[Federal Register: February 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 35)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8173-8177]
[DOCID:fr24fe09-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 95

[Docket No. 30653; Amdt. No. 479]

IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required
IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for
certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a
minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This
regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the
safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument
conditions in the affected areas.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, March 12, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 95 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR
altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a
specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover
points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as
prescribed in part 95.

The Rule

    The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the
prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid
coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of
frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the
need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and
operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to
published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and
provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In
addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this
amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication
date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the
user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those
considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between
these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice
and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable
and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for
making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this 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. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95

    Airspace, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 13, 2009.
John M. Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, March 12,2009.
0
1. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.

0
2. Part 95 is amended to read as follows:

                                Revisions to IFR Altitudes and Changeover Points
                                  [Amendment 479 effective date March 12, 2009]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     From                                         To                        MEA          MAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Sec.   95.4000 High Altitude RNAV Routes is Added to Read
                                         Sec.   95.4254 RNAV Route T254
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAKE CHARLES, LA VORTAC.......................  CREPO, TX FIX.........................         2200        10000
CREPO, TX FIX.................................  EAKES, TX FIX.........................         3100        10000
EAKES, TX FIX.................................  COLLEGE STATION, TX VORTAC............         3000        10000
COLLEGE STATION, TX VORTAC....................  CENTEX, TX VORTAC.....................        *3000        10000
    *2100--MOCA...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               From                           To                 MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Sec.   95.6001 Victor Routes--U.S. is Amended to Read in Part
                  Sec.   95.6002 VOR Federal Airway V2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMESTOWN, ND VOR/DME............  *CHAFE, ND FIX..........         3300
    *6000--MRA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6012 VOR Federal Airway V12 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEGHENY, PA VOR/DME............  MILWO, PA FIX...........         4000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6014 VOR Federal Airway V14 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUFFALO, NY VOR/DME.....  GENESEO, NY VOR/DME.....         4000
    BUF R-106 UNUSABLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6018 VOR Federal Airway V18 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LASHE, SC FIX....................  NORMS, SC FIX...........        *3000
    *2100--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6026 VOR Federal Airway V26 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHEROKEE, WY VOR/DME.............  *ALCOS, WY FIX..........        11600
    *9900--MRA
    *ALCOS, WY FIX                 MUDDY MOUNTAIN, WY        ...........
                                    VORTAC.
                                   NE BND..................       **8400
                                   SW BND..................       **9700
    *9900--MRA
    **7900--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6037 VOR Federal Airway V37 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLENDALE, SC VOR................  COLUMBIA, SC VORTAC.....        *3000
    *2000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6070 VOR Federal Airway V70 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALACIOS, TX VORTAC..............  SCHOLES, TX VORTAC......         2600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6084 VOR Federal Airway V84 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUFFALO, NY VOR/DME.....  GENESEO, NY VOR/DME.....         4000
    BUF R-106 UNUSABLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6129 VOR Federal Airway V129 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAU CLAIRE, WI VORTAC............  DULUTH, MN VORTAC.......        *4000
    *3100--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6139 VOR Federal Airway V139 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLUME, NJ FIX....................  *KOPPY, NY FIX..........       **4000
    *5000--MRA
    **3000--MOCA
    **3000--GNSS MEA
*KOPPY, NY FIX...................  BEADS, NY FIX...........       **4000
    *5000--MRA
    **3000--MOCA
    **3000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec.   95.6170 VOR Federal Airway V170 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORTHINGTON, MN VOR/DME..........  FAIRMONT, MN VOR/DME....         3300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6250 VOR Federal Airway V250 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORTHINGTON, MN VOR/DME..........  MANKATO, MN VOR/DME.....         3400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6268 VOR Federal Airway V268 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLUME, NJ FIX....................  *KOPPY, NY FIX..........       **4000
    *5000--MRA
    **3000--MOCA
    **3000--GNSS MEA
*KOPPY, NY FIX...................  BEADS, NY FIX...........       **4000
    *5000--MRA
    **3000--MOCA
    **3000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6286 VOR Federal Airway V286 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BROOKE, VA VORTAC................  ZUNAR, VA FIX...........         3000
ZUNAR, VA FIX....................  GWYNN, VA FIX...........         2000
GWYNN, VA FIX....................  CAPE CHARLES, VA VORTAC.        *2000
    *1500--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6308 VOR Federal Airway V308 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTTINGHAM, MD VORTAC............  *BILIT, MD FIX..........       **6000
    *6000--MCA BILIT, MD FIX, W
     BND
    **1600--MOCA
    **2000--GNSS MEA
BILIT, MD FIX....................  WATERLOO, DE VOR/DME....        *2000
    *1500--MOCA
PLUME, NJ FIX....................  *KOPPY, NY FIX..........       **4000
    *5000--MRA
    **3000--MOCA
    **3000--GNSS MEA
*KOPPY, NY FIX...................  BEADS, NY FIX...........       **4000
    *5000--MRA
    **3000--MOCA
    **3000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6345 VOR Federal Airway V345 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAU CLAIRE, WI VORTAC............  *HOMLO, WI FIX..........       **5200
    *10000--MRA
    **3100--MOCA
    **4000--GNSS MEA
*HOMLO, WI FIX...................  HAYWARD, WI VOR/DME.....      **10000
    *10000--MRA
    **3100--MOCA
    **4000--GNSS MEA
HAYWARD, WI VOR/DME..............  *GRASS, WI FIX..........  **
                                                                   10000
    *6000--MRA
    **3000--MOCA
    **4000--GNSS MEA
    UNUSABLE BELOW 10000
*GRASS, WI FIX...................  ASHLAND, WI VOR/DME.....       **4000
    *6000--MRA
    **2900--MOCA
    **3000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6362 VOR Federal Airway V362 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRUNSWICK, GA VORTAC.............  *HABLE, GA FIX..........       **3000
    *10000--MCA HABLE, GA FIX, NW
     BND
    **1700--MOCA
HABLE, GA FIX....................  ALMA, GA VORTAC.........       *10000
    *1700--MOCA
    *3000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6394 VOR Federal Airway V394 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAGGETT, CA VORTAC...............  OASYS, NV FIX...........       *12000

    *9500--MOCA
    *10000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6500 VOR Federal Airway V500 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWBERG, OR VOR/DME..............  GLARA, OR FIX...........         4000
GLARA, OR FIX....................  *HARZL, OR FIX..........  ...........
                                   W BND...................       **7200
                                   E BND...................      **10000
    *7200--MRA
    **6600--MOCA
    **7000--GNSS MEA
*HARZL, OR FIX...................  RATZZ, OR FIX...........  ...........
                                   E BND...................      **10000
                                   W BND...................       **8000
    *7200--MRA
    **7400--MOCA
    **8000--GNSS MEA
RATZZ, OR FIX....................  *GASHE, OR FIX..........      **10000
    *10000--MRA
    **8000--MOCA
    **8000--GNSS MEA
*GASHE, OR FIX...................  KIMBERLY, OR VORTAC.....       **9200
    *10000--MRA
    **8200--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6510 VOR Federal Airway V510 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMESTOWN, ND VOR/DME............  *CHAFE, ND FIX..........         3300
    *6000--MRA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6562 VOR Federal Airway V562 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*FERER, AZ FIX...................  DRAKE, AZ VORTAC........      **10000
    *12000--MRA
    **9200--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6567 VOR Federal Airway V567 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*FERER, AZ FIX...................  WINSLOW, AZ VORTAC......      **14000
    *12000--MRA
    **10000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6589 VOR Federal Airway V589 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEDICINE BOW, WY VOR/DME.........  *ALCOS, WY FIX..........         9900
    *9900--MRA
*ALCOS, WY FIX...................  MUDDY MOUNTAIN, WY        ...........
                                    VORTAC.
                                   NE BND..................       **8400
                                   SW BND..................       **9700
    *9900--MRA
    **7900--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6605 VOR Federal Airway V605 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOLSTON MOUNTAIN, TN VORTAC......  *GENOD, NC FIX..........         8500
    *15000--MRA
*GENOD, NC FIX...................  SPARTANBURG, SC VORTAC..      **15000
    *15000--MRA
    **4200--MOCA
    **5000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   95.6319 Alaska VOR Federal Airway V319 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EYAKS, AK FIX....................  *JOHNSTONE POINT, AK VOR/        5000
                                    DME.
    *4800--MCA JOHNSTONE POINT,
     AK VOR/DME , E BND
JOHNSTONE POINT, AK VOR/DME......  *EDELE, AK FIX..........         4400
    *8000--MCA EDELE, AK FIX , W
     BND
EDELE, AK FIX....................  WILER, AK FIX...........  ...........
                                   W BND...................       *10000
                                   E BND...................        *8000
    *5900--MOCA
    *6000--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     From                                         To                        MEA          MAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Sec.   95.7001 Jet Routes
                             Sec.   95.7042 Jet Route J42 is Amended to Read in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOUNT, KY FIX.................................  TONIO, KY FIX.........................       *20000        35000
    *18000--GNSS MEA
TONIO, KY FIX.................................  BECKLEY, WV VORTAC...........       *18000        35000
    *18000--GNSS MEA
BKW R-257 UNSUSABLE..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Sec.   95.7083 Jet Route J83 is Amended to Read in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLETON, OH VORTAC..................  DRYER, OH VOR/DME.....................        18000        45000
APE R-021 UNUSABLE...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    Airway segment                                          Changeover points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     From                                         To                      Distance       From
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Sec.   95.8003 VOR Federal Airway Changeover Points is Amended to Delete Changeover Point
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROCHESTER, NY VOR/DME.........................  ROCHESTER, NY VOR/DME.................           13    Rochester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     V20 is Amended to Add Changeover Point
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALACIOS, TX VORTAC...........................  HOBBY, TX VOR/DME.....................           41     Palacios
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     V166 is Amended to Add Changeover Point
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTMINSTER, MD VORTAC........................  DUPONT, DE VORTAC.....................           40  Westminster
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-3914 Filed 2-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 51 (Monday, March 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 14937]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05307]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-1208-000]

David Energy Supply, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
David Energy Supply, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 30, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 10, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-05307 Filed 3-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33027-33030]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14729]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0813; FRL-9996-23-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Georgia; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Interstate
Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve Georgia's August 15, 2018, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires each
state's implementation plan to address the interstate transport of air
pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to nonattainment, or
interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other state. In this
action, EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to approve the August 15, 2018, SIP revision as meeting the
requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0813 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Adams can also be reached
via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> and via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated an ozone NAAQS that revised the
levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08
parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm.\1\ See 73 FR 16436 (March 27,
2008). Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS (or shorter, if EPA prescribes),
states must submit SIPs that meet the applicable requirements of
section 110(a)(2). EPA has historically referred to these SIP
submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 0.075 ppm equates to 75 parts per billion (ppb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the structural requirements of section 110(a)(2) is section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which generally requires SIPs to contain adequate
provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from having
certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to
interstate transport of air pollution. There are four sub-elements, or
``prongs,'' within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the ``good neighbor'' provision,
requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant
in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or
interfere with

maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two provisions of this
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance). Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to
prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures required to be
included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state
under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong
3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). This proposed action addresses
only prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). All other
infrastructure SIP elements for Georgia for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
were addressed in separate rulemakings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 83 FR 19637 (May 4,2018); 80 FR 61109 (October 9, 2015);
and 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. State Submittal

    On August 15, 2018, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(GA EPD) provided a SIP submittal to EPA to address the interstate
transport requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the Georgia
SIP.\3\ Georgia made this submission to certify that its SIP contains
adequate provisions to prohibit emissions activities within the State
which will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state, and
therefore, adequately addresses the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\4\ Georgia's
certification is based on EPA's air quality modeling and monitoring
data, SIP-approved and state provisions regulating emissions of ozone
precursors (volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX)) within the State, and an analysis of recent trends in
emissions of ozone precursors (VOCs and NOX) from Georgia
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On March 6, 2012, Georgia submitted a SIP revision to
address the 110(a)(1) and (2) requirements of the CAA including
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On
October 3, 2013, the State withdrew its good neighbor SIP
submission. See August 29, 2016, Memorandum from Gobeail McKinley re
``Status of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS,''
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0509.
    \4\ On July 13, 2015, EPA published a final rulemaking that
finalized findings of failure to submit with regard to the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 24 states,
including Georgia, with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR
39961. The findings of failure to submit established a two-year
deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address the interstate
transport SIP requirements pertaining to significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with maintenance unless, prior to EPA
promulgating a FIP, the state submits, and EPA approves, a SIP that
meets these requirements. Additional background on the findings of
failure to submit--including EPA's findings related to Georgia--can
be found in the preamble to the final rule. See 80 FR 39961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Analysis Related to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS

    EPA developed technical information and related analyses to assist
states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through SIPs and, as appropriate, to provide
backstop federal implementation plans (FIPs) in the event that states
failed to submit approvable SIPs.\5\ On October 26, 2016, EPA took
steps to effectuate this backstop role with respect to eastern states
\6\ by finalizing an update to the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(2011 CSAPR) ozone season program that addresses good neighbor
obligations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).\7\ The
CSAPR Update establishes statewide NOX budgets for certain
affected electricity generating units in 22 eastern states for the May
through September ozone season to reduce the interstate transport of
ozone pollution in the eastern United States, and thereby help downwind
states and communities meet and maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
See 81 FR 74506. The rule also determined that emissions from 14 states
(including Georgia) will not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind
states. Accordingly, EPA determined that it need not require further
emission reductions from sources in those states to address the good
neighbor provision as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability on August 4,
2015, requesting comment on the modeling platform and air quality
modeling results that were used for the proposed Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update. See 80 FR 46271.
    \6\ For purposes of the CSAPR Update, ``eastern'' states refer
to all contiguous states fully east of the Rocky Mountains (thus not
including the mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, or New
Mexico).
    \7\ See Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals,
Final Rule (2011 CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update),
81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSAPR Update used the same framework that EPA used when
developing the original 2011 CSAPR, EPA's interstate transport rule
addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 2006
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. This framework
established the following four-step process to address the requirements
of the good neighbor provision: (1) Identify downwind areas, referred
to as receptors, that are expected to have problems attaining or
maintaining the NAAQS; (2) determine which upwind states impact these
identified problems in amounts sufficient to ``link'' them to the
downwind air quality problems; (3) for states linked to downwind air
quality problems, identify upwind emissions, if any, that will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of a NAAQS; and (4) reduce the identified upwind emissions for states
that are found to have emissions that will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind by
adopting permanent and enforceable measures in a FIP or SIP. In the
CSAPR Update, EPA used this four-step framework to determine whether
states in the east will significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of downwind air quality. As explained below,
the CSAPR Update's four-step analysis supports the conclusions provided
in GA EPD's August 15, 2018, interstate transport SIP submittal for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that the state will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
standard in other states.
    In the technical analysis supporting the CSAPR Update, EPA used
detailed air quality analyses to determine where projected
nonattainment or maintenance receptors would be, at step 1 of the four-
step framework, and whether emissions from an eastern state contribute
to downwind air quality problems at those projected nonattainment or
maintenance receptors, at step 2 of the framework. Specifically, EPA
determined whether each state's contributing emissions were at or above
a specific threshold. EPA determined that one percent was an
appropriate threshold to use in this analysis because there were
important, even if relatively small, contributions to identified
nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states at
that threshold.\8\ See 81

FR 74504. For the CSAPR Update, EPA applied an air quality screening
threshold of 0.75 ppb (equivalent to one percent of the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb) to identify linkages between upwind states and
the downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. States with
impacts below the one-percent threshold were considered not to
contribute to identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors and therefore would not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those
downwind areas. If a state's impact was equal to or exceeded the one-
percent threshold, that state was considered linked to the downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor(s) and the state's emissions were
further evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost
considerations, to determine whether any emissions reductions might be
necessary to address the state's obligation pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA's analysis showed that the one-percent threshold
generally captured a high percentage of the total pollution
transport affecting downwind states. EPA's analysis further showed
that the application of a lower threshold would result in relatively
modest increases in the overall percentage of ozone transport
pollution captured, while the use of higher thresholds would result
in a relatively large reduction in the overall percentage of ozone
pollution transport captured relative to the levels captured at one
percent at the majority of the receptors. See 81 FR 74504 (October
26, 2016) and ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document for the Final CSAPR Update'' (CSAPR Update Modeling TSD),
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_update.pdf. This approach is
consistent with the use of a one-percent threshold to identify those
states ``linked'' to air quality problems with respect to the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the original CSAPR rulemaking, wherein EPA
noted that there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient
ozone even at low levels. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); see also
``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document'' for
the 2011 CSAPR, located at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the final rulemaking for the CSAPR Update, the air
quality modeling contained in EPA's technical analysis: (1) Identified
locations in the U.S. where EPA anticipated nonattainment or
maintenance issues in 2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (these were
identified as nonattainment or maintenance receptors, respectively),
and (2) quantified the projected contributions from emissions from
upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at the receptors in
2017. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). This modeling used the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to
model the 2011 base year and the 2017 future base case emissions
scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites
with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2017. EPA used
nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (the CAMx
Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor
Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017
base case NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each
state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were
performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United
States, the District of Columbia, and adjacent portions of Canada and
Mexico. The updated modeling data released to support the final CSAPR
Update inform the Agency's analysis of upwind state linkages to
downwind air quality problems for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
Georgia. See CSAPR Update Modeling TSD.
    EPA's air quality modeling for the final CSAPR Update indicated
that Georgia's largest impact on any projected downwind nonattainment
receptor in 2017 was 0.60 ppb and Georgia's largest contribution to any
projected downwind maintenance-only site in 2017 was 0.62 ppb.\9\ These
values are below the one percent screening threshold of 0.75 ppb, and
therefore there are no identified linkages between Georgia and 2017
downwind projected nonattainment and maintenance sites.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CSAPR Update Modeling TSD at Table 4-2, section 4.4 and
Appendix D.
    \10\ Georgia continues to have CSAPR NOX ozone season
requirements (including emission budget) related to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504, 74524 n 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's analysis of the Georgia's submittal?

    As mentioned in section I, Georgia's August 15, 2018, submittal
certifies that emission activities from the State will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state for the following reasons:
(1) Modeling conducted by EPA in support of the CSAPR Update indicates
that Georgia's impact on any downwind receptor is less than 1 percent
of the standard; (2) NOX and VOC precursor emissions in
Georgia have decreased since 1990; and (3) Georgia has in place both
SIP-approved and state provisions that regulate ozone precursors in the
State. Based on an assessment of this information, EPA proposes to
approve Georgia's SIP submission because the State will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
    Georgia's submittal assessed EPA's CSAPR Update modeling. Georgia
cites EPA's August 2016 CSAPR Update Modeling TSD where the modeling
indicated that Georgia's largest impact on any projected downwind
nonattainment receptor in 2017 was 0.60 ppb and the largest impact on
any projected downwind maintenance-only site was 0.62 ppb, both of
which are below 0.75 ppb, the one percent threshold for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. EPA concluded that Georgia's emissions will not contribute to
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and therefore, did not
promulgate a FIP that required additional emission reductions from
Georgia. Accordingly, in the CSAPR Update, EPA made a final
determination that Georgia emissions will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and that sources in the State are not required
to further reduce emissions pursuant to the good neighbor provision
with respect to this standard.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 81 FR 74506. EPA is not reopening for comment final
determinations made in the CSAPR Update or the modeling conducted to
support that rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia's submittal also notes that total annual NOX
emissions and total annual VOC emissions in the state have decreased by
58 percent and 49 percent, respectively, between 1990 and 2017. EPA
notes that ozone precursor emissions nationally continue to decline
from 1990 levels and are largely driven by federal and state
implementation of stationary and mobile source regulations.\12\
Additionally, nationwide ozone concentrations have also decreased since
1990. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See EPA's annual report on the nation's air quality status
and trends through 2017, available at https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2018/documentation/AirTrends_Flyer.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GA EPD identified regulations that have been approved into the
Georgia SIP to provide for the control of NOX and VOCs,
which are precursors that contribute to ambient ozone concentrations.
These regulations include Regulations 391-3-1-.02--Provisions Amended
and 391-3-1-.03--Permits, which provide for the implementation of a
permitting program for New Source Review and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration requirements required under Title I, Parts C and D of the
CAA for sources of NOX and VOCs. The permitting requirements
help ensure that NOX and VOC emissions from new and modified
sources are controlled.
    Specifically for the control of NOX, GA EPD identified
SIP-approved regulations that establish emission standards and
compliance (testing and monitoring) requirements for stationary sources
of air pollution: 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy)--Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from
Major Sources, 391-3-1-

.02(2)(jjj)--NOX Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units, 391-3-1-.02(2)(lll)--NOX Emissions From Fuel-Burning Equipment,
and Regulation 391-3-1-.02(2)(rrr)--NOX from Small Fuel-
Burning Equipment. Georgia also identified Regulation 391-3-20--Vehicle
Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program which regulates
vehicle emissions in the state.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Although not relied upon for purposes of approval, GA EPD
also identified state-only provisions of the Georgia Rules for Air
Quality Control 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)--Multipollutant Control for
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units as a regulations that the
State is implementing which provides for the control of
NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia further identified the following SIP-approved regulations
that provide for the implementation of VOC emissions controls by
fulfilling RACT requirements for specific source categories: Regulation
391-3-1-.02(2)(t) through (ff), (hh) through (nn), (pp) through (ss),
(vv), (ccc) through (eee), (hhh), (kkk), (vvv), and (yyy) through
(aaaa). GA EPD further identified Regulation 391-3-1-.02(2)(tt)--VOC
Emissions from Major Sources, which outlines the case-by-case RACT
regulations in the State.
    EPA proposes to approve Georgia's August 15, 2018, SIP submission
on grounds that it addresses the State's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) good
neighbor obligation for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because EPA has
found that the State will not contribute significantly to nonattainment
in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to approve Georgia's August 15, 2018, SIP submission as meeting the CAA
requirements of prongs 1 and 2 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA requests comment on this proposed approval
of Georgia's SIP.

IV. 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. See 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
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 26, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-14729 Filed 7-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 75532-75533]
[DOCID:fr15de06-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2230-034]

City and Borough of Sitka, AK; Notice Soliciting Comments and
Final Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions

December 8, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2230-034.
    c. Date Filed: March 28, 2006.
    d. Applicant: City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska.
    e. Name of Project: Blue Lake Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On Sawmill Creek, 5 miles southeast of the City of
Sitka, Alaska. The project occupies lands of the United States;
specifically 1628.1 acres of the Tongass National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Andy Eggen, Acting Utility Director, City and
Borough of Sitka, 105 Jarvis Street, Sitka, AK 99835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Thomas Dean,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and final recommendations, terms
and conditions, and prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person that is on the official service list for the project. Further,
if an intervenor files comments

or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue
that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency,
they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``eFiling'' link.

    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. Description of Project: The existing Blue Lake Project consists
of the following : (1) A 211-foot-high, 256-foot-long concrete arch dam
equipped with a 140-foot-long spillway and a release valve at the base
of the dam; (2) a 1,225-acre reservoir with a normal water surface
elevation of 342 feet msl; (3) a 7,110-foot-long power conduit
consisting of: (a) An 11.5-foot-diameter, 1,500-foot-long penstock; (b)
an 84-inch-diameter, 460-foot-long penstock; (c) a 10-inch-diameter,
4,650-foot-long lower penstock; (d) an 84-inch-diameter, 500-foot-long
penstock; (e) a 20-inch-diameter water supply tap; (f) an 84-inch-
diameter butterfly valve; and (g) a 24-inch conduit drain valve; (4) a
powerhouse containing two 3,000 kW generating units; (5) a 150-foot-
long tailrace; (6) a 5-mile-long, 69-kV transmission line; and (7)
appurtenant facilities.
    Two additional generating units are connected to the project power
conduit as follows:
    The Fish Valve Unit consists of: (1) A 36-inch-diameter wye
penstock connected to the power conduit; (2) a powerhouse containing
one 670 kW generating unit; (3) a 7,700-foot-long, 12.47-kV
transmission line; and (4) appurtenant facilities.
    The Pulp Mill Feeder Unit consists of: (1) A 36-inch-diameter tee
connected to the power conduit; (2) a 36-inch-diameter, 24-foot-long
penstock; (3) a powerhouse containing one 870 kW generating unit; (4) a
470-foot-long 4.16-kV transmission line; and (5) appurtenant
facilities.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit comments on this application. In determining
the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all
comments filed. Comments must be received on or before the specified
deadline date.
    All filings must: (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the agency or other individual submitting the filing; and (4)
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through
385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or
prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain
copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must
be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    o. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule
will be made as appropriate. The Commission staff proposes to issue a
single environmental assessment for comment rather than issuing a draft
and final EA. Comments, terms and conditions, recommendations,
prescriptions, and reply comments, if any, will be addressed in the EA.
Staff intend to give at least 30 days for entities to comment on the
EA, and will take into consideration all comments received on the EA
before final action is taken on the license application.
    Notice of the availability of the EA June 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21386 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30213-30218]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12207]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0203; FRL-9386-1]

1-Naphthaleneacetic acid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of 1-
naphthaleneacetic acid in or on avocado; fruit, pome, group 11-10;
mango; sapote, mamey; and rambutan. This regulation additionally
deletes certain tolerances, identified and discussed later in this
document. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective May 22, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 22, 2013, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0203, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Nollen, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-7390; email 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0203 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 22, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0203, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of May 2, 2012 (77 FR 25954) (FRL-9346-1),
EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 2E7991)
by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.155 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the plant growth regulator 1-
naphthaleneacetic acid and its conjugates in or on rambutan at 3 parts
per million (ppm); avocado, mango, and sapote, mamey at 0.05 ppm; and
fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.15 ppm. The petition additionally
requested to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.155 by removing the
tolerance for fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.15 ppm, as it will be
superseded by the tolerance on fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.15 ppm.
That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared on behalf
of IR-4 by Amvac Chemical Corporation, 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 review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the proposed tolerance on rambutan from 3.0 ppm to 2.0 ppm. The
Agency has also revised the tolerance expression for all established
commodities to be consistent with current Agency policy. The reason for
these changes is 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 FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in that section, 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 1-naphthaleneacetic acid, including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with 1-naphthaleneacetic
acid 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.
    Based on structural activity relationship and metabolism data, all
forms of 1-naphthaleneacetic acid, its salts, ester, and acetamide
which are collectively referred to as naphthalene acetates (NAA), are
expected to exhibit similar toxicological effects. In selecting
endpoints of toxicity for risk assessment to exposures to the various
NAA forms, the most conservative endpoint was selected from the studies
that showed the lowest NOAELs for assessing a particular exposure. In
addition, all forms degrade to the acid fairly quickly in the field and
in biological systems.

Therefore, EPA has concluded that required toxicity testing on any form
should serve for all members of this group of chemicals.
    Repeated oral exposures to NAA in rats and dogs resulted in
decreased body weights, and body weight gains accompanied by decreased
food consumption. The major target organs from subchronic and chronic
oral exposures were the liver, stomach, and lung. Repeated oral
exposures also resulted in decreased hematocrit and hemoglobin, along
with reduced red blood cell count in rats and dogs and hypocellularity
of the bone marrow in dogs.
    There was no developmental toxicity at the highest dose of NAA (the
acid) tested in the rat or in the rabbit (orally gavaged), but
developmental toxicity (decreased fetal weight and minor skeletal
changes) were seen in rats orally gavaged with the sodium salt.
Reproductive effects of NAA sodium salts were limited to reduced litter
survival and pup weight throughout lactation in both generations of
offspring in a 2-generation reproduction study.
    NAA and its acetamide and the ethyl ester were tested for mutagenic
effects in a gene mutation bacterial assay, mouse lymphoma assay, and
mouse erythrocyte micronucleus assay, mouse lymphoma assay, and mouse
erythrocyte micronucleus assay and were not found to be mutagenic.
Additionally, NAA was tested for mitotic gene conversion and dominant
lethality in rats and found to be negative. In a published
carcinogenicity study of NAA acetamide in mice and a guideline chronic/
oncogenicity study of NAA sodium salt in rats and mice, NAA compounds
were not carcinogenic in mice or rats.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by NAA 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: ``Naphthalene Acetates Human Health
Risk Assessment for a Proposed Use on Avocado, Mango, Mamey Sapote,
Rambutan, and Updating Crop Group Fruit, Pome, Group 11-10.'' at pages
42-50 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0203.

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 (LOC) 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 (U/SF) 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 NAA used for human
risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

      Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for NAA 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 (General population       An acute RfD for the general population or any population subgroups was
 including infants and children and       not selected because no effect attributable to a single exposure was
 females 13-49 years of age)                                   observed in animal studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)....  NOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day...  Chronic RfD = 0.15 mg/   Chronic Toxicity--Dog
                                       UFA = 10x..............   kg/day.                  LOAEL = 75 mg/kg/day
                                       UFH = 10x..............  cPAD = 0.15 mg/kg/day..   based on stomach
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            lesions in 75% of the
                                                                                males and by slight
                                                                                sinusoidal
                                                                                histiocytosis in the
                                                                                liver of 50% of the
                                                                                males.
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days).....  Dermal study...........  LOC for MOE = 100......  21-Day dermal: NAA Na
                                       NOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day..                            salt LOAEL = 1,000 mg/
                                       UFA = 10x..............                            kg/day based on
                                       UFH = 10x..............                            reduced body weight
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            gain and food
                                                                                efficiency.
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 days).  Oral study.............  LOC for MOE = 1,000....  Developmental Rat: NAA
                                       NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day...                            LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day
                                       UFA = 10x..............                            based on decreased
                                       UFH = 10x..............                            body weight gain
                                       FQPA SF = 10x..........                            during gestation
                                                                                period.
��������������������������������������
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)....                   Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligrams/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to NAA, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing NAA tolerances in 40 CFR 180.155.
EPA assessed dietary exposures from NAA in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for NAA; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the
Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16, which uses
food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America, (NHANES/WWEIA), conducted from 2003-2008. As to residue levels
in food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level
residues for all commodities. In addition, DEEM version 7.81 default
processing factors were used, when appropriate.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that NAA 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 PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for NAA. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all
food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for NAA in drinking water. These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of NAA. 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 First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of NAA for chronic exposures for non-
cancer assessments are estimated to be 2.99 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 0.0226 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 3.0 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). NAA is currently
registered for root dip and sprout inhibition applications to
ornamentals, which could result in residential exposures. There is a
potential for short-term dermal and inhalation exposures to residential
handlers, resulting from loading and applying NAA. There are no
residential uses for NAA that result in exposure to children via
incidental oral activities. The rooting compounds are applied by
holding the plant and dipping the roots into solution. Very little
exposure is expected from this use. Sprout inhibitors are applied by
spray or paint brush/roller after pruning trees, or by spraying near
the base of the tree after pruning root suckers. There is very little
potential for postapplication exposure to NAA for adults or children
based on the residential use pattern; therefore, residential
postapplication exposure is not expected, nor is intermediate- or long-
term exposure scenarios based on the intermittent nature of
applications by homeowners.
    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 NAA to share a common mechanism of toxicity with
any other substances, and NAA does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that NAA 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 Web site 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 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 low concern and no
residual uncertainty for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity resulting from
exposure to the NAA group of chemicals. The available data provided no
indication of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of
rats or rabbits to in utero exposure to NAA or to prenatal and
postnatal exposure in rat reproduction studies. In the developmental
toxicity study conducted with NAA sodium salt in rats, fetal toxicity
(mainly decreased fetal weights and minor skeletal changes) was
observed at a dose lower than the maternally toxic dose.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF was reduced to 1X for the oral and dermal routes of exposure
and retained at 10X for the inhalation route of exposure. That decision
is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for NAA is not complete. EPA concluded
that a 28-day inhalation toxicity study is required for NAA, based on a
weight-of-evidence approach. A 10X SF was retained for the inhalation
route of exposure due to the lack of the required 28-day inhalation
study and given that the endpoint for subchronic inhalation is based on
a developmental study (NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day) that noted decreased body
weight gains during gestation.
    Additionally, recent changes to 40 CFR part 158 imposed new data
requirements for immunotoxicity testing

(OCSPP Guideline 870.7800) for pesticide registration. While an
immunotoxicity study is not available for NAA, the toxicology database
does not show any evidence of treatment-related effects on the immune
system and the overall weight-of-evidence suggests that this chemical
does not directly target the immune system. Consequently, the Agency
does not believe that conducting a functional immunotoxicity study will
result in a lower POD than that currently used for overall risk
assessment, and therefore, an additional safety factor is not needed to
account for lack of this study.
    Acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are also required as a
part of new data requirements in 40 CFR part 158; however, EPA has
waived the requirement for these studies at the present time. This
decision is based on: (1) The lack of neurotoxicity and neuropathology
in the available toxicology studies for NAA; and (2) liver, stomach,
and lung were identified as the target organs, with dogs being the most
sensitive species. Therefore, neurotoxicity studies conducted in rats
would not provide a more sensitive endpoint for risk assessment, and
studies would be unlikely to yield PODs lower than the current PODs
used for overall risk assessment.
    ii. There is no indication that NAA is a neurotoxic chemical and
there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional
UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that NAA results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study. In the developmental toxicity study conducted with NAA sodium
salt in rats, fetal toxicity was observed at a dose lower than the
maternally toxic dose. However, there were clear NOAELs in this
developmental study and the PODs used in the chronic dietary assessment
(15 mg/kg/day) are protective of the fetal effects observed in the
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment was performed
based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground water and surface water modeling
used to assess exposure to NAA in drinking water. Based on the
discussion in Unit III.C.3., regarding limited residential use
patterns, exposure to residential handlers is very low and EPA does not
anticipate postapplication exposure to children or incidental exposures
to toddlers resulting from use of NAA in residential settings. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by NAA.

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,
NAA is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
NAA from food and water will utilize 2.0% of the cPAD for children 1-2
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 NAA 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). Though there
is potential for short-term dermal and inhalation exposures to adult
handlers resulting from residential applications of NAA to ornamentals,
aggregate risk was not estimated for NAA because the toxicity endpoints
selected for the chronic dietary route of exposure and those selected
for inhalation and dermal routes of exposure are not based on common
effects i.e., the chronic dietary endpoint is based on systemic effects
and the dermal and inhalation endpoints are based on decreased body
weight gain. Exposure pathways and routes are only aggregated when they
share a common toxic effect.
    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). Because no intermediate-term adverse effect was identified, NAA
is not expected to pose an intermediate-term risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, NAA 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 NAA residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate enforcement method, a high performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC) method using fluorescence detection (Method NAA-
AM-001) and a similar method (Method NAA-AM-002), is available to
enforce the tolerance expression for NAA in plant commodities.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_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 United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for NAA.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on the data supporting the petition, EPA revised the proposed
tolerance on rambutan from 3.0 ppm to

2.0 ppm. The Agency revised this tolerance level based on analysis of
the residue field trial data using the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures.
    Finally, the Agency has revised the tolerance expression to
clarify: (1) That, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the
tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of NAA not specifically
mentioned; and (2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels
is to be determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned
in the tolerance expression.

 V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of NAA, 1-
naphthaleneacetic acid, in or on avocado at 0.05 ppm; fruit, pome,
group 11-10 at 0.15 ppm; sapote, mamey at 0.05 ppm; mango at 0.05 ppm;
and rambutan at 2.0 ppm. This regulation additionally removes the
tolerance in or on fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.15 ppm and the time-
limited tolerance in or on avocado at 0.05 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this 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 FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this 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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 14, 2013.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.155 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.155  1-Naphthaleneacetic acid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for the residues of 1-
naphthaleneacetic acid, including its metabolites and degradates in or
on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified is to be determined by measuring only 1-
naphthaleneacetic acid and its conjugates, calculated as the
Stoichiometric equivalent of 1-naphthaleneacetic acid, in or on the
commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avocado..................................................           0.05
Cherry, sweet............................................           0.1
Fruit, pome, group 11-10.................................           0.15
Mango....................................................           0.05
Olive....................................................           0.7
Orange...................................................           0.1
Pineapple\1\.............................................           0.05
Potato...................................................           0.01
Rambutan.................................................           2.0
Sapote, mamey............................................           0.05
Tangerine................................................           0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations since 1988.

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2013-12207 Filed 5-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 70376]
[DOCID:fr04de06-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP06-12-000 and CP06-13-000]

Gulf LNG Energy, LLC and Gulf LNG Pipeline, LLC; Notice of
Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the LNG
Clean Energy Project

November 24, 2006.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission), in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard),
has prepared this final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
construction and operation of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) import
terminal and natural gas pipeline facilities, referred to as the LNG
Clean Energy Project, as proposed by Gulf LNG Energy, LLC and Gulf LNG
Pipeline, LLC (collectively referred to as Gulf LNG) in the above-
referenced dockets.
    This final EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The staff concludes that approval of
the LNG Clean Energy Project, with appropriate mitigating measures as
recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact. The final
EIS evaluates alternatives to the proposed action, including the Coast
Guard's alternatives to issuing a Letter of Recommendation, system
alternatives, alternative sites for the LNG import terminal, and
pipeline alternatives. The final EIS also contains our Essential Fish
Habitat Assessment.
    The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of
construction and operation of the following facilities near the City of
Pascagoula in Jackson County, Mississippi:
     A ship berth and unloading facilities (i.e., marine
facilities) capable of accommodating one LNG ship;
     LNG transfer systems;
     Two 160,000 cubic meter full containment LNG storage
tanks;
     10 high-pressure submerged combustion vaporizers;
     Vapor handling systems;
     Hazard detection and response equipment, ancillary
utilities, buildings, and service facilities;
     A 5.0-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter natural gas sendout
pipeline; and
     Associated pipeline support facilities, including three
interconnects/meter stations, one pig launcher, and one pig receiver.
    The analysis also includes operation of LNG vessels in the waterway
from the territorial seas until moored at the proposed LNG terminal.
    The general purpose of the LNG Clean Energy Project is to provide
up to 1.5 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to markets in the
United States.
    The final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and
is available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch,
888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A limited number of copies of the final EIS are available from the
Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch identified above. In
addition, CD copies of the final EIS have been mailed to federal,
state, and local agencies; elected officials; public interest groups;
individuals and affected landowners; libraries; newspapers; and parties
to these proceedings.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.

Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY

at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription that 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. To register for this service, go to the eSubscription
link on the FERC Internet Web site.
    Information about the project is also available from the Coast
Guard by contacting Captain James Bjostad, Captain of the Port, Sector
Mobile, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-20462 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P