[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71364-71365]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29017]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0651; Airspace Docket No. 12-AGL-7]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Middletown, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Middletown,
OH. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Middletown Regional/
Hook Field Airport (formerly Hook Field Municipal Airport). The FAA is
taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport. Geographic
coordinates and the airport name would also be updated.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2012-0651/Airspace Docket No. 12-
AGL-7, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the
building at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to

Docket No. FAA-2012-0651/Airspace Docket No. 12-AGL-7.'' The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface with extensions to the northeast and
southwest to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures at
Middletown Regional/Hook Field Airport, Middletown, OH. Controlled
airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at
the airport. The geographic coordinates of Middletown Regional/Hook
Field Airport, formerly known as Hook Field Municipal Airport, and the
geographical coordinates of the Hook Field non-directional radio beacon
(NDB) would be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012 and effective September 15, 2012, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend controlled airspace at Middletown Regional/Hook Field
Airport, Middletown, OH.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8,
2012, and effective September 15, 2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Middletown, OH [Amended]

Middletown Regional/Hook Field Airport, OH
    (Lat. 39[deg]31'55'' N., long. 84[deg]23'47'' W.)
Hook Field NDB
    (Lat. 39[deg]29'56'' N., long. 84[deg]26'51'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Middletown Regional/Hook Field Airport,
and within 2 miles each side of the 050[deg] bearing from the
airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 12.3 miles northeast
of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 229[deg] bearing
from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 11.2 miles
southwest of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the
234[deg] bearing from the Hook Field NDB extending from the 6.5-mile
radius to 7 miles southwest of the NDB.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX on November 1, 2012.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-29017 Filed 11-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


January 31, 2005 MEMORANDUM From: William H. Maxwell CG/ ESD ( C439 01)

To: Utility MACT Project Files Subject: Meeting with Institute of Clean Air Companies ( ICAC), January 31, 2005 Attendees EPA: Rob Brenner Frank Princiotta Ann Johnson Ellen Brown Carl Mazza Geoffrey Anderson Keri Schaffer Mary Jo Krolewski Mehgan McGuinness Robert Wayland Bill Maxwell Institute of Clean Air Companies:

Ron Thompson, Norit Americas Bob Hilton, Alstom Power Carolyn Slaughter, ICAC David C. Foerter, ICAC Carrie Kowalksi, Kfx, Inc. Mike Durham, ADA ES Discussion At the meeting, the separately docketed presentation materials were discussed.


[Federal Register: August 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 53285-53286]
[DOCID:fr31au10-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

August 19, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1084-000.
    Applicants: Discovery Gas Transmission LLC.
    Description: Discovery Gas Transmission LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.202: Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 8/17/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/17/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100817-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1085-000.
    Applicants: Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Baseline to be effective 8/18/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100818-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1086-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits
tariff filing per 154.203: Compliance filing for sheets 729, 729.01,
737A, 737A.01, 739A, 739A.01 to be effective 7/22/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100818-5091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1087-000.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Baseline to be effective 8/19/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100819-5029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 31, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: CP10-487-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits an
abbreviated application to abandon PS firm transportation service for
Laurens, SC and Shelby, NC.
    Filed Date: 08/16/2010.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>21.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: CP10-488-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission's lease of certain pipeline
capacity to and from Millennium Pipeline Company application for an
amendment to the certificates of public convenience and necessity.
    Filed Date: 08/17/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100817-5110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, August 30, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    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
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings 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 e-mail notification when a document
is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC
Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (866)
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21659 Filed 8-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 219 (Thursday, November 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 71925]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25022]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2020-N-0908; FDA-2010-N-0583; FDA-2020-N-0257; FDA-
2008-N-0490; FDA-2011-N-0017; FDA-2011-N-0144; FDA-2015-D-3327; FDA-
2020-N-1207]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approvals

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of
information collections that have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a list of FDA information
collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control
number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information
collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements
for the information collections are available on the internet at
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 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.

                            Table 1--List of Information Collections Approved by OMB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                OMB control    Date approval
                              Title of collection                                      No.           expires
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Petitions: Food Additive, Color Additive (Including Labeling),          0910-0016       09/30/2023
 Submission of Information to a Master File in Support of Petitions, and
 Electronic Submission Using FDA Form 3503.....................................
Radioactive Drug Research Committees...........................................       0910-0053       09/30/2023
Rapid Response Surveys.........................................................       0910-0500       09/30/2023
Cosmetic Labeling and Voluntary Cosmetic Registration..........................       0910-0599       09/30/2023
Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards....................       0910-0621       09/30/2023
FDA's Voluntary Qualified Importer Program; Guidance for Industry..............       0910-0840       09/30/2023
GFI: E6(R2) Good Clinical Practice; International Council for Harmonisation....       0910-0843       09/30/2023
List of US Manufacturers of Specific CVM-Regulated Products with Interest in          0910-0884       09/30/2023
 Exporting Covered Products to China...........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: November 5, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-25022 Filed 11-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: August 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 157)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49848-49849]
[DOCID:fr16au10-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0731]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones for annual
fireworks events in the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan Zone
during two periods from 9:15 p.m. on September 10, 2010 through 11 p.m.
on September 11, 2010. This action is necessary and intended to ensure
safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during,
and immediately after fireworks events. During the enforcement periods,
no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without permission of
the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.935 will be enforced from 9:15
p.m. through 10 p.m. on September 10, 2010 and from 10:15 p.m. through
11 p.m. on September 11, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email BM1 Adam Kraft, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector
Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.935, Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI,
for the following events:
    Arab World Festival fireworks display on September 10, 2010 from
9:15 p.m. through 10 p.m. and on September 11, 2010 from 10:15 p.m.
through 11 p.m.
    All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative to enter,
move within or exit the safety zone. Vessels and persons granted
permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or
directions of the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or a
designated representative. While within a safety

zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to
maintain a safe course.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.935 Safety
Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition
to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide
the maritime community with advance notification of these enforcement
periods via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.
The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will issue a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety
zone established by this section is suspended. If the Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan, determines that the safety zone need not be
enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use
a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the
safety zone. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or
her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF-FM Channel 16.

    Dated: July 30, 2010.
L. Barndt
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2010-20124 Filed 8-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62006-62008]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24005]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0746; FRL-9917-64-Region-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida:
Removal of Sulfur Storage and Handling Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the Florida State Implementation Plan
(SIP), submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP), on April 5, 2012. The revision modifies Florida's SIP to remove
two state rules relating to new and existing sulfur storage and
handling facilities because they are no longer necessary. EPA has
determined that Florida's April 5, 2012, SIP revision regarding sulfur
storage and handling facilities is approvable because it is consistent
with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This rule will be effective November 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0746. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The FDEP revision requests that EPA remove two state rules--Rule
62-212.600, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), ``Sulfur Storage and
Handling Facilities'' and Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C.,

``Sulfur Storage and Handling Facilities''--from Florida's SIP. Florida
repealed these rules on February 16, 2012.
    The requirements of Rule 62-212.600, F.A.C., apply to proposed new
or modified sulfur storage and handling facilities. The rule states
that the owner or operator of any proposed new or modified sulfur
storage and handling facility that is to be located within five
kilometers of either a particulate matter (PM) air quality maintenance
area or a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) Class I area
shall provide FDEP with an analysis of the probable particulate matter
ambient air quality impacts that could result from the operation of the
facility. Additionally, the owner or operator shall provide FDEP with
an analysis of the probable annual and maximum monthly sulfur
deposition rates that could occur as a result of the operation of the
facility. The owner or operator shall conduct post-construction air
quality and deposition monitoring of sulfur particulate emissions from
the facility for two years from the date of issuance of the initial air
operation permit for the facility, and, through the permitting process,
shall determine the period of time, if any, such monitoring must be
continued. The data collected would then be provided to FDEP as
specified in the permit. Florida states that the ``General
Preconstruction Review Requirements'' and ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)'' provisions of the Rules 62-212.300 and 62-
212.400, F.A.C., respectively, can be used instead of Rule 62-212.600,
F.A.C., to prevent PM emissions that would interfere with attainment
and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS),
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality, or protection
of visibility.
    Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C., states that no person shall cause, suffer,
or allow elemental sulfur to be stored, handled, or transported within
the State in crushed bulk or slate form or in any form other than
standard sulfur pellets or in molten form, except that sulfur may be
transferred within the boundaries of a single facility in other forms.
Facilities using standard sulfur pellets or molten sulfur, or sulfur
vatting facilities, may be permitted only in conformance with the
practices identified in the rule. Florida states that the ``General
Pollutant Emission Limiting Standards'' of Rule 62-296.320, F.A.C., can
be applied instead of Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C., to adequately control PM
emissions from dry material handling operations such as those
associated with sulfur storage and handling facilities.
    With removal of the above two rules from the SIP, Florida's PM
requirements under the SIP for new and existing sulfur storage and
handling facilities would align with the PM requirements for other,
similar dry material handling sources in the State. At the time that
Florida promulgated its sulfur storage and handling rules, the State
was concerned that total suspended particulate matter levels in Florida
would be negatively impacted by increased sulfur handling and storage
operations to such an extent as to warrant additional facility-specific
work practices and monitoring. However, the anticipated increase in
sulfur handling and storage operations did not occur, and only 11
facilities are subject to Rule 62-212.300, F.A.C. and Rule 62-212.400,
F.A.C. EPA approved these two rules into the SIP on December 24, 1985,
at 50 FR 52460.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's December 24, 1985, action incorporated the state
sulfur storage and handling rules at 17-2.540, F.A.C. and 17-2.600,
F.A.C. into Florida's SIP. Florida later reorganized its
administrative code and renumbered these rules as 62-212.600, F.A.C.
and 62-296.411, F.A.C., respectively. EPA updated the Florida SIP on
June 16, 1999 (64 FR 32346), to make it consistent with the revised
numbering system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's primary consideration for determining the approvability of
Florida's request to remove the existing sulfur storage and handling
facilities rules, 62-212.600, F.A.C. and 62-296.411, F.A.C., from the
SIP is whether these requested actions comply with section 110(l) of
the CAA. Under section 110(l), EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if
that revision would interfere with any applicable requirement regarding
attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable
requirement established in the CAA. EPA will approve a SIP revision
that removes or modifies control measures in the SIP only after the
state makes a ``noninterference'' demonstration that such a removal or
modification will not interfere with RFP, attainment or maintenance of
any NAAQS, or any other CAA requirement. As such, Florida was required
to make a demonstration of noninterference in order to remove the
sulfur storage and handling facilities requirements from its SIP.
    Because actual emissions are not expected to change, there will be
no impact on PSD increments, RFP, visibility, attainment or maintenance
of any NAAQS, or any other applicable CAA requirement. Particulate
matter, in the form of coarse (PM10) and fine
(PM2.5) PM, is the pollutant related to the SIP revision. On
January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), EPA established an annual primary
PM2.5 NAAQS at 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. At that time, EPA retained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS at 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. All areas in the State
are currently designated as attainment for the PM10 and
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    There are no emissions reductions of carbon monoxide (CO), lead,
nitrogen oxides, ozone, or sulfur dioxide (SO2) attributable
to the sulfur storage and handling facilities requirements. As a
result, the removal of these requirements will not interfere with
attainment of these NAAQS.
    Of the 11 facilities that are subject to the sulfur handling and
storage emission rules, four will experience a relaxation in the
opacity limit from 10 or 15 percent to 20 percent if 62-212.600, F.A.C.
and 62-296.411, F.A.C. are removed from the SIP, but emissions are not
expected to increase because the underlying work practices will remain
unchanged. The sulfur particulate emitting emissions units at these
four facilities are approximately less than one ton per year, and a
majority of the visible emissions tests conducted in 2010-11 for sulfur
storage and handling units showed no visible emissions (i.e., zero
percent opacity).
    Furthermore, several existing state rules incorporated into
Florida's SIP can be applied in lieu of Rules 62-212.600, F.A.C. and
62-296.411, F.A.C. to address sulfur PM emissions from sulfur storage
and handling emissions units at these facilities. Rules 62-212.300 and
62-212.400, F.A.C., respectively, can be applied instead of the sulfur-
specific requirements of paragraph 62-212.600(2)(a), F.A.C., to
evaluate potential particulate matter ambient air quality impacts. The
sulfur deposition analysis required by paragraph 62-212.600(2)(b),
F.A.C., is unnecessary because there is no standard to compare the
results with to demonstrate compliance. Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C., the
``General Pollutant Emission Limiting Standards'' of Rule 62-296.320,
F.A.C., and, for some emissions units, the PM Reasonably Available
Control Technology requirements of Rule 62-296.711, F.A.C., can be
applied to control the sulfur PM emissions from sulfur storage and
handling emissions units at these facilities. Rule 62-296.711, F.A.C.
generally imposes a five percent opacity limit for existing sulfur
handling, sizing, screening, crushing, and grinding operations in
former total suspended particulate nonattainment

areas or within 50 kilometers of such former areas except where an
emissions unit has received a Best Available Retrofit Technology
determination or the emissions are insignificant enough to be exempted
under Rule 62-296.700(2), F.A.C. The control techniques and work
practice standards found in Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C., to control
unconfined emissions of particulate matter can also be required by
paragraph 62-296.320(4)(c), F.A.C., which prohibits the emission of
unconfined particulate matter without taking reasonable precautions to
prevent such emissions.
    For the reasons discussed above, EPA has determined that removal of
the sulfur storage and handling facilities rules will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in surrounding states or
interfere with any other requirement identified in section 110(l). On
July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37255), EPA proposed approval of the Florida April
5, 2012, submission. No adverse comments were received on this proposed
action and EPA is hereby finalizing approval of the revision.

II. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's April 5, 2012, SIP
revision to remove Rule 62-212.600, F. A. C. and Rule 62-296.411, F. A.
C., related to sulfur storage and handling facilities, from the Florida
SIP because the Agency has determined that this revision is consistent
with section 110(l) of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this final 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 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 15, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 25, 2014.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart K--Florida

0
2. Section 52.520(c) is amended by removing the entries for ``62-
212.600'' under Chapter 62-212 Stationary Sources--Preconstruction
Review and ``62-296.411'' under Chapter 62-296 Stationary Sources--
Emission Standards.

[FR Doc. 2014-24005 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 112)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33190-33195]
[DOCID:fr11jn10-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0278; FRL-8829-2]

Trifloxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation increases existing tolerances for residues of
trifloxystrobin in or on corn, field, forage; corn, sweet, forage; and
corn, sweet, stover. Bayer CropScience requested these tolerances under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Additionally, EPA is
removing several tolerances which have expired.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 11, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 10, 2010,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0278. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tawanda Maignan, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Electronic Access to Other Related Information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To
access the harmonized test guidelines referenced in this document
electronically, please go http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test
Methods and Guidelines.''

C. How Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0278 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
August 10, 2010. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0278, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 19, 2009 (74 FR 41898) (FRL-8426-
7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
8F7487) by Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.555 be amended by increasing existing tolerances for residues of
the fungicide trifloxystrobin, benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]-
(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3- (trifluoromethyl)
phenyl]ethylidene]amino]oxy]methyl]-methyl ester), in or on corn,
field, forage at 6.0 parts per million (ppm); corn, sweet, forage at
7.0 ppm; and corn, sweet, stover at 4.0 ppm. That notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There
were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon the review of the data supporting the petition, the
Agency is increasing the existing meat, fat and meat byproduct of
cattle, goats, horses, and sheep tolerances to 0.1 ppm. The reasons for
these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Trifloxystrobin exhibits very low toxicity following single oral,
dermal and inhalation exposures. It is a strong dermal sensitizer. In
repeated dose tests in rats, the liver is the target organ for
trifloxystrobin; toxicity is induced following oral and dermal exposure
for 28 days. In the available toxicity studies on trifloxystrobin,
there was no estrogen, androgen, and/or thyroid mediated toxicity. The
toxicological database for trifloxystrobin does not show any evidence
of treatment-related effects on the immune system. Further, there was
no evidence of neurotoxicity at the limit dose in an unacceptable acute
neurotoxicity study or in the other subchronic and chronic studies in
the database. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility
following pre-natal exposure to rats and rabbits and post-natal
exposures to rats. Trifloxystrobin was determined not to be
carcinogenic in mice or rats following long-term dietary
administration. Trifloxystrobin is positive for mutagenicity in Chinese
Hamster V79 cells, albeit at cytotoxic dose levels. However,
trifloxystrobin is negative in the remaining mutagenicity studies.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by trifloxystrobin as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document ``Trifloxystrobin. Human Health Risk
Assessment for a Section 3 Petition Proposing Increased Tolerances for
Residues in/on Field, Sweet and Pop Corn'' at pages 17 to 21 in docket
ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0278.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

 Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for trifloxystrobin for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Point of Departure and
          Exposure/Scenario               Uncertainty/Safety     RfD, PAD, LOC for Risk  Study and Toxicological
                                               Factors                 Assessment                Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-49 years of  NOAEL = 250 milligrams/  Acute RfD = 2.5 mg/kg/   Developmental Toxicity-
 age)                                   kilograms/day (mg/kg/    day                      Rabbit. LOAEL = 500 mg/
                                        day)                    aPAD = 2.5 mg/kg/day...   kg/day based on
                                       UFA = 10x..............                            increased fetal
                                       UFH = 10x..............                            skeletal anomalies.
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)      NOAEL= 3.8 mg/kg/day     Chronic RfD = 0.038 mg/  Two-Generation
                                       UFA = 10x..............   kg/day                   reproduction study-
                                       UFH = 10x..............  cPAD = 0.038 mg/kg/day.   Rat. LOAEL = 55.3 mg/
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            kg/day based on
                                                                                decreases in body
                                                                                weight, body weight
                                                                                gains, reduced food
                                                                                consumption and
                                                                                histopathological
                                                                                lesions in the liver,
                                                                                kidneys and spleen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Oral Short- (1 to 30 days)  Offspring NOAEL= 3.8 mg/ LOC for MOE = 100        Two-Generation
 and Intermediate- (1-6 months) Term    kg/day                                            reproduction study-
                                       UFA = NA...............                            Rat. LOAEL = 55.3 mg/
                                       UFH = NA...............                            kg/day based on
                                       FQPA SF = NA...........                            reduced pup body
                                                                                weights during
                                                                                lactation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal Short- (1 to 30 days) and       Dermal study NOAEL =     LOC for MOE = 100        28-Day Dermal Toxicity
 Intermediate- (1 to 6 months) Term     100 mg/kg/day                                     Study-Rat. LOAEL =
                                       UFA = NA...............                            1,000 mg/kg/day based
                                       UFH = NA...............                            on increases in mean
                                       FQPA SF = NA...........                            absolute and relative
                                                                                liver and kidney
                                                                                weights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation Short- (1 to 30 days), and  Oral study NOAEL= 3.8    LOC for MOE = 100        Two-Generation
 Intermediate- (1 to 6 months) Term     mg/kg/day (inhalation                             reproduction study-
                                        absorption rate =                                 Rat. LOAEL = 55.3 mg/
                                        100%)                                             kg/day based on
                                       UFA = NA...............                            decreases in body
                                       UFH = NA...............                            weight, body weight
                                       FQPA SF = NA...........                            gains, reduced food
                                                                                consumption and
                                                                                histopathological
                                                                                lesions in the liver,
                                                                                kidneys and spleen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)        Trifloxystrobin is classified as ``Not Likely Human Carcinogen'' based
                                           on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mouse and rat cancer
                                                                        studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
  of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population
  adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of
  concern.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to trifloxystrobin, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing trifloxystrobin
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.555. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
trifloxystrobin in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure for females 13 to 49 years
old, EPA conducted an analysis using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation
Model (DEEMTM7.81), which used food consumption information
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998,
Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII).
EPA used tolerance level residues. EPA assumed all commodities with
established or proposed tolerances were treated with trifloxystrobin.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998, CSFII to be included in DEEM. As to residue levels in food,
EPA used tolerance level residues for all commodities with the
exception of apples, oranges and grapes. For these commodities EPA used
anticipated residues. EPA assumed all commodities with established or
proposed tolerances were treated with trifloxystrobin.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that trifloxystrobin does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for trifloxystrobin in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of trifloxystrobin. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment

can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS), GENeric Estimated Exposure Concentration (GENEEC),
and/or Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of trifloxystrobin for
the proposed new application are higher than those previously assessed
for corn; however, the EDWCs for both corn rates are less than those
previously estimated, via GENEEC, for turf use.
    Based on the PRZM/EXAMS, GENEEC, and/or SCI-GROW models, the EDWCs
of trifloxystrobin plus its major degradation product, CGA-321113 for
acute exposures are estimated to be 47.99 parts per billion (ppb) and
47.31 ppb for chronic exposures. Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: ornamentals and turfgrass. EPA
assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: adult
post application dermal exposure; child's post application dermal and/
or hand to mouth. Further information regarding EPA standard
assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found
at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found trifloxystrobin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and trifloxystrobin does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
trifloxystrobin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no indication of
increased susceptibility of rat or rabbits to trifloxystrobin. In the
prenatal developmental study in rats, there was no developmental
toxicity at the limit dose. In the prenatal developmental study in
rabbits, developmental toxicity was seen at a dose that was higher than
the dose that caused maternal toxicity. In the two generation
reproduction study, there was no offspring toxicity at the highest dose
tested.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for trifloxystrobin is complete except for
neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity testing. Recent changes to 40 CFR part
158 make neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity testing required for
pesticide registration; however, the existing data are sufficient for
endpoint selection for exposure/risk assessment scenarios, and for
evaluation of the requirements under the FQPA. Although acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity studies are needed to
complete the database, there are no concerns for immunotoxicity or
neurotoxicity based on the results of the existing studies. The
toxicological database for trifloxystrobin does not show any evidence
of treatment-related effects on the immune system. There was a decrease
in the incidence of hemosiderosis in the spleen of F0 and F1 parental
males and females in the 2-generation reproduction study. The effect
was not seen in any other toxicity studies, and it was not a primary
effect on the spleen. This decrease may indicate a decrease of red
blood cell turnover; but it is not an effect on the immune system.
Further, there was no evidence of neurotoxicity at the limit dose in an
unacceptable acute neurotoxicity study or in the other subchronic and
chronic studies in the database. The EPA does not believe that
conducting neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity studies will result in a
dose less than the PODs already used in this risk assessment and an
additional database uncertainty factor for potential neurotoxicity and/
or immunotoxicity does not need to be applied.
    ii. There is no indication that trifloxystrobin is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that trifloxystrobin results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the two-generation
reproduction study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute and chronic dietary food exposure assessments
utilize existing and proposed tolerance level residues and 100% crop
treated information for all commodities, except for apples, oranges,
and grapes which utilized anticipated residue levels for the chronic
dietary. By using these screening-level assessments with minor
refinement, actual exposures/risks from residues in food will not be
underestimated. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the
ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
trifloxystrobin in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative
assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as
incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by trifloxystrobin.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate

PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute
exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to
trifloxystrobin will occupy <1% of the aPAD for females 13 to 49 years
old.
    2. Chronic-term risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in
this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure
to trifloxystrobin from food and water will utilize 15% of the cPAD for
the general U.S. population and 43% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2
years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based
on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use
patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of trifloxystrobin
is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for uses that could result
in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that
it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to trifloxystrobin.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1,200 for adults
(dermal residential + dietary food and drinking water exposures); 680
for children 1 to 2 years old (dermal residential + dietary food and
drinking water exposures); and 170 for children 1 to 2 years old
(incidental oral + dietary food and drinking water exposures). Because
EPA's level of concern for trifloxystrobin is a MOE of 100 or below,
these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Trifloxystrobin is not expected to pose an intermediate-term
risk based on a short soil half-life (approximately 2 days).
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, trifloxystrobin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to trifloxystrobin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with nitrogen
phosphorus detection (GC/NPD)), Method AG-659A is available to enforce
the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
     The Codex has established a MRL for trifloxystrobin in or on maize
fodder (dry) at 10 ppm. Canada has a proposed (not yet established) MRL
of 0.02 for corn grain, sweet corn, popcorn grain for parent and
metabolite. Since the Codex MRL is for a commodity that is not
recognized domestically and would normally not be transported across
international borders, there is no concern for international
harmonization. Also, since the Canadian MRL has not been established,
there is no concern for international harmonization.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Trifloxystrobin tolerances for crop commodities listed in 40 CFR
180.555(a)(1) are expressed in terms of the residues of the fungicide
trifloxystrobin, benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]-(methoxyimino)-2-
[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethylidene] amino]oxy]methyl]-,
methyl ester, and the free form of its acid metabolite CGA-321113,
(E,E)-methoxyimino-[2-[1-(3-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-
ethylideneaminooxymethyl]-phenyl]acetic acid. EPA has revised the
trifloxystrobin tolerance expression to clarify the chemical moieties
that are covered by the tolerances and specify how compliance with the
tolerances is to be measured.
    EPA's analysis of the adequacy of the existing tolerances for meat,
fat and meat byproduct of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep tolerances
based on the proposed tolerances as well as existing tolerances
indicates they need to be increased to 0.1 ppm from 0.05 ppm. Also, EPA
is removing from paragraph (b), tolerances for soybean, forage;
soybean, hay; and soybean, seed which expired and were revoked on
December 31, 2009.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.555(a) are increased
for residues of trifloxystrobin, benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]-
(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3- (trifluoromethyl)
phenyl]ethylidene]amino]oxy]methyl]-methyl ester, in or on corn, field,
forage at 6.0 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 7.0 ppm; and corn, sweet,
stover at 4.0 ppm. EPA is also removing paragraph (b) tolerances for
soybean, forage; soybean, hay; and soybean, seed which expired December
31, 2009.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 27, 2010.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  180.555 as follows:
0
a. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a).

0
b. Revise the following entries in the table in paragraph (a): cattle,
fat; cattle, meat; cattle, meat byproducts; corn, field, forage; corn,
sweet, forage; corn, sweet, stover; goat, fat; goat, meat; goat, meat
byproducts; horse, fat; horse, meat; horse, meat byproducts; and sheep,
fat; sheep, meat; and sheep, meat byproducts.

0
c. Revise paragraph (b).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  180.555  Trifloxystrobin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of
trifloxystrobin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of
trifloxystrobin, benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]-(methoxyimino)-2-
[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethylidene] amino]oxy]methyl]-,
methyl ester, and the free form of its acid metabolite CGA-321113,
(E,E)-methoxyimino-[2-[1-(3-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-
ethylideneaminooxymethyl]-phenyl]acetic acid, calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of trifloxystrobin, in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Cattle, fat................................................          0.1
Cattle, meat...............................................          0.1
Cattle, meat byproducts....................................          0.1

                                * * * * *
Corn, field, forage........................................          6.0

                                * * * * *
Corn, sweet, forage........................................          7.0

                                * * * * *
Corn, sweet, stover........................................          4.0

                                * * * * *
Goat, fat..................................................          0.1
Goat, meat.................................................          0.1
Goat, meat byproducts......................................          0.1

                                * * * * *
Horse, fat.................................................          0.1
Horse, meat................................................          0.1
Horse, meat byproducts.....................................          0.1

                                * * * * *
Sheep, fat.................................................          0.1
Sheep, meat................................................          0.1
Sheep, meat byproducts.....................................          0.1

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

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-13938 Filed 6-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: April 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 18976-18978]
[DOCID:fr16ap07-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-88-000]

Egan Hub Storage, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Egan Fourth Cavern Project
and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

April 9, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Egan Fourth Cavern Project,
involving construction and operation of facilities by Egan Hub Gas
Storage, LLC (Egan Hub) in Acadia and Evangeline Parishes, Louisiana.
The EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to
determine whether or not to authorize the project.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping period that will
be used to gather environmental input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine which issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on May 9, 2007.
    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, Native American Tribes, and government entities
interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project. This
includes all landowners who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose
property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes
within distances defined in the Commission's regulations of certain
aboveground facilities. We\1\ encourage government representatives to
notify their constituents of this planned

project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?'' addresses a number
of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and
how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Egan Hub proposes to expand its existing storage facility in Acadia
and Evangeline Parishes, Louisiana. The project would involve
constructing a new salt dome storage cavern and a 16.5-mile-long, 24-
inch-diameter looping pipeline, along with other appurtenant
facilities, to connect the Egan Gas Storage Facility with an existing
Texas Gas Transmission Corporation pipeline. The proposed storage
cavern would have a capacity of 10.5 Bcf (8.0 Bcf working gas), and
increase Egan Hub's total storage capacity to 42 Bcf (32 Bcf working
gas).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Egan Hub's application in Docket No. CP07-88-000 was filed
with the Commission under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general location of Egan Hub's proposed facilities is shown in
appendix 1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than appendix 1 (map), are available on the Commission's Web site at
the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed Egan Fourth Cavern Project would
affect a total of about 248.3 acres of land. Following construction,
about 134.2 acres of land would be allowed to revert to its previous
conditions. Disturbance associated with aboveground facilities would
comprise about 4.7 acres of permanently affected land.
    For the associated 24-inch-diameter pipeline, an 85-foot-wide
construction right-of-way (ROW) is proposed in upland areas and a 75-
foot-wide construction ROW is proposed in upland forested and wetland
areas. Egan Hub would maintain a 50-foot-wide permanent ROW for
operation and maintenance of the proposed facilities.

The EA Process

    We are preparing the EA to comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) which requires the Commission to take into account
the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the
public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as
``scoping''. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
Notice, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the issues to
address in the EA. All comments received will be considered during the
preparation of the EA.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; public
interest groups; interested individuals; affected landowners;
newspapers and libraries in the project area; and the Commission's
official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be
allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all
comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the
Commission.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commenter, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects of
the proposal, reasonable alternatives to the proposal (including
alternative locations and routes), and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that
your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 1;
     Reference Docket No. CP07-88-000;
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before May 9, 2007.
    Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing of comments. See 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Internet
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``eFiling'' link and the link

to the User's Guide. Prepare your submission in the same manner as you
would if filing on paper and save it to a file on your hard drive.
Before you can file comments you will need to create an account by
clicking on ``Login to File'' and then ``New User Account.'' You will
be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This filing is
considered a ``Comment on Filing.''

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor''. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process.
Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of
case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors.
Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the
Commission's e-Filing system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the
Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all
other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If
you want to become an intervenor, you must file a motion to intervene
according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214). Only intervenors have the right to seek
rehearing of the Commission's decision.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC (3372) or on

http://www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select ``General Search''

from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and ``Docket
Number'' (i.e., CP07-88-000), and follow the instructions. For
assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at 1-
The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to
the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rule makings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7146 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 154 (Friday, August 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37580-37581]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16959]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC17-13-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-717); Comment
Request; Revision and Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of revised information collection and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on a revision to the information
collection, FERC-717, (Open Access Same-Time Information System and
Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocol) which will
be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a review
of the information collection requirements.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due October 10,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. IC17-13-000
by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-717, Open Access Same-Time information System and
Standards for Business Practices & Communication Protocols.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0173.
    Type of Request: Three-year approval of the FERC-717 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission directs all public utilities that own,
control or operate facilities for transmitting energy in interstate
commerce to provide certain types of information regarding their
transmission operations on an Open Access Same-time Information System
(OASIS). The Commission does not believe that open-access
nondiscriminatory transmission services can be completely realized
until it removes real-world obstacles that prevent transmission
customers from competing effectively with the Transmission Provider.
One of the obstacles is unequal access to transmission information. The
Commission believes that transmission customers must have simultaneous
access to the same information available to the Transmission Provider
if truly nondiscriminatory transmission services are to be a reality.
    The Commission also established Standards of Conduct requiring that
personnel engaged in transmission system operations function
independently from personnel engaged in marketing functions. The
Standards of Conduct were designed to prevent employees of a public
utility (or any of its affiliates) engaged in marketing functions from
preferential access to OASIS-related information or from engaging in
unduly discriminatory business practices. Companies were required to
separate their transmission operations/reliability functions from their
marketing/merchant functions and prevent system operators from
providing merchant employees and employees of affiliates with
transmission-related information not available to all customers at the
same time through public posting on the OASIS.
    Type of Respondents: Transmission Owners and Transmission
Operators.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \1\ The Commission estimates a reduction
in the annual public reporting burden for the FERC-717. The numbers
comport two separate entities: Transmission Owners and Transmission
Operators. The respondent estimate provide corresponds to 170
Transmission Operators. The rational is that many Transmission Owners
have elected to turn over operational control of their collective
transmission systems to Transmission Operators, including RTOs/IS0s (as
authorized in 18 CFR 37.5). These Transmission Operators offer OASIS
access to the collective systems facilitating a single OASIS
transmission request serving multiple transmission systems. As a result
of these efficiency gains, the lower respondent count is appropriate.
For completeness, we ascribe the reduction in Transmission Owners to
mergers and acquisitions occurring during the time periods examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many Transmission Owners have turned over operational control of
their collective transmission systems to Transmission Operators,
including RTOs/ISOs. As a result of the efficiency gains, and an
overestimate of the respondents in our past request, we are submitting
a more accurate number of respondents. The changes in business practice
standards from version to version requires a different number of hours
each time a respondent submits there response. The estimate below
reflects the work associated with the most recent version of the
standards:

     FERC-717, Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards for Business Practices & Communication
                                                    Protocols
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Annual  number                      Average      Total annual
     Information collection          Number of     of  responses   Total number    burden hours    burden hours
          requirements              respondents         per        of responses    and cost per      and total
                                                    respondent                     response \2\     annual cost
                                             (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =             (4)     (3) * (4) =
                                                                             (3)                             (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-717........................             170               1             170              30           5,100
                                                                                $2,295        $390,150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission staff thinks that the average respondent for
this collection is similarly situated to the Commission, in terms of
salary plus benefits. Based upon FERC's 2017 annual average of
$158,754 (for salary plus benefits), the average hourly cost is
$76.50/hour.

    Dated: August 7, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16959 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P