and 10x intra- species uncertainty factors)
[b] MOE dietary = [(short- or intermediate-term oral NOAEL)/(chronic dietary exposure)].  Oral NOAEL= 2.0 mg/kg/day.  Chronic dietary exposure value from D402099, 05/02/2013; Table 5.4.5.
[c] MOE oral = [(short- or intermediate-term oral NOAEL)/(hand-to-mouth residential exposure)].  Oral NOAEL= 2 mg/kg/day.
[d] MOE inhalation = [(short- or intermediate-term inhalation NOAEL)/ (high end inhalation residential exposure)]. Inhalation NOAEL= 6.0 mg/kg/day.  Adult residential handler exposure value from Table 3.1 and child residential exposure value from Table 3.2.
[e]MOE Aggregate = 1/[(1/MOE dietary) + (1/MOE oral) + (1/MOE inhalation)]

4.0	References

Rivera-Lupiáñez A., D464583, 05/01/2013. Indoxacarb: Revised Occupational and Residential Risk Assessment to Support Request for Section 3 Registrations on Bean (dry), Bean (snap), Bean (forage), and Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup 13-07F and Low-Growing Berry Subgroup 13-07H.

Drew D. et al; D402099, 05/02/2013. Indoxacarb: Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Use on Dry Beans, Succulent Beans, Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup (except kiwifruit) 13-07F and Low Growing Berry Subgroup (except strawberry) 13-07H.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32384-32385]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12785]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 516-476]

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company; Notice Denying Motion to
Intervene and Rejecting Request for Rehearing

    On April 22, 2013, Commission staff issued an order approving South
Carolina Electric and Gas Company's request to convey approximately
0.172 acres of land of the Saluda Hydroelectric Project No. 516,
located on the Saluda and Congaree Rivers in Lexington, Newberry,
Richland, and Saluda Counties, South Carolina.\1\ On May 7, 2013, Pat
Kelleher filed a motion to intervene and a request for rehearing of
Commission staff's order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ South Carolina Elec. and Gas Co., 143 FERC ] 62,041 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 214(b)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures
states in relevant part that a motion to intervene must show in
sufficient detail that the movant's participation is in the public
interest.\2\ In his request for rehearing, Mr. Kelleher states that his
intervention ``is in the public interest because it improves public
access to public recreation at the . . . .'' \3\ Mr. Kelleher, a
resident of Washington State, failed to identify any interest
whatsoever in this specific proceeding.\4\

Accordingly, his motion to intervene is denied.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.214(b)(2)(iii) (2012).
    \3\ Request for Rehearing at 1.
    \4\ He does not claim to own or recreate at property on or near
the project site, to have ever visited the project, or have any
future plans to do so.
    \5\ See Alabama Power Co., 141 FERC ] 61,039 (2012); Union
Electric Co., 140 FERC ] 61,210 (2012); Alabama Power Co., 140 FERC
] 61,037 (2012); PPL Holtwood, LLC, 140 FERC ] 61,038 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825l
(2006), a request for rehearing may be filed only by a party to the
proceeding. Pat Kelleher is not a party to this proceeding. Therefore,
his request for rehearing is rejected.
    This notice constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing
by the Commission of this notice must be filed within 30 days of the
date of issuance of this notice pursuant to section 313(a) of the FPA,
16 U.S.C. 825l (2006), and section 385.713 of the Commission's
regulations, 18 CFR 385.713 (2012).

    Dated: May 21, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12785 Filed 5-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 243)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 75916-75918]
[DOCID:fr19de06-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2005-CA-0013, FRL-8257-7]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Kern
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Kern County Air
Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The KCAPCD revisions concern permitting
requirements. We are proposing to approve local rules that administer
regulations under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (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 January 18, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2005-CA-0013, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the online instructions.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105.
    Instructions: All comments 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 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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

http://www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
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: Manny Aquitania, Permits Office (AIR-
3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What is the deficiency in Rule 203?
    D. EPA recommendation to further improve a rule
    E. Public comment and final action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are proposing to approve and Table 2
lists the rule we are proposing to disapprove with the date that they
were amended by the local air agency and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB).

                              Table 1.--Submitted Rules Proposed for Full Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title              Amended     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KCAPCD......................................     201    Permits Required..............     05/02/96     07/23/96
KCAPCD......................................     202.1  Experimental Research              05/02/96     07/23/96
                                                         Operations.
KCAPCD......................................     209.1  Permit Conditions.............     05/02/96     07/23/96
KCAPCD......................................     210.2  Standards for Permits to           05/02/96     07/23/96
                                                         Operate.
KCAPCD......................................     210.5  Visibility Protection.........     05/02/96     07/23/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Table 2.--Submitted Rule Proposed for Full Disapproval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Rule
                Local agency                    No.               Rule title              Amended     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KCAPCD......................................      203  Transfer.......................     05/02/96     07/23/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 30, 1996, the submittal of Rules 201, 202.1, 203, 209.1,
210.2, and 210.5 was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR
part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved Rules 201 and 202.1 into the SIP on July 6, 1982 (47 FR
29233). We approved Rule 203 into the SIP on September 22, 1972 (37 FR
19812). We approved Rule 210.2 into the SIP on August 21, 1981 (46 FR
42460). There are no versions of Rules 209.1 and 210.5 in the SIP.

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

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations
that control volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen,
particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health
and the environment. These rules were developed as part of the local
agency's program to control these pollutants.
    The purposes of the new rules are as follows:
     Rule 209.1 adds a prohibition to operate equipment
contrary to conditions in the Permit to Operate (PTO) issued in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 209 in order to comply with the
standards of Rules 208 and 208.1.
     Rule 210.5 adds a requirement that the Air Pollution
Control Officer (APCO) not issue an Authority to Construct (ATC) unless
the analysis required by this rule demonstrates that an adverse impact
on visibility in Federal Class I Areas will not occur for any new major
stationary source or major modification which would have the potential
to emit nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide or particulate matter in
significant amounts and is required to utilize BACT/LAER for such
pollutants. The purposes of revisions relative to the SIP rules are as
follows:
     Rule 201 adds a provision that the ATC will serve as the
temporary PTO after notifying the APCO of the intent to start-up new or
modified equipment and adds a provision that the application for a PTO
will serve as the temporary PTO for existing equipment.
     Rule 202.1 is reformatted for clarity.
     Rule 203 replaces the prohibition from transferring a
permit with the allowance to transfer a permit from one person to
another or from one location to another, providing a new application is
filed and approved by the APCO.
     Rule 210.2 deletes the severability provision.
    The TSD has more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
CAA) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193).
    The following guidance documents were used for reference:
     Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
     Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations, EPA (May 25, 1988). (The Blue Book)
     Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies, EPA Region IX (August 21, 2001). (The Little Bluebook)

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe Rules 201, 202.1, 209.1, 210.2, and 210.5 are consistent
with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP
relaxations.
    A provision in Rule 203 which does not meet the evaluation criteria
is summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.

C. What is the deficiency in Rule 203?

    This provision conflicts with section 110 and part D of the CAA and
prevents full approval of the SIP revision:
     The revision to Rule 203 to allow transfer of a permit
from one location to another is prohibited, because permitting
requirements may be different at different locations. A New Source
Review must be performed upon changing location. See 40 CFR part 51,
sections 165-166.

D. EPA Recommendation to further improve a rule

    The TSD describes an additional revision to Rule 201 that does not
affect EPA's current action but is recommended for the next time the
local agency modifies the rule.

E. Public comment and final action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, we are proposing
full approval of the submitted KCAPCD Rules 201, 202.1, 209.1, 210.2,
and 210.5.
    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) of the CAA, we are proposing a
full disapproval of the submitted KCAPCD Rule 203. If finalized, this
action would retain the present SIP-approved rule in the SIP. Sanctions
would not be imposed as described in CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.30-
52.32, because the present SIP-approved rule fulfills CAA requirements.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.)

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship, under the Clean Air Act preparation of flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427
U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 10(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action.
Today's action does not require the public to perform activities
conducive to VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: November 28, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
 [FR Doc. E6-21497 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 13835]
[DOCID:fr17mr06-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Non-Capacity Amendment of License and
Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Protests

March 9, 2006.
    a. Type of Application: Application for Non-Capacity Amendment of
License and Non-Project Use of Project Lands.
    b. Project Number: P-2306-084.
    c. Date Filed: January 5, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Great Bay Hydro Corporation.
    e. Name of Project: Clyde River Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Clyde River in Orleans
County, Vermont
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 and 825.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Anthony M. Callendrello, Great Bay Hydro
Corporation, 1 New Hampshire Avenue, Suite 125, Portsmouth, NH 03801.
(603)-766-4990.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Chris Yeakel at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: April 10, 2006.
    k. Description of Request: Great Bay Hydro Corporation proposes an
amendment to the project boundary by conveyance to the State of
Vermont, Agency of Natural Resources (ANR); (a) all project lands,
waters and facilities, totaling about 27.9 acres, associated with the
Seymour, Echo, and former Newport No. 11 dams; and (b) 25 acres of
project land on Clyde Pond associated with the Newport dam and Newport
Nos. 1,2,3 developments. Additionally, Great Bay proposes non-project
use of project lands by conveyance to ANR 8 acres of project lands near
the Newport Nos. 1,2,3 bypass as a permanent conservation easement.
Great Bay would retain a 200 foot long strip of riparian land of the
former Newport No. 11 project located directly downstream of the
Newport Nos. 1,2,3 development.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (p-11433) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. All documents (original and eight copies)
should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A
copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3865 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36306]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15462]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0881; A-1-FRL-9925-87-Region 1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Connecticut. The revision updates state regulations containing
ambient air quality standards (AAQS) to be consistent with EPA's
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The intended effect of
this action is to approve these regulations into the Connecticut SIP.
This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-
OAR-2014-0881 for comments by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0881,''
Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
Section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: March 26, 2015.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2015-15462 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P