[Federal Register: October 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 195)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57489-57492]
[DOCID:fr10oc07-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0557; FRL-8145-2]

Furilazole; Inert Ingredient Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
furilazole (3-dichloroacetyl-5-(2-furanyl)-2, 2-dimethyloxazolidine;
(CAS Reg. No. 121776-33-8) under 40 CFR 180.471 when used as a
pesticide inert ingredient safener on the sorghum commodities forage,
grain, and stover at 0.01 parts per million (ppm). The Monsanto Company
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
(FQPA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

DATES: This regulation is effective October 10, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 10, 2007,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0557. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced

Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr
.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 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-2007-0557 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be
in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or
before December 10, 2007.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA

without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0557, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31459) (FRL-7715-7),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA), announcing the filing of a pesticide
petition (PP 5E6919) by the Monsanto Company. The petition requested
that 40 CFR 180.471 be amended by the addition of tolerances for
residues of furilazole (3-dichloroacetyl-5-(2-furanyl)-2, 2-
dimethyloxazolidine; (CAS Reg. No. 121776-33-8) on the sorghum
commodities bran, flour, forage, grain, and stover at 0.01 parts per
million (ppm). That notice included a summary of the petition prepared
by the petitioner. No comments were received in response to the notice
of filing.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 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(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the 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 the 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. . .
.'' These provisions were added to the FFDCA by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.

III. Risk Characterization and Conclusions

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed
the available scientific data and other relevant information in support
of this action and considered its validity, completeness and
reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA
has also considered available information concerning the variability of
the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers,
including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused
by furilazole is discussed in this unit. EPA has sufficient data to
assess the hazards of and make a determination on aggregate exposure
for the chemical. The following provides a brief summary of the risk
assessment and conclusions for the Agency's review of furilazole. The
full decision document for this action is available on EPA's Electronic
Docket at http://www.regulations.gov/ under docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-

2007-0557.

A. Human Health

    The Agency reviewed the available information on furilazole
submitted by the petitioner and determined that the toxicity database
is sufficient. The toxicity studies used here were submitted for the
establishment of tolerances of furilazole on corn commodities (Federal
Register of April 3, 2002 (67 FR 15727) (FRL-6828-4). Laboratory
studies in rodents show that exposure to furilazole may cause effects
to the liver. In a 90-day oral toxicity study on rodents, the no
observed effects level (NOAEL) was 7 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/
day) and the lowest observed effects level (LOAEL) was 34/38 mg/kg/day
(male/female), and in a chronic toxicity study on the rat the NOAEL was
0.26 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 5.05 mg/kg/day. Evidence of
carcinogenicity was observed in rodents. For developmental toxicity,
effects (increased number of re-sorptions; NOAEL was 10 mg/kg/day and
the LOAEL was 75 mg/kg/day) were observed at maternally toxic doses. In
the final rule, the Agency concluded ``no qualitative or quantitative
evidence of increased susceptibility in the rat or rabbit fetuses
following in-utero exposure in the developmental toxicity studies nor
to the offspring following prenatal/postnatal exposure in the 2-
generation reproduction study.'' The Agency further concluded ``taking
into account the lack of increased susceptibility and the completeness
of the data on toxicity and exposure, EPA determined that the 10X
safety factor to protect infants and children should be removed.''
There are no residual uncertainties regarding prenatal and/or postnatal
toxicity.

B. Exposure Assessment

    The potential for exposure to residues of furilazole is adequately
characterized based on the results of modeling and the crop residue
studies. The results of the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM)
model developed when tolerances for furilazole were first established
on corn estimated that the amount of the dietary chronic population
adjusted dose (cPAD) for the U.S. population was 1.4%, and the highest
amount of the cPAD was 3.4% for all infants less than 1 year old.
Estimates for potential cancer risks were also very low.
    Residue studies (crop field trials and processed) show that
residues of furilazole on sorghum commodities were non-quantifiable
(less than the Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) of 0.010 ppm) in all samples
of sorghum forage, grain, and stover.
    Considering the results of the residue studies for furilazole on
sorghum commodities and exposure modeling, the Agency concludes that
dietary (food and drinking water) exposures of concern are not
anticipated from the inert ingredient use of furilazole on the sorghum
commodities forage, grain, and stover. Residential exposure is not
expected because applications are limited to the agricultural crop
sorghum. EPA is not aware of non-pesticide uses of furilazole,
therefore, no further aggregate assessment is necessary.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold 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 that a different margin of safety will be safe
for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA
risk assessments either directly through use of a margin of exposure
analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a
dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. The toxicity
database is sufficient for furilazole and

potential exposure is adequately characterized based on results of the
residue studies for furilazole on sorghum commodities and exposure
modeling. In terms of hazard, there are low concerns and no residual
uncertainties regarding prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity. Taking into
account the lack of increased susceptibility and the completeness of
the data on toxicity and exposure, EPA determined that the 10X safety
factor to protect infants and children should be removed.

D. Cumulative Exposure

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the 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.'' Unlike other pesticides for
which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common
mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity
finding as to furilazole and any other substances, and the chemical
does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA
has not assumed that furilazole has a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative
.

E. Other Considerations

    1. Analytical methods. Adequate enforcement methodology (capillary
gas chromotography using electron capture detection) is available to
enforce the tolerance exemption expression. The method may be requested
from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center,
701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-
2905; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. International tolerances. The Agency is not aware of any country
requiring a tolerance for furilazole nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue
Levels (MRLs) been established for any food crops at this time.

F. Determination of Safety and Conclusions

    The petitioner requested tolerances for sorghum flour and bran,
nevertheless, these tolerances are not being established. The Agency
has determined that tolerances for these processed commodities are not
necessary because the residue data showed that residues of furilazole
were non-quantifiable (less than 0.010 ppm) in all samples of grain
(RAC) and processed fractions.
    Laboratory studies in show that exposure to furilazole may cause
effects to the liver and evidence of carcinogenicity was observed.
Developmental effects were observed at maternally toxic doses and there
was no qualitative or quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility
in the rat or rabbit fetuses. Therefore, the 10X safety factor to
protect infants and children is removed.
    The results of the DEEM model that was developed when tolerances
for furilazole were first established estimated the amount of the
dietary cPAD for the U.S. population was 1.4%, and the highest amount
of the cPAD was 3.4% for all infants less than 1 year old. Estimates
for potential cancer risks were also very low. Residue studies (crop
field trials and processed) on sorghum commodities show that residues
of furilazole were non-quantifiable (less than the LOQ of 0.010 ppm).
Considering the results of the residue studies and the conservative
exposure modeling, the Agency concludes that dietary (food and drinking
water) exposures of concern are not anticipated from the inert
ingredient use of furilazole on sorghum commodities. Residential
exposure is not expected because applications are limited to the
agricultural crop sorghum. The Agency is not aware of any non-pesticide
uses of furilazole, therefore, no further exposure assessment is
necessary.
    Based on the information in this preamble, EPA concludes that there
is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the general population,
including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of
furilazole. Accordingly, EPA finds that establishing tolerances for
furilazole will be safe. EPA is establishing tolerances under 40 CFR
180.471 for residues of furilazole in or on the sorghum commodities
forage, grain, and stover at 0.01 ppm when it is used as an inert
ingredient safener.
    In addition, the annual application rate limitation found in 40 CFR
180.471 is being removed because it is unnecessary. The establishment
of tolerance levels provides adequate regulation under FFDCA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the 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 section
408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action
will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal
governments, on the relationship between the national government and
the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113,
section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

V. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: September 27, 2007.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

PART 180--AMENDED

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

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

0
2. In Sec. 180.471, paragraph (a) is amended by revising the
introductory text and by alphabetically adding commodities to the table
to read as follows:

Sec.  180.471  Furilazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of furilazole;
3-dichloroacetyl-5-(2-furanyl)-2, 2-dimethyloxazolidine (CAS Reg. No.
121776-33-8) when used as an inert ingredient (safener) in pesticide
formulations in or on the following raw agricultural commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Sorghum, forage............................................         0.01
Sorghum, grain.............................................         0.01
Sorghum, stover............................................         0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-19829 Filed 10-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

	OFFICE OF

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND

POLLUTION PREVENTION

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

Date:		28-MAY-2010

Subject:	Sulfentrazone.  Section 3 Registration Request to Add New Uses
on:  Brassica, Head and Stem, Subgroup 5A; Brassica, Leafy Greens,
Subgroup 5B; Melon, Subgroup 9A; Fruiting Vegetable, Group 8 and Okra;
Pea, Succulent; Flax; Strawberry; and Tuberous and Corm Vegetable,
Subgroup 1C.  Amendment of 08/12/2009.

PC Code:  129081	DP Barcode:  D368179

Decision No.:  388050	Registration Nos:  279-3220 & 279-3189

Petition No.:  7E7308	Regulatory Action:  Amended Section 3

Risk Assessment Type:  NA	Case No.:  7231

TXR No.:  NA	CAS No.:  122836-35-5

MRID No.:  None	40 CFR:  §180.498

From:		William D. Wassell, Chemist

		Risk Assessment Branch 1 (RAB1)

		Health Effects Division (HED, 7509P)

Through:	George F. Kramer, Ph.D., Senior Chemist

		RAB1/HED (7509P)

To:		Daniel Rosenblatt, RM 05

	Registration Division (RD, 7505P)

Executive Summary

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Sulfentrazone is an aryl triazolinone herbicide
used to control a variety of broadleaf weeds.  The mode-of-action for
controlling emerging weeds is by protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)
inhibition.  Plants emerging from soils treated with sulfentrazone turn
necrotic and die shortly after exposure to light.

The Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) has submitted a petition
proposing the establishment of permanent tolerances for the combined
residues of the herbicide sulfentrazone
[N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2
,4-triazol-1-yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide] and its metabolites HMS
[N-(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-hydroxymethyl-5-oxo
-1H-1,2,4-triazol-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide)], and DMS [(N-2,4-
dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)p
henyl)methanesulfonamide] in/on:

Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A*	0.20 ppm

Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B	0.35 ppm

Melon, subgroup 9A	0.10 ppm

Vegetable, fruiting, group 8	0.05 ppm

Okra	0.05 ppm

Pea, succulent	0.05 ppm

Flax	0.05 ppm

Strawberry	0.05 ppm

Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C*	0.15 ppm

	*  Individual tolerances are established for residues in/on cabbage at
0.20 ppm and potato at 0.15 ppm.

The current submission consists of a letter (dated:  08/12/2009) from
Dan Kunkel of the IR-4 program and addresses deficiencies cited HED’s
review of the subject petition (Memo, 9/29/08, W.D. Wassell, D349321).

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Regulatory Recommendations and Residue Chemistry
Deficiencies

There are no residue chemistry issues that would preclude granting an
unconditional registration for the requested uses pending submissions of
a revised Section B (see requirements under Directions for Use);
reference standard for the metabolite HMS (see requirements under   SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 Submittal of Analytical Reference Standards); and a
revised Section F (see Table 1).  The proposed uses and the submitted
data support the establishment of the following permanent tolerances for
residues of the herbicide sulfentrazone, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities listed below.  Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only
the sum of sulfentrazone
(N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2
,4-triazol-1-yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide) and its metabolites HMS
(N-(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-hydroxymethyl-5-oxo
-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide) and DMS
(N-(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazo
l-1-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide, both free and conjugated, calculated
as the stoichiometric equivalent of sulfentrazone.

Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A	0.20 ppm

Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B	0.40 ppm

Melon, subgroup 9A	0.15 ppm

Vegetable, fruiting, group 8	0.15 ppm

Okra	0.15 ppm

Pea, succulent	0.15 ppm

Flax	0.15 ppm

Strawberry	0.15 ppm

Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C	0.15 ppm

Detailed Considerations:

The previously noted deficiencies are summarized below, followed by the
petitioner’s response and finally HED conclusions.

860.1200 Directions for Use

A revised Section B is required.  The proposed label for Spartan® 4F
Herbicide (EPA Reg. No. 279-3220), a 4 lb/gal FlC formulation, should be
modified to correct the application rates listed as “dry ounces
Spartan® Herbicide per acre” to “fluid ounces Spartan® Herbicide
per acre.”  Also, as metabolism data are not available to support
postemergence applications on fruiting vegetables, these proposed uses
should be limited to preemergence application only.  Additionally, the
proposed labels should be revised to specify a maximum single and
seasonal application rate of 0.020 lb ai/A for Spartan® to Brassica
leafy greens subgroup 5B as this rate is supported by the submitted crop
field trial data for mustard greens.

Petitioner’s Response:  None.

HED Conclusions:  This deficiency remains outstanding.

860.1520 Processed Food and Feed

New flax and tomato processing studies should be submitted.  Since
phytotoxicity does not appear to be an issue, the requested processing
studies should use an exaggerated application rate (equal to the maximum
theoretical concentration factor or 5x, whichever is less).

The submitted flax and tomato processing studies are unacceptable since
the studies did not conclusively demonstrate that sulfentrazone residues
of concern will not concentrate in processed fractions as a result of
the proposed use.  Quantifiable residues were not detected in the RACs
used for processing, and the field trials were conducted at only 1x
(flax) or 2x (tomatoes) rates.  Since phytotoxicity does not appear to
be an issue, the processing studies need to be repeated using an
exaggerated application rate (equal to the maximum theoretical
concentration factor or 5x, whichever is less).

Petitioner’s Response:  For both flax and tomato, IR-4 decided to
forego 5x exaggerated studies due to concerns of phytotoxicity, delayed
fruit set, and uncertainty concerning producing commodities with
quantifiable residues.  With regard to flax, phytotoxicity was of less
concern, but the long pre-harvest interval makes it unlikely that
residues would be present regardless of the application rate.  With
regard to tomato, IR-4 had considerable concern for crop phytotoxicity
that precluded IR-4 from providing a study above the 2x rate.  These
considerations were based on available crop injury data as well as
delayed crop maturity from transplant applications.  IR-4 concludes that
the 2x study along with the processing study, clearly demonstrates that
no residues will be in tomato processed commodities.  IR-4 further
doubts whether it would even be possible to produce a marketable crop at
the requested 5x rate.

HED Conclusions:  Concerning flax, HED has accepted sulfentrazone
processing studies without an exaggerated rate for other crops with a
similar use pattern such as field corn (Memo, 11/26/2002, G.F. Kramer,
D276112) and sunflowers (Memo, 1/10/2003, G.F. Kramer, D286879) based on
concerns for phytotoxicity and the inability to provide samples with
detectable residues.  HED concludes that an additional flax processing
study is not required.

Concerning tomato, phytotoxicity was a problem in some of the submitted
field trials and we defer to IR-4’s expertise concerning the
likelihood of being able to conduct an exaggerated rate study (above
2x).  HED concludes an additional tomato processing study is not
required.

Note to IR-4:  Taking into account that HED usually asks for exaggerated
rate field trials in conjunction with processing studies when
quantifiable residues are not present at 1x, IR-4 should have included
the discussion of why it was not possible to do exaggerated rate studies
in the original submission.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 860.1650 Submittal of Analytical Reference
Standards

As the reference standard for the metabolite HMS has expired 4/1/2008,
the petitioner must submit a new standard.  If new standards are being
submitted, they should be sent to the Analytical Chemistry Lab, which is
located at Fort Meade, to the attention of Theresa Cole at the following
address:

	USEPA

	National Pesticide Standards Repository/Analytical Chemistry Branch/OPP

	701 Mapes Road

	Fort George G. Meade, MD  20755-5350

Petitioner’s Response:  None.

HED Conclusions:  This deficiency remains outstanding.

860.1550 Proposed Tolerances

A summary of recommended tolerances are presented in the following
table.  The petitioner is required to submit a revised Section F to
reflect appropriate tolerance levels.

Table 1.  Tolerance Summary for Sulfentrazone.

Commodity	Proposed Tolerance (ppm)	Recommended Tolerance (ppm)	Comments

Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A	0.20	0.20	The established tolerance
for cabbage under 180.498(a)(2) should be removed concomitantly when the
subgroup 5A tolerance is established

Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B	0.35	0.40

	Melon subgroup 9A	0.10	0.15

	Vegetable, fruiting, group 8	0.05	0.15

	Okra	0.05	0.15

	Pea, succulent	0.05	0.15

	Flax	0.05	0.15	The established time limited tolerance for flax seed
under 180.498(b) should be removed concomitantly when the permanent flax
tolerance is established.

Strawberry	0.05	0.15	The established time limited tolerance for
strawberry under 180.498(b) should be removed concomitantly when the
permanent strawberry tolerance is established.

Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C	0.15	0.15	Tolerance
recommendation is based on residue data translated from potato.  The
established tolerance for potato under 180.498(a)(2) should be removed
concomitantly when the subgroup 1C tolerance is established.

Petitioner’s Response:  None.

HED Conclusions:  This deficiency remains outstanding.

RDI:  RAB1 Chemistry Team:  02/24/2010

Petition Number:  7E7308

DP#:  368179

PC Code:  129081

Sulfentrazone	Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data	DP#:
368179

Page   PAGE  3  of   NUMPAGES  5


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	January 30, 2008

SUBJECT:	Summary of January 28, 2008 Meeting with the National Paint and
Coatings Association Environmental Management Committee

FROM:	Bradley Nelson, EC/R Inc.

TO:	Melissa Payne, EPA/OAQPS/RDPAG

I.  Purpose of Meeting

The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the concerns and suggestions
by the National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) to the Area Source
NESHAP for the Paint and Allied Products manufacturing sector.

II.  Attendees

Melissa Payne, EPA	David Darling, NPCA            Chebryll Edwards, EPA
Alison Keane, NPCA

Laura Bunting, EPA	John Hopewell, NPCA

Bradley Nelson, EC/R	George Patterson - DuPont Performance Coatings

John Kinast, Henry Company	Allen Stegman, Valspar Corporation

H. Charles Cooper, Ashland Distribution	Marcela Nichols, True Value
Manufacturing Co.

Prouopis Christou, Benjamin Moore	Deborah Moilanen, BASF Corporation

Rajesh Thotakuva, Akzo-Nobel	Meghan Roe, PPG

Jule Wojtanowski, DuPont	Creg Browne, Akzo-Nobel

Barry Elman, EPA

III. Summary of Meeting

David Darling started the meeting by asking for an update from EPA on
the status of the Paint and Allied Products Area Source NESHAP.  Melissa
Payne responded that she is the new Work Assignment Manager for the
project and she is currently reviewing the documents created for this
project.  Mr. Darling stated that they wanted to provide the comments
and concerns that the NPCA and their members have with the NESHAP.

Melissa Payne asked the group what rules (i.e., MACT, OSHA, NESHAP) are
already on place for the Paint and Allied Products industry.  Dave
Darling responded that the NPCA has provided to EPA a chronological
history of the rules that have been put in place for the paint and
coatings industry.  He stated that he would send a copy of the history
to EPA.  Ms. Payne asked about the use of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
data for estimating emissions from the paint and coatings industry.  The
industry believes that the TRI data provides the best data available
that represents the current emissions from the industry, because the
emissions are provided by the individual facilities.  EPA noted that the
2002 TRI database only provided emissions information from 220
facilities of the 1,409 facilities listed in the U.S. Census and asked
why so few facilities are reporting emissions in the TRI.  The industry
group responded that many facilities have less than 10 employees and
therefore do not have to report TRI emissions.  They felt that the Prado
Principle could be used to estimate emissions for the facilities that
did not report emissions in the TRI.  In addition, the TRI database only
requires facilities with toxic emissions greater than 10,000 to 25,000
lbs/yr depending on the pollutant to report.  The industry also noted
the TRI data is collected annually therefore it can be used to show
trends in the industry, whereas the National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
is only published every 4 years.

The NPCA provided a presentation summary of the concerns/suggestions of
the area source NESHAP by the paint industry.  A copy of the
presentation is provided in Attachment A.  The main concerns of the
paint and coatings industry are;

The NPCA does not believe that the Paint and Allied Products industry
should have been included in the 112(k) area source rulemaking.

EPA should consider the urban air toxic reductions that have already
been done by the industry.

Many of these facilities are small businesses and the NCPA does not
believe using data from the Miscellaneous Coatings MACT is appropriate.

The NCPA believes that EPA should limit the scope of the area source
rule to only the 30 urban air pollutants and the rule should apply only
to those facilities that use those chemicals.

The NPCA discussed the reductions in the 6 urban air pollutants of
concern and presented tables using data from both the NEI and TRI
databases.

The NPCA stated that most of the area source facilities are small
businesses and they have concerns with using data from the MCM for this
rule.  They believe the cost per ton for the pollution control equipment
from the larger MACT facilities does not transpose to the smaller
facilities.  EPA stated that equipment costs will be obtained for the
smaller facilities, and the cost effectiveness will be calculated using
the emissions from the area source facilities.

EPA asked about the size of portable tanks for these facilities.  The
industry responded that these smaller tanks range from 100 to 250
gallons each, but can be up to 500 gallons.  Additionally the industry
responded that much of the coatings they produce are custom ordered.
They believe that regulations from the end users have required the paint
manufacturing industry to reduce HAPs and volatiles in the coatings that
they produce.

The NPCA mentioned that not every process tank needs a cover, and after
some discussion about the definition between a “lid” and a
“cover,” agreed that they were content with the definition as listed
in the MCM.

EPA asked about the cost of switching from dry pigments to wetted
pigments.  The NPCA stated that they could provide the EPA with some
cost information.

IV. Action Items

1. EPA will continue to look at the TRI data and compare to the previous
data from the NEI database.

2. The NPCA will send to EPA the chronological timeline of regulations
that currently in place for the paint industry.

3. The NPCA will provide cost information for switching from dry
pigments to wetted pigments.

Appendix A

NPCA Presentation


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 91810-91811]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30354]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-1029]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Northeast Cape Fear River,
Wilmington, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation; modification.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has modified a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the CSX Hilton Railroad Bridge across
the Northeast Cape Fear River, mile 1.5, at Wilmington, NC. This
modified deviation is necessary to manually operate the bridge and
perform emergency bridge repairs. This modified deviation allows the
bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES: This modified deviation is effective without actual notice from
December 19, 2016 through 6 p.m. on December 30, 2016. For the purposes
of enforcement, actual notice will be used from December 9, 2016 at 6
p.m., until December 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-1029] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this modified
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-
6222, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 25, 2016, the Coast Guard
published a temporary deviation entitled ``Drawbridge Operation
Regulation; Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC'' in the Federal
Register (81 FR 85160). Under that temporary deviation, the bridge will
remain in the closed-to-navigation position and open on signal during
daylight hours, if at least 3 hours notice is given. The CSX
Corporation, owner and operator of the CSX Hilton Railroad Bridge
across the Northeast Cape Fear River, mile 1.5, in Wilmington, NC, has
requested a modified temporary deviation from the current operating
regulations due to an electrical casualty to the submarine cable and
electrical components caused by Hurricane Matthew. The bridge is
limited to manual operation, which requires personnel to manually
operate components of the bridge in locations where additional safety
measures are required, limiting the bridge to daylight operations. This
modified temporary deviation, extending the date until 6 p.m. on
December 30, 2016, is necessary for completion of repairs to the
bridge. The bridge is a bascule draw bridge and has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 4 feet above mean high water.
    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.829(b).
Under this modified temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the
closed-to-navigation position and open on signal during daylight hours,
if at least 3 hours notice is given. Communications with the bridge
tender may be interrupted during drawbridge operations. Notice may be
given via<PHONE_NUMBER> (CSX Engineering Help Desk), if unable to
contact the bridge tender via normal established methods.
    The Northeast Cape Fear River is used by a variety of vessels
including small commercial fishing vessels, recreational vessels and
tugs and barges. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the
restrictions with waterway users.
    Vessels able to safely pass through the bridge in the closed
position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for
emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to
pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways
through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in
operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange
their transit to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 13, 2016.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-30354 Filed 12-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Product (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
III) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Product (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
III) (Renewal)

EPA ICR Number 1783.05; OMB Control Number 2060-0357

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Product (published at 40 CFR part 63, subpart III)
were proposed on December 27, 1996 and promulgated on October 7, 1998.
These standards apply to owners or operators of new and existing
facilities that engage in the manufacture of flexible polyurethane foam
products which emit hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).  This includes
facilities making slabstock flexible polyurethane foam (slabstock foam),
rebond flexible polyurethane foam (rebond foam), and/or molded flexible
polyurethane foam (molded foam).

In general, all MACT standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports.  Owners or operators of
flexible polyurethane foam production facilities to which this rule is
applicable must choose one of the compliance options described in the
standard or reduce HAP emissions to below the compliance level.
Specifically, the rule requirements for slabstock foam producers include
an initial notification, notification of compliance status, semiannual
reports and annual compliance certifications.  In addition, respondents
are required to submit a pre-compliance report that describes the HAP
compliance procedures, and recordkeeping procedures.  Those electing to
comply with the slabstock foam emission limitation using recovery
devices must measure and record emissions as specified in 40 CFR 63.1297
of the rule.  The rule requirements for molded and rebond foam producers
include a notification of compliance status report and an annual
compliance certification.  These notifications, reports, and records are
essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources
subject to MACT.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports,
and records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local
authority.   In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regional office.

There are approximately 132 respondents currently subject to the
regulation, and it is estimated that no new respondents per year will
become subject to the regulation in the next three years.  Since there
are no changes in the regulatory requirements and we have determined
that there is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost
figures in the previous Information Collection Request (ICR) are used in
this ICR renewal.  The burden to the “Affected Public” may be found
below in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Product (40 CFR part 63, subpart III) (Renewal).  The
burden to the “Federal government” is attributed entirely to work
performed by Federal employees or government contractors.  This burden
may be found below in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden: NESHAP for
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Product (40 CFR part 63, subpart III)
(Renewal).

There are no capital/startup or Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs
associated with this regulation.  The continuous parameter monitoring
equipment used by facilities affected by this regulation are used to
maintain a high level of operational efficiency and would have been
installed and maintained with or without regulation.  Details on this
estimate can be found in Section 6(b)(iii) of this report.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the currently active
ICR with the following “Terms of Clearance”:

The cost of labor assumptions underlying the respondent and agency
burden cost calculations should be updated in the next renewal.

The cost of labor has been updated using the United States Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2009, Table 2., labor rates for
the respondent labor costs, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
2009 General Schedule for the Agency labor costs.

The 132 facilities in the United States, which are respondents to this
ICR, are publicly owned and operated by flexible polyurethane foam
production facilities.  None of the facilities are owned by either
state, local and tribal agencies or the Federal government.

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory
of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants.  These
standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air
pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.
In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require
any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C)
install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit
procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with
such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during
such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe);
(E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables
or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is
impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with
Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the
Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
emissions from flexible polyurethane foam production facilities either
cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the MACT standards
were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
III.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The control of emissions from HAP emissions from flexible polyurethane
foam production facilities requires not only the installation of
properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of
that equipment.  Emissions of HAP from flexible polyurethane foam
production facilities are the result of operation of each slabstock
production line, each storage vessel, equipment cleaning, or from
leaking equipment (e.g., transfer pumps, connectors, valves, etc.).  The
subject standards are achieved by the capture of HAP emissions using
vapor recovery systems or carbon adsorption systems and leak detection
and repair procedures.  The notifications required in the applicable
regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a
source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations.  The
reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the
pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, leaks are
being detected and repaired, and the regulations are being met.  The
semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on
source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.
The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that
facilities affected by the MACT standards continue to operate the
control equipment in compliance with the regulation.  Adequate
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure
compliance with the applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air
Act.  The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting
requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of
sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part
63, subpart III.

3(a)  Non-duplication

 If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the
information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If
a state or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to
implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the
state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the
report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication
exists.

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2009 at 74 FR 32581.
No comments were received on the burden published on the Federal
Register.

3(c)  Consultations

 	During a previous renewal of this ICR, the Agency’s experts in
matters concerning the affected industry had been consulted and the
Agency’s internal data sources and projections of industry growth over
the next three years were also considered.  The primary source of
information as reported by industry, in compliance with the
recordkeeping and reporting provisions in the standard, was the Air
Facility System (AFS) which is operated and maintained by the EPA Office
of Compliance.  AFS is the EPA database for the collection, maintenance,
and retrieval of all compliance data.  The growth rate for the industry
was based on our consultations with the Agency’s industry experts.
Approximately 132 respondents will be subject to the standard over the
three-year period covered by this ICR.

	Industry trade associations, such as the Polyurethane Foam Association,
and other interested parties were provided an opportunity to comment on
the burden associated with the standard as it was being developed.  The
standard has been previously reviewed to determine the minimum
information needed for compliance purposes.

It is our policy to carefully review any comments received since the
last ICR renewal including those submitted in response to the first
Federal Register notice and respond appropriately.  In this case, no
comments were received.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.
Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful
techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are
applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required
by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of
detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and
noncompliance would decrease.

3(e)  General Guidelines

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the
regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.
These standards require affected facilities to maintain all records,
including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is
consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA
believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent
with the part 70 permit program and the five-year statute of limitations
on which the permit program is based.  Also, the retention of records
for five years would allow EPA to establish the compliance history of a
source and any pattern of compliance for purposes of determining the
appropriate level of enforcement action.  Historically, EPA has found
that the most flagrant violators frequently have violations extending
beyond the five years.  EPA would be prevented from pursuing the worst
violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of records if records
were retained for less than five years.

3(f)  Confidentiality

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B -
Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI) (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive
questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC and NAICS Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
owners or operators of flexible polyurethane foam production facilities.
 The United States Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for the
respondents affected by the standards is code 3086 which corresponds to
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 326150
for Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing.

4(b)  Information Requested

(i)  Data Items

All data in this ICR that is recorded and/or reported is required by
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart III).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports	Citation

Initial notification	63.1306(a)

Application for approval of construction or reconstruction	63.1306(b)

Pre-compliance report	63.1306(c)

Notification of compliance status	63.1306(d)

Notification of special compliance requirements	63.9(d)

Change in selected emission limitation/compliance method
63.1306(f)(1)&(2)

Request for extension of compliance, adjustments to time periods, and
changes in information	63.9(c), 63.9(i), 63.9(j)

Reports	Citation

Semiannual compliance reports	63.1306(e)

Annual compliance certification	63.1306(g)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping	Citation

Startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, periods where the continuous
monitoring system is inoperative	63.10(b)(2)

All reports and notifications	63.10(b)

Record of applicability	63.10(a)

Slabstock sources shall maintain storage vessel records, equipment leaks
record, HAP auxiliary blowing unit (ABA) records for emission point
specific limitations or source-wide limitations, records of product data
sheet for HAP cleaners, and if using a recovery device, the records of
the recovered HAP ABA recordkeeping program, the monitoring device(s
Quality Assurance (QA) data, parameter monitoring, and the HAP ABA
recovered.	63.1307(a-f)

Molded/rebond foam sources shall maintain records of product data sheets
for each compound other than diisocyanates used to flush the mixhead and
associated piping during periods of startup or maintenance, and the
product data sheets for each mold release agent used that has HAPs.
63.1307(g-h)

Records are required to be retained for five years; however, only the
data of the most recent two years must be kept on-site	63.10(b)(1)

Electronic Reporting

Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides
parameter data in an automated way, e.g., flow rate monitoring and pump
revolution per minute monitoring.  Although personnel at the source
still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has
significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and
recordkeeping.  In addition, some regulatory agencies are setting up
electronic reporting systems to allow sources to report electronically
which is reducing the reporting burden.  However, electronic reporting
systems are still not widely used by the regulatory agencies.  It is
estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use
electronic reporting.

Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Slabstock foam sources shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) for flow rate or pump revolutions to
monitor continuously the amount of polyol added and for HAP ABA.

Performance tests are not required by MACT, subpart III.  However,
sources are required to use Reference Method 18 of part 60 for HAP
concentration; Method 25A of part 60 for organic compounds measurements;
Method 21 of part 60 for equipment leaks; and American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) method D3574-91, Standard Test methods for
Flexible Cellular Materials-Slab, Bonded, and Molded.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and
utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides
parameter data in an automated way, e.g., flow rate monitors; however,
personnel at the facility still need to evaluate the data.  Although
personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of
monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated
with monitoring and recordkeeping.  In addition, some regulatory
agencies are setting up electronic reporting systems to allow sources to
report electronically which is reducing the reporting burden.  However,
electronic reporting systems are still not widely used by the regulatory
Agencies.  It is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the
respondents use electronic reporting.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the
acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required
information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if
necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports,
and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System (AFS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect
the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operated.  Data and records maintained by the
respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and
enforcement programs.  The semiannual reports and annual compliance
certifications are used for problem identification, as a check on source
operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is
operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.  AFS is the EPA
database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance
data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government-owned
facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and
enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices
and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit,
store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or
operator for  five years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

During this renewal, the proposed and final rules were reviewed to
estimate the number of small entities potentially affected.  According
to the Proposed Rule (61 FR 68406):

Due to insufficient data on the ownership of plants in the flexible
polyurethane foam industry, an analysis of each parent company in the
industry was not feasible.  Consequently, the EPA used data collected in
the section 114 survey to evaluate the impact on small businesses based
on model facilities.  That analysis indicates that there is a total of
approximately 121 businesses (31 slabstock, 90 molded) that are affected
by the proposed regulation, of which approximately 71 are small
businesses (18 slabstock, 53 molded).  Given the results of the analysis
and the use of worst-case assumptions in the closure analysis, the EPA
believes that the affect of the proposed regulation on small businesses
will be minimal.

Based on this information, EPA assumes that approximately 59 percent of
currently affected facilities, or 77 facilities, may be small entities.

However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small businesses) was taken
into consideration during the development of the regulation.  Due to
technical considerations involving the process operations and the types
of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are the same for both small and large entities.         The
Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure
compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small
entities.  To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of
scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown below in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and
Cost: NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Product (40 CFR part 63,
subpart III) (Renewal).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry
under the NESHAP subpart III standards, included in this ICR.  The
individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to
be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction
Act.   Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been
identified.  Responses to  this information collection are mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from
these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 9,047
hours, which is shown below in Table 1.  These hours are based on Agency
studies and background documents from the development of the regulation,
Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously
approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates: $114.77 per hour for Executive,
Administrative, and Managerial labor; $97.59 per hour for Technical
labor, and $48.26 per hour for Clerical labor.  These rates are from the
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March,
2009, “Table 2. Civilian workers, by Occupational and Industry
group”.  The rates are from column 1, “Total compensation”.  The
rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit
packages available to those employed by private industry.

Managerial	$114.77 ($54.65 + 110%)

Technical	$97.59 ($46.47 + 110%)

Clerical	$48.26 ($22.98 + 110%)

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

The only costs to the regulated industry resulting from information
collection activities required by the subject standards are labor costs.
 The capital/startup costs are one-time costs when a facility becomes
subject to the regulation.  The annual operation and maintenance costs
are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitors and other costs such as
photocopying and postage.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital / Startup Cost for One Respondent	(C)

Number of New Respondents	(D)

Total Capital/ Startup Cost,

(B X C)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent	(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

Leak detectors	$29,786	0	$0	$5,250	0	$0

There are no total capital/startup costs for this ICR since we have
assumed that no new sources will become subject to these standards and
that the existing sources conducting modifications will not be
purchasing new monitoring equipment.  This is the total of column D in
the table above.

There are no operation and maintenance costs for this ICR since sources
electing to comply with the source-wide emission limit and are not using
bag leak detectors and the monitoring parameter monitors were already
being used in their operations prior to promulgation of this rule.  This
is the total of column G in the table above.

The total respondent costs have been calculated as the addition of the
capital/startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs.
Therefore, there is no average annual cost for capital/startup and
operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of
the ICR.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of
the reported information.  The EPA compliance and enforcement program
includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the
respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the
publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual cost to the Federal government during the three years
of the ICR is estimated to be $21,544.  This cost is based on the
average hourly labor rates below:

Managerial	$61.36   (GS-13, Step 5, $38.35 + 60%)

Technical	$45.52   (GS-12, Step 1, $28.45 + 60%)

Clerical	$24.64   (GS-6, Step 3, $15.40 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 2009
General Schedule, which excludes locality rates of pay.  The rates have
been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit packages
available to government employees.  Details upon which this estimate is
based appear below in Table 2: Average Annual Burden: NESHAP for
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Product (40 CFR part 63, subpart III)
(Renewal).

6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Based on our research for this ICR, approximately 132 existing
respondents (i.e., 59 slabstock foam producers and 73 molded/rebond foam
producers) are currently subject to the standard.  It is estimated that
no respondents per year will become subject to the regulation in the
next three years.  However, it is estimated that six existing sources
will be modifying/reconstructing its operations and will have new
affected facilities.

The number of respondents is calculated using the following table which
addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents*

Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents That Submit Reports	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents That Submit Reports	(C)

Number of Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	6	132	0	6	132

2	6	132	0	6	132

3	6	132	0	6	132

Average	6	132	0	6	132

*  New respondents are defined for this calculation as sources that
recently became subject to the rule and existing sources that have
modified/reconstructed their facilities.

To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown
above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of
this ICR is 132.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Number of New Respondents *	(B)

Number of Reports for New Sources	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents**	(D)

Number of Reports for Existing Sources	(F)

Number of Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(AxB)+(CxD)+F

6	3	59	2	0	209

73	1

* New respondents are defined for this calculation as sources that
recently became subject to the rule and existing sources that have
modified/reconstructed their facilities.

** There are 59 existing slabstock foam producers and 73 existing
molded/rebond foam producers which total 132 respondents.

The number of Total Annual Responses is 209.  The total annual labor
costs are $850,851.  Details regarding these estimates may be found
below in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Product (40 CFR part 63, subpart III) (Renewal).

Note that there are no total annual capital/start up and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs to the regulated entity that can be attributed
to this rule.  These costs are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii),
Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance Costs.

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the
respondents appear below or are attached.  The annual public reporting
and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated
to average 43 hours per response.

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There is no change in the labor hours to respondents in this ICR
compared to the previous ICR.  This is due to two considerations: 1) the
regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not
anticipated to change over the next three years; and 2) the growth rate
for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent.  Therefore, the
labor hours in the previous ICR reflect the current burden to the
respondents and are reiterated in this ICR.

	The increases in labor cost burden to the Respondents and the Agency
are due to labor rate adjustments reflecting rates for fiscal year 2009.
 The increases are not due to any program changes.  Labor rates in the
previous ICR were based on fiscal year 2003.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 43 hours per response.  Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to: review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are
listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0394.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available at http://www.regulations.gov/ which may be used to obtain a
copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to
access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in
the docket ID number identified in this document.  The documents are
also available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.  The
EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the docket center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Also, you can send comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-
HQ-OECA-2009-0394 and OMB Control Number 2060-0357 in any
correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

Assumptions:

a)	We have assumed that there are approximately 59 existing slabstock
foam producers and 73 existing rebond/molded foam producers for a total
of 132 existing foam producers (i.e., respondents) that are major
sources and subject to the NESHAP subpart III.  We have further assumed
that there will be no new foam producers commencing operations over the
period of this ICR.  However, we have assumed that 6 existing
respondents (3 slabstock foam producers and 3 molded/rebound foam
producers) a year will be conducting some type of modification but they
will continue to meet compliance requirements while the
reconstruction/modification application is under review.  Therefore, the
average number of respondents per year for this ICR is estimated to be
132.

b)	This ICR uses the following labor rates: Managerial $114.77 ($54.65 +
110%); Technical $97.59 ($46.47 + 110%); and Clerical $48.26 ($22.98 +
110%).  These rates are from the United States Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2009, Table 2. Civilian workers, by
occupational and industry group.  The rates are from column 1, "Total
compensation".  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account
for the benefit packages available to those employed by private
industry.  This ICR assumes that Managerial hours are 5 percent of
Technical hours, and Clerical hours are 10 percent of Technical hours.

c)	We have assumed that all slabstock foam producers are meeting the
source-wide emission limit and control diisocyanate emissions
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements.  Molded/rebond
foam producers are required to eliminate the use of HAP or HAP-based
materials, cleaners or agents and only have recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.

d)	Sources are required to use Method 21 of Appendix A of part 63 for
equipment leaks; Standard Methods for Flexible Cellular Materials for
determining foam properties, ASTM D3574-91; Method 18 of part 60 for HAP
concentration; and Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60 for organic compounds.

e)	We have assumed that all existing sources are in compliance with the
initial rule requirements.

f)	Slabstock foam producers (i.e., 59 respondents) are required to
submit semiannual reports.

g)	All sources are required to submit compliance certifications
annually.  However, we have assumed that all of the existing molded foam
producer sources that are major sources are collocated at slabstock foam
production sites, and therefore, there won't be an additional reporting
burden due to meeting this requirement concurrently with the semiannual
compliance status reports.

h)	We have determined that there will be no sources submitting a special
compliance report for this ICR since the compliance date for this rule
has passed.  Owners or operators of an affected source for which
reconstruction occurs after the proposal date of the subject rule under
40 CFR part 63 and before the promulgation of such rule or before the
proposal date of a relevant standard established pursuant to section of
112(f) of the Clean Air Act, is required to submit this report, as
described in section 63.6(b)(3) and (4) of the General Provisions of
part 63.

i)	This notification is required when an owner or operator requests
approval of an extension of a time period or postmark deadline,
according to section 63.9(i) of the General Provisions under

	part 63.

j)	We have assumed that one existing source will be changing its
compliance period from monthly rolling to annual rolling or vice-versa.

k)	The types of records include: storage vessel records; equipment leak
records; HAP ABA records for point-specific and source-wide limitations
for both rolling annual compliance and monthly compliance alternative
records; recovery device records, and proper maintenance of product data
sheets.

Assumptions:

a)	We have assumed that there are approximately 59 existing slabstock
foam producers and 73 existing rebond/molded foam producers for a total
of 132 respondents.  We have further assumed that about 6 existing
respondents a year will be conducting some type of modification at its
facility and that there will be no new sources over the period of this
ICR.  Therefore, the average number of respondents per year is estimated
to be 132.  These rates are from the Office of Planning and Management
(OPM) A2003 General Schedule, which excludes locality rates of pay.

b)	This ICR uses the following labor rates: Managerial $61.36 (GS-13,
Step 5, $38.35 + 60%); Technical $45.52 (GS-12, Step 1, $28.45 + 60%);
and Clerical $24.64 (GS-6, Step 3, $15.40 + 60%).  These rates are from
the OPM, 2009 General Schedule, which excludes locality rates of pay.
The rates have been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit
packages available to government employees.  This ICR assumes that
Clerical hours are 10 percent of Technical hours and Managerial hours
are 5 percent of Technical hours.

c)	We have assumed that all existing sources are in compliance with the
initial rule requirements.  In addition, we have assumed that facilities
seeking to reconstruct will continue to meet compliance requirements
while application is under review.

d)	We have determined that there will be no sources submitting a special
compliance report for this ICR since the compliance date for this rule
has passed.

e)	Slabstock foam producers (i.e., 59 sources) are required to submit
semiannual reports.

f)	All respondents (i.e., 132 foam producers) are required to submit
annual compliance certifications.  However, we have assumed that
slabstock sources will be complying with this requirement concurrently
when submitting semiannual reports.  Molded foam producers would still
need to meet this requirement separately.

g)	We have assumed that one existing source will be changing its
compliance period from monthly rolling to annual.

 PAGE

 PAGE   16

 PAGE


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62560-62561]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19586]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas and Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR23-69-000.
    Applicants: Dow Intrastate Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  284.123(g) Rate Filing: Petition for Rate
Approval to be effective 9/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230901-5152.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/23.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/23.

    Docket Numbers: PR23-70-000.
    Applicants: BBT Alabama, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  284.123 Rate Filing: BBT Alabama Petition Rate
Approval Filing to be effective 9/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230901-5195.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: PR23-71-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  284.123 Rate Filing: COH Rates effective Aug 29
2023 to be effective 8/29/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230905-5004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/26/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-972-000.
    Applicants: ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Nesson Gathering System
LLC, XTO Energy Inc.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of Capacity Release
Regulations, et al. of ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al.
    Filed Date: 9/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230901-5139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-1029-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amendments to Non-Conforming
Agreements--Devon, EOG, Targa to be effective 9/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230901-5110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-1031-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Non-Conforming
Agreement AF0059 to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230905-5008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-1032-000.
    Applicants: Osaka Gas Trading & Export LLC.
    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of the Buy/Sell
Prohibition of Osaka Gas Trading & Export LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230901-5223.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/13/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-749-000.
    Applicants: MountainWest Overthrust Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: supplemental filing, meter point groups
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230905-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://

elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying the
docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Commission's Office of Public Participation
(OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in
Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including
landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and
others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission
processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such
as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: September 5, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19586 Filed 9-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P