[Federal Register: December 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 244)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 75913-75921]
[DOCID:fr21de05-16]

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

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 80

Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: Extension of California
Enforcement Exemptions for Reformulated Gasoline to California Phase 3
Gasoline; Final Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[OAR-2003-0217; FRL-8011-4]
RIN 2060-AK04

Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: Extension of California
Enforcement Exemptions for Reformulated Gasoline to California Phase 3
Gasoline

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule exempts refiners, importers, and blenders of
gasoline subject to the State of California's Phase 3 reformulated
gasoline (CaRFG3) regulations from certain enforcement provisions in
the Federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) regulations. We are taking this
action because we believe that gasoline complying with the CaRFG3
regulations will provide emissions benefits equivalent to Federal Phase
II RFG and because California's compliance and enforcement program will
in practice be sufficiently rigorous to assure that the standards are
met. Since the Federal RFG program began in 1995, California refiners,
importers and blenders have been continuously exempted from certain
enforcement-related requirements such as recordkeeping and reporting,
and certain sampling and testing requirements. This final rule extends
those exemptions, which are applicable to California Phase 2 gasoline,
to CaRFG3. It also restores the definition of ``California gasoline''
which was erroneously and accidentally deleted during a prior
rulemaking.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 21, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under OAR-2003-
0217. All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Pastorkovich, Attorney/Advisor,
Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality (6406J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
343-9623; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    Regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
final rule include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 NAICSs codes                        Examples of potentially
                   Category                           \a\        SIC codes \b\          regulated parties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................          324110            2911  Petroleum refiners.
Industry......................................          422710            5171  Gasoline Marketers and
                                                        422720            5172   Distributors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
an entity is regulated by this action, one should carefully examine the
RFG provisions at 40 CFR part 80, particularly Sec.  80.81 dealing
specifically with California gasoline. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. History of the California Enforcement Exemptions

    Section 211(k) of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act) directs the
EPA to establish requirements for reformulated gasoline (RFG) to be
used in specified ozone nonattainment areas, as well as ``anti-
dumping'' requirements for conventional gasoline used in the rest of
the country. The areas covered by the Federal RFG program in California
are San Joaquin Valley, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacramento.\1\ The
RFG provisions of the Act require EPA to promulgate regulations to
reduce the emissions in RFG covered areas of ozone forming volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and toxic air pollutants through the use of
RFG in gasoline-fueled motor vehicles. The Act also specifies that RFG
use result in no increase in the emission of oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) over baseline levels (under Phase I of the program).
Finally, gasoline subject to the RFG requirements must meet certain
content standards for oxygen, benzene and heavy metals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgmap.jpg for a map and list of

RFG covered areas by state. A copy of the map and list has been
placed in the docket for this rulemaking. The map and list are
revised frequently--please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for updated information. Please
be aware that the statutory requirement for RFG use in Atlanta and
Baton Rouge that arose from their classification as severe non-
attainment areas for the 1-hour ozone standard is currently stayed
pursuant to court orders in pending litigation and, therefore, these
areas do not currently appear on the map.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RFG program was designed to be implemented in two phases. The
Phase I program was in effect from January 1, 1995 through December 31,
1999. The Phase II program, which began on January 1, 2000 and is
currently in effect, is similar to the Phase I program, but requires
even greater reductions in emissions of VOC, toxics and NOX.
The regulations for RFG and conventional gasoline may be found at 40
CFR part 80, subparts D, E, and F.
    On September 18, 1992, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
adopted regulations establishing California's Phase 2 reformulated
gasoline program (``California Phase 2 RFG''), which became effective
March 1, 1996. These regulations established a comprehensive set of
gasoline specifications designed to achieve reductions in emissions of
VOCs, NOX, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide, and toxic
air pollutants

from gasoline-fueled motor vehicles.\2\ The California Phase 2 RFG
regulations set standards for eight gasoline parameters--sulfur,
benzene, olefins, aromatic hydrocarbons, oxygen, Reid vapor pressure
(RVP), and distillation temperatures for the 50 percent and 90 percent
evaporation points (T-50 and T-90, respectively). These regulations
also provide for the production and sale of alternative gasoline
formulations, with certification under the CARB program based on a
predictive model or on vehicle emission testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ California's reformulated gasoline regulations, includng
Phase 2 and Phase 3, are at Title 13, California Code of Regulations
(CCR), section 2250 et seq. (May 1, 2003). A copy of the regulations
have been placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA previously adopted enforcement exemptions for California Phase
2 gasoline under the Federal Phase I RFG program.\3\ In doing so, we
concluded that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 59 FR 7758 (February 16, 1994) and 63 FR 34818 (June 26,
1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The emission reductions resulting from the California Phase 2
standards would be equal to or greater than the Federal Phase I RFG
standards (i.e., the standards that were applicable from January 1,
1995 through December 31, 1999),
    (2) The content standard for benzene under California Phase 2 would
be equivalent in practice to the Federal Phase I content standard and
that the oxygen content standard of 2.0 weight percent would be
achieved in Federal RFG areas, and
    (3) CARB's compliance and enforcement program was designed to be
sufficiently rigorous to ensure that Federal Phase I requirements would
be met in practice.
    Consequently, while the Federal Phase I RFG standards continued to
apply in California, EPA exempted refiners, importers, and blenders of
gasoline sold in California from many of the enforcement-related
provisions of the Federal Phase I RFG regulations. The exemptions
applied to the gasoline they sold for use in California and included,
with some limitations, the following provisions in 40 CFR part 80:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Requirement  exempted               Citation at 40 CFR 80.xx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Surveys.\4\                 80.68
Independent Sampling & Testing.......  80.65(f)
Designation of Gasoline..............  80.65(d)
Marking of Conventional Gasoline.....  80.65(g) and 80.82
Downstream Oxygenate Blending........  80.69
Recordkeeping........................  80.74 and 80.104
Reporting............................  80.75 and 80.105
Product Transfer Documents...........  80.77
Parameter Value Reconciliation         80.65(e)(2)
 Requirements.
Reformulated Gasoline and              80.65(c)
 Reformulated Gasoline Blendstock for
 Oxygenate Blending (RBOB) Compliance
 Requirements.
Annual Compliance Audit Requirements.  80.65(h)
Compliance Attest Engagement           subpart F
 Requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California refiners, importers, and blenders were not granted
exemptions from these Federal enforcement requirements with regard to
gasoline delivered for use outside California, because the California
Phase 2 standards and the CARB enforcement program do not apply to
gasoline delivered for use outside of California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Partial exemption from oxygen survey requirement. See 63 FR
34818, 34820-34822 (June 26, 1998). Also see fn. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The original California enforcement exemptions expired on December
31, 1999 when the Federal Phase II RFG started. The exemptions expired
because they were based on a comparison of California Phase 2 gasoline
and Federal Phase I RFG. An appropriate equivalency determination
comparing California Phase 2 and Federal Phase II gasolines would have
been premature in 1994, when the final RFG regulations were issued.
However, on September 15, 1999, we published a direct final rule
continuing the California enforcement exemptions beyond December 31,
1999.\5\ We took this action after comparing California Phase 2
gasoline and Federal Phase II RFG. In brief, we concluded that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives, Extension of
California Enforcement Exemptions for Reformulated Gasoline Beyond
December 31, 1999'' Direct Final rule, 64 FR 49992 (September 15,
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The emissions reductions resulting from the California Phase 2
RFG standards would be equal to or greater than the reductions from the
Federal Phase II RFG standards;
    (2) The content standards for benzene under California Phase 2
would be equivalent in practice to the Federal Phase II content
standard and that the oxygen content standard of 2.0 weight percent
would be achieved in Federal RFG areas, and
    (3) CARB's compliance and enforcement program was designed to be
sufficiently rigorous to ensure that Federal Phase II requirements
would be met in practice.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (which accompanied the
Direct Rule cited in footnote 5) at 64 FR 50036, 50038-50040
(September 15, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Today's Action and Response to Comments on the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking

    On August 11, 2004, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
for this rule in the Federal Register.\7\ This section summarizes the
analyses and conclusions that we used in developing the proposed and
final rule. It also discusses comments we received in response to the
notice of proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 69 FR 48827.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. California's Phase 3 Gasoline Rulemaking Activities

    On August 3, 2000, California first promulgated the CaRFG3
regulations, which included a prohibition on the use of methyl
tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) by December 31, 2002. On March 21, 2001, we
received a written request from the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) requesting extension of the California enforcement exemptions of
40 CFR 80.81 to CaRFG3. In that letter, CARB explains that its CaRFG3
regulations were adopted in response to Governor Gray Davis's issuance
of Executive Order D-5-99, directing the phase-out of methyl tertiary-
butyl ether (MTBE) as an additive in California gasoline by December
31, 2002.
    Since March 21, 2001, CARB has completed a series of rulemakings
that amended its CaRFG3 regulations. Many of these amendments were made
necessary by a postponement of the MTBE phase-out and to accommodate
the use of ethanol. The MTBE phase-out was delayed until December 31,
2003 by Governor Gray Davis's issuance of a second Executive Order D-
52-02.\8\ The CaRFG3 regulations and all standards discussed in this
notice represent the May 1, 2003 version of the California Reformulated
Gasoline Regulations, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Sec.
2250 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A copy of the Executive Order has been placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Analysis and Conclusions Regarding California's Phase 3
Gasoline Regulations

    In developing the proposed rule and determining whether to apply
the Federal enforcement exemptions of 40 CFR 80.81 to CaRFG3, we
considered:

    (1) Whether the emissions reductions resulting from CaRFG3 would be
equal to or greater than the reductions from Federal Phase II RFG
standards;
    (2) Whether the content standard for benzene under CaRFG3 would be
equivalent in practice to the Federal Phase II content standard and
whether the oxygen content standard of 2.0 weight percent would be met
in Federal RFG areas; \9\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Both oxygenated and nonoxygenated blends were considered in
developing the notice of proposed rulemaking. At the time we issued
the notice of proposed rulemaking, we did not know if California's
request for a waiver of the oxygen content requirements for
reformulated gasoline would be granted. We also did not know what
the outcome would be with regard to the Energy Bill, H.R. 6, which
addressed the elimination of the oxygen content requirement for
reformulated gasoline. Since then, H.R. 6 was passed by both the
House and Senate and was signed into law by President Bush. The
Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-58, Sec. 1504, amends section
211(k) of the Clean Air Act to eliminate the oxygen content
requirement under that section. We plan to initiate rulemaking
activity soon to amend 40 CFR part 80 to reflect changes to the
Clean Air Act that were enacted in the Energy Policy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Whether CARB's compliance and enforcement program is designed
to be sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the Federal Phase II
requirements would be met in practice.
    Considering these factors is appropriate and consistent with the
analyses we used when we previously granted enforcement exemptions to
refiners, importers, and blenders of California Phase 2 gasoline under
both the Federal Phase I and Phase II RFG programs.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 59 FR 7813 (February 16, 1994) as amended at 59 FR
36965 (July 20, 1994), 59 FR 39289 (August 2, 1994), 59 FR 60715
(November 28, 1994), 63 FR 34825 (June 26, 1998), 64 FR 49997
(September 15, 1999), and 66 FR 17263 (March 29, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether CaRFG3 emissions reductions are equivalent to
or greater than Federal Phase II RFG, we have evaluated the CaRFG3
standards and the Federal Phase II complex model standards. We have
also considered whether possible ``real world'' CaRFG3 formulations
would comply with Federal Phase II RFG emissions reduction standards.
Compliance with performance standards under the Federal RFG program is
determined by using the Phase II Complex Model. The Complex Model
predicts VOC, toxics and NOX emissions relative to the
emissions of 1990 baseline gasoline.\11\ These reduction percentages
are compared to RFG performance standards. The Federal performance
standards applicable to VOC-controlled RFG designated for VOC control
region 1 apply to California areas covered by the Federal RFG
program.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Baseline gasoline'' refers to a general set of properties
representative of a refiner's fuel in 1990. The purpose of
establishing a baseline is to prevent the quality of gasoline to
degrade in areas in which reformulated gasoline is not required. For
a discussion of baselines, please refer to the RFG and anti-dumping
final rule, 59 FR 7798 (February 16, 1994).
    \12\ See 40 CFR 80.41 and 90.71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California's Phase 2 RFG regulations established specifications for
eight gasoline parameters: sulfur, benzene, olefins, aromatic
hydrocarbons, oxygen, RVP, T50 and T90. Some parameters are expressed
as flat limits and some parameters are expressed as averaging limits
with caps. California's flat limit option requires refiners to meet
parameter standards on an every-gallon, rather than an averaged basis.
The California flat limits are somewhat analogous to the Federal RFG
per-gallon standards. The CaRFG3 regulations revised certain of these
specifications and incorporated an updated version of the California
predictive model.\13\ Refiners may produce complying California
gasoline using a ``recipe'' that meets these parameter specifications.
Alternative specifications for complying gasoline can be established by
using the California predictive model to demonstrate that emissions are
equivalent to those of a gasoline meeting the established
specifications. Six of the parameters are also input parameters for the
EPA Complex Model. The remaining two, T50 and T90, are closely related
to E200 and E300, the remaining two Complex Model inputs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The California predictive model, like the Complex Model, is
used to predict emissions performance of gasoline.
    \14\ There is a strong correlation between T50 (the 50%
distillation temperature) and E200 (the percent distilled at 200F).
Likewise, there is a strong correlation between T90 (the 90%
distillation temperature) and E300 (the percent distilled at 300F).
For the analysis in table 1, E200 and E300 were estimated from the
flat limit T50 and T90 specifications using conversions found in
EPA's complex model spreadsheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If CaRFG3 provides emission benefits equivalent to Federal Phase II
RFG, then a gasoline formulation meeting the CaRFG3 flat limit
specifications should provide emission reductions, as calculated by the
complex model, which meet Federal Phase II performance standards. The
following table, which was prepared for the proposed rule, compares the
emissions performance of the CaRFG3 ``recipe,'' evaluated using the
Federal Complex Model, to the Federal Phase II RFG performance
standards: \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Oxygen was assumed to be 2.0 wt%, the midpoint of the 1.8-
2.2 wt% specification and RVP was 6.90, the RVP used with the
evaporative compliance option in the predictive model.

 Table 1.-- Comparison of CaRFG3 Flat Limit Recipe Complex Model Performance With Federal Phase II RFG Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    VOC (%         Toxics (%          NOX (%
                                                                  reduction)       reduction)       reduction)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CaRFG3 Flat Limits with ethanol..............................             27.7             30.0             14.5
CaRFG3 Flat Limits with MTBE.................................             27.7             32.2             14.5
Federal per gallon standards.................................             27.5             20.0              5.5
Federal averaged standards...................................             29.0             21.5              6.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 shows two sets of results; one where the oxygenate was
assumed to be MTBE and the other where the oxygenate was assumed to be
ethanol. The specific oxygenate affects the toxics performance
estimate. Two sets of Federal standards are shown, the per-gallon
standards and the averaged standards. (These numerically more stringent
averaged standards are applicable if a refiner chooses to comply on
average, rather than on a per gallon basis.) The emissions performance
of the flat limit recipe gasoline is better than the Federal RFG per
gallon standards for VOC, toxics and NOX reductions, and
better than the Federal RFG averaged standards for toxics and
NOX reduction. Thus, gasoline produced in compliance with
the CaRFG3 flat limits (which are somewhat analogous to Federal per-
gallon standards) would achieve performance limits at least as
stringent as the Federal Phase II RFG per-gallon standards for VOCs and
at least as stringent as the averaged standards for toxics and
NOX. Thus, CaRFG3 would meet Federal standards if every
gallon were produced according to this recipe.

    However, as explained in the proposed rule, we anticipate that most
refiners will use the CaRFG3 predictive model to certify alternative
specifications with emissions equivalent to or better than the flat
limit recipe. While there are similarities between the California Phase
3 predictive model and the Federal Phase II Complex Model, there are
also substantial differences. Consequently, two recipes found to have
equal emissions with the California predictive model may not have equal
emissions when evaluated by the Federal Complex Model. In other words,
a finding that the Complex Model emissions performance of the flat
limit recipe is equal to or better than the Federal standards does not
guarantee that the Complex Model emissions performance of all gasoline
blends that may be produced in compliance with CaRFG3 will meet or
surpass the Federal standards.
    For purposes of determining whether or not CaRFG3 produced and
certified under the predictive model would be equivalent to Federal
Phase II RFG, we considered several reasonably likely ``real world''
CaRFG3 formulations. These formulations were developed in connection
with California's 1999 request for a waiver from the Federal oxygen
content requirement for reformulated gasoline.\16\ The CaRFG3
formulations depicted in Tables 2 and 3 do not represent each and every
possible gasoline formulation under the California's regulations, but
we believe that they provide a representative sample of that universe
of gasoline formulations that are likely to be produced under the
CaRFG3 program. This analysis is discussed in more detail in the
following paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The California waiver analysis considered the effect of
changes in gasoline composition on the entire on-road and off-road
gasoline-power fleet. The analysis for this rule considers only
Complex Model performance, which considers a portion of the on-road
gasoline-powered fleet, since the Model considers 1990s technology
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April 1999, California applied for a waiver of the Federal
oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline. In order to
complete an evaluation of the technical basis for this waiver request,
we determined that additional refinery modeling was needed to forecast
the likely composition of CaRFG3, after California's phase-out of
methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE), with and without an oxygen
waiver.\17\ Consequently, EPA commissioned MathPro to conduct this
modeling, which estimated the composition of ethanol-oxygenated and
non-oxygenated CaRFG3 under various scenarios.\18\ These scenarios
varied in terms of the continued or reduced use of MTBE outside of
California, whether or not refiners avoid the patent held by Unocal on
certain reformulated blends, and whether ethanol is used at 2.0 or 2.7
weight percent oxygen. Although these modeling results were intended
for use in the waiver evaluation, they are also helpful when
considering the appropriateness of extending the existing enforcement
exemptions to CaRFG3. EPA believes that these modeling results are
likely to be the most accurate and comprehensive forecasts of the
likely properties of the CaRFG3 that will be sold in Federal RFG areas
in California. For the purpose of this rule, we have considered both
oxygenated and non-oxygenated CaRFG3 blends. (See footnote 9 for a
discussion of the oxygen content requirement in light of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ One of the reasons for this determination was that earlier
modeling was done before the CaRFG3 predictive model was finalized.
This may have affected the estimates of CaRFG3 properties developed
from these earlier studies. EPA's Technical Support Document for the
waiver decision ``Analysis of California's Reformulated Gasoline
Oxygen Content Requirement for California Covered Areas'' discusses
this in greater depth. A copy of this document has been placed in
the docket.
    \18\ See ``Analysis of the Production of California Phase 3
Reformulated Gasoline With and Without an Oxygen Waiver'', MathPro,
Inc. (January 19, 2001). A copy of this document has been placed in
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2, below and as prepared for the proposed rule, shows that
oxygenated CaRFG3 produced under each of the scenarios that EPA
evaluated meets Federal RFG performance standards. All of these fuels
had better performance than the Federal RFG per gallon standards. With
one exception (underlined in Table 2), these fuels also met or
surpassed the Federal RFG averaged standards. The one exception is a
fuel that was estimated to provide a VOC reduction of 28.9%. Since the
Federal per gallon standard is 27.5% and the averaged standard is
29.0%, this fuel would meet the Federal per gallon but not the averaged
standard. However, we believe for purposes of today's analysis, that
the Federal per gallon standard is a more appropriate reference point.
    MathPro's modeling assumed that essentially all CaRFG3 is certified
with the flat limit variant of the Predictive Model. Therefore, the
formulations which they forecast have California predictive model
emissions performance equivalent to, or better than, the flat limit
recipe, but do not necessarily meet California predictive model
averaged limit requirements. As previously noted, California's flat
limit option requires refiners to meet parameter standards on an every-
gallon, rather than averaged basis. The California flat limits are
analogous to the Federal RFG per-gallon standards. In both cases,
refiners elect to meet less stringent standards on an every-gallon
basis, rather than more stringent standards, on average. Consequently,
it is appropriate to expect the complex model performance of these
CaRFG3 formulations to meet the Federal Phase II per-gallon performance
standards, but not necessarily to meet the Federal Phase II averaged
standards.

                           Table 2.--Complex Model Performance of Oxygenated CaRFG3 Using MathPro Gasoline Property Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Sulfur      RVP                           Aromatics   Olefins    Benzene                Toxics
           Ethanol  (wt% oxygen)              (ppm)      (psi)    E200  (%)  E300  (%)    (vol%)     (vol%)     (vol%)    VOC  (%)     (%)      NOX  (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0.......................................         15       6.66      47.20      87.60      24.10       4.40       0.64       30.2       32.9       14.8
2.0.......................................         10       6.74      46.40      88.70      23.30       3.90       0.57       29.6       34.1       15.4
2.7.......................................         10       6.85      46.90      88.10      23.20       3.80       0.70       29.0       32.8       15.4
2.7.......................................          9       6.84      46.60      88.00      23.30       3.80       0.68       29.0       32.9       15.4
2.0.......................................         17       6.60      46.80      88.30      26.50       3.40       0.62       30.1       32.0       14.3
2.0.......................................         17       6.60      45.20      90.60      19.10       4.60       0.77       30.8       33.8       16.4
2.0.......................................         13       6.62      46.20      87.70      24.30       3.70       0.60       30.1       33.2       15.0
2.0.......................................         12       6.60      46.10      88.20      28.60       2.90       0.51       29.6       32.1       14.2
2.7.......................................         10       6.76      46.20      88.60      25.70       2.80       0.66       29.1       32.1       14.9
2.7.......................................         12       6.60      44.90      87.70      22.40       2.80       0.71       30.2       32.9       15.7

2.7.......................................          8       6.73      45.40      89.00      26.30       1.90       0.63       28.9       32.1       15.0
2.7.......................................         10       6.69      45.40      88.30      25.30       2.80       0.65       29.4       32.3       15.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3, below, shows that non-oxygenated CaRFG3 produced under
each of the scenarios that EPA evaluated meets Federal RFG performance
standards. All of the fuels shown in Table 3, which EPA believes to be
reasonably representative of the fuel formulations that refiners would
produce in California without an oxygen content requirement are
predicted to perform better than the Federal RFG per gallon and
averaged standards. (See footnote 9 for a discussion of the oxygen
content requirement in light of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.)

                         Table 3.--Complex Model Performance of Non-Oxygenated CaRFG3 Using MathPro Gasoline Property Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Sulfur      RVP                           Aromatics   Olefins    Benzene                Toxics
           Ethanol  (wt% oxygen)              (ppm)      (psi)    E200  (%)  E300  (%)    (vol%)     (vol%)     (vol%)   VOC  (% )     (%)      NOX  (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0.......................................          8       6.60       47.7       87.4       23.0        5.9       0.57       30.7       32.5       15.1
0.0.......................................          7       6.60       48.7       87.6       28.6        4.7       0.51       30.0       30.4       14.0
0.0.......................................          8       6.60       48.1       87.2       26.9        2.4       0.46       29.7       32.0       14.3
0.0.......................................         10       6.60       47.7       88.0       24.3        3.9       0.49       30.3       32.9       14.8
0.0.......................................         12       6.60       49.0       85.8       24.8        6.0       0.52       30.5       32.2       14.3
0.0.......................................         10       6.60       49.2       87.4       28.6        4.1       0.53       30.0       30.2       13.8
0.0.......................................         12       6.60       47.6       86.8       21.2        6.3       0.52       31.0       33.8       15.3
0.0.......................................          9       6.60       47.9       87.6       25.7        3.9       0.49       30.1       32.2       14.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon a comparison of the CaRFG3 flat limit ``recipe'' and
Federal Phase II Complex model standards, as well as a consideration of
possible California fuel formulations certified using the California
Phase 3 predictive model, we have concluded that the NOX,
VOC and toxics emissions reductions resulting from the CaRFG3 standards
would be equal to or greater than the Federal Phase II RFG standards.
    The content standard for benzene for CaRFG3 is equivalent to or
better than the Federal Phase II standards. The California flat limit
benzene standard is 0.80 volume percent and the averaged standard is
0.70 volume percent with a 1.10 volume percent cap. By comparison, the
Federal per gallon benzene standard is 1.00 volume percent and the
averaged standard is 0.95 volume percent with a 1.30 volume percent
cap. EPA retains the authority to sample and test California gasoline
to make sure it meets all applicable Federal standards.
    In developing the proposed rule, we considered the design and
implementation of CARB's enforcement program, which includes
enforcement at refineries, import facilities, terminals, and service
stations. CARB's enforcement program is generally outlined in its
regulations and includes requirements that refiners submit annual
compliance plans,\19\ which outline how they will meet CaRFG3
requirements, and that refiners and importers conduct testing and
maintain records of testing performed on batches of gasoline.\20\ CARB
staff summarized information on its actual enforcement activities in
fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, indicating that 6.6% and 6.5% of
gasoline sold in California was inspected, during each respective
period. In 1999-2000, the violation rate was 1.9% (based on volumes
sampled) and 0.5% (based on the number of samples). In 2000-2001, the
violation rate was 0.16% (based on volumes sampled) and 1.06% (based on
the number of samples). We believe that, considering the presence of
adequate enforcement provisions in its regulations and CARB's actual
enforcement activities, that the CARB enforcement program is
sufficiently stringent to ensure that the California standards will be
met. For all these reasons, we have determined that it is appropriate
to apply the enforcement exemptions at 40 CFR 80.81 to refiners,
importers, and blenders of CaRFG3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Title 13, CCR section 2269.
    \20\ Title 13, CCR section 2270.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Definition of California Gasoline

    This rule restores the definition of ``California gasoline,'' which
was previously included in Sec.  80.81, but which was accidentally and
erroneously removed from the Code of Federal Regulations. The
definition is necessary because it describes the gasoline to which the
enforcement exemptions may apply.

D. Response to Comments

    We received no adverse comments on the notice of proposed
rulemaking. The only written comment received was from the Western
States Petroleum Association and it was a positive one that urged us to
finalize this rule as soon as possible.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, 58 Federal Register 51,735 (October 4,
1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;

    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.''
    This rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning
of the Executive Order. It would not have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more and is not expected to have any adverse
economic effects as described in the Order. This rule does not raise
issues of consistency with the actions taken or planned by other
agencies, does not materially alter the cited budgetary impacts, and
does not raise any novel legal or policy issues as defined in the
Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose any new information collection burden.
Today's rule extends enforcement exemptions to refiners of CaRFG3 and
would reduce burdens associated with overlapping Federal and state
requirements, including recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., has
previously approved the information collection requirements contained
in the final reformulated gasoline (RFG) and anti-dumping rulemaking
and gasoline sulfur control rulemaking, and has assigned OMB control
numbers 2060-0277 and 202-0308. A copy of the OMB approved Information
Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from the Collection Strategies
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    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
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has not
more than 1,500 employees (13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, I certify that this action would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' See 5 U.S.C. 603 and
604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    Today's rule extends enforcement exemptions to refiners of CaRFG3
and would reduce burdens associated with overlapping Federal and state
requirements, including recordkeeping and reporting requirements. We
have therefore concluded that today's rule will relieve regulatory
burden for all small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty
on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include

regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the states, on
the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
    This rule does not have federalism implications. It does not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's rule extends enforcement
exemptions to refiners of CaRFG3 and would reduce burdens associated
with overlapping Federal and state requirements, including
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
    This rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This rule applies to refiners, importers and blenders of CaRFG3 and
does not impose any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to E.O.
13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does
not involve decisions on environmental health risks or safety risks
that may disproportionately affect children.

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

    This rule is not an economically ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it does not have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub L. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards. Today's rule does not
affect technical standards and raises no issues under the NTTAA.

J. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for today's rule comes from sections 211(c),
211(i) and 211(k) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7545(c) and (k)). Section
211(c) and 211(i) allows EPA to regulate fuels that contribute to air
pollution which endangers public health or welfare, or which impairs
emission control equipment. Section 211(k) prescribes requirements for
RFG and conventional gasoline and requires EPA to promulgate
regulations establishing these requirements. Additional support for the
fuels controls in today's rule comes from sections 114(a) and 301(a) of
the CAA.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States before the rule is published in the
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Fuel additives,
Gasoline, Imports, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: December 15, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 80 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a).

Subpart D--[Amended]

0
2. Section 80.81 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a).
0
b. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.
0
c. Revising paragraph (e)(2) introductory text and (e)(3)(i).
0
d. Revising paragraph (g)(1) introductory text.
0
e. Revising paragraphs (h)(1) introductory text, (h)(1)(ii)(A),
(h)(1)(ii)(C) and (h)(2)(i).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  80.81  Enforcement exemptions for California gasoline.

    (a)(1) The requirements of subparts D, E, F, and J of this part are
modified in accordance with the provisions contained in this section in
the case of California gasoline.
    (2) For purposes of this section, ``California gasoline'' means any
gasoline that is sold, intended for sale, or made available for sale as
a motor vehicle fuel in the State of California and that:
    (i) Is manufactured within the State of California;
    (ii) Is imported into the State of California from outside the
United States; or
    (iii) Is imported into the State of California from inside the
United States and that is manufactured at a refinery that does not
produce reformulated gasoline for sale in any covered area outside the
State of California.
* * * * *
    (c) Any refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender of California
gasoline that is manufactured or imported subsequent to March 1, 1996
and that meets the requirements of the California Phase 2 or Phase 3
reformulated gasoline regulations, as set forth in Title 13, California
Code of Regulations, section 2250 et seq. (May 1, 2003), is with regard
to such gasoline, exempt from the following requirements (in addition
to the requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section:
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Such exemption provisions shall not apply to any refiner,
importer, or oxygenate blender of California gasoline with regard to
any gasoline formulation that it produces or imports and that is
certified under Title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 2265
or 2266 (May 1, 2003), unless:
* * * * *
    (3)(i) Such exemption provisions shall not apply to any refiner,
importer, or oxygenate blender of California gasoline who has been
assessed a civil, criminal, or administrative penalty for violations of
subpart D, E, or F of this part or for a violation of the California
reformulated gasoline regulations set forth in Title 13, California
Code of Regulations, section 2250 et seq. (May 1, 2003).
* * * * *
    (g)(1) Any refiner that operates a refinery located outside the
State of California at which California gasoline is produced (as
defined in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) or (iii) of this section) is produced
shall, with regard to such gasoline, provide to any person to whom
custody or title of such gasoline has transferred, and each transferee
shall provide to any subsequent transferee, documents which include the
following information:
* * * * *
    (h)(1) For the purposes of the batch sampling and analysis
requirements contained in Sec.  80.65(e)(1) and Sec.
80.101(i)(1)(i)(A), any refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender of
California gasoline may use a sampling and/or analysis methodology
prescribed in Title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 2250 et
seq. (May 1, 2003), in lieu of any applicable methodology specified in
Sec.  80.46, with regard to:
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) The gasoline must be produced by a refinery that is located in
the state of California that produces California gasoline, or imported
into California from outside the United States as California gasoline;
* * * * *
    (C) The refiner or importer must correlate the results from the
applicable sampling and/or analysis methodology prescribed in Title 13,
California Code of Regulations, section 2250 et seq. (May 1, 2003) with
the method specified in Sec.  80.46, and such correlation must be
adequately demonstrated to EPA upon request.
    (2) * * *
    (i) The samples are properly collected under the terms of a current
and valid protocol agreement between the refiner and the California Air
Resources Board with regard to sampling at the off site tankage and
consistent with the requirements prescribed in Title 13, California
Code of Regulations, section 2250 et seq. (May 1, 2003); and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-24298 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR 4)

3E6555, 4E6836, 5E6977, 5E6978 and 4F6895 Summary of Petitions EPA has received pesticide petitions ( 3E6555, 4E6836, 5E6977, 5E6978 and 4F6895) from Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR 4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 681 U. S. Highway No. 1 South, North New Brunswick, NJ 08902 proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.458 to establish tolerances for residues of of the herbicide clethodim, ( E)( ± )  2[ 1[[( 3 chloro 2 propenyl) oxy] imino] propyl] 5[ 2( ethylthio) propyl]  3 hydroxy 2  cyclohexen 1 one and its metabolites containing the 2 cyclohexene 1 one moiety in or on the raw agricultural commodities: flax seed at 0.5 ppm ( 3E6555); herb subgroup 19A at 10 ppm ( 4E6836); asparagus at 2.0 ppm ( 5E6977); hops, dry cones, at 0.5 ppm; leafy greens, subgroup 4A, including cilantro at 2.0 ppm ( 5E6978); sesame seed at 0.4 ppm ( 4F6895); vegetable, legume, group 6 at 3.0 ppm ( 4F6895); and safflower, meal at 10.0 ppm and safflower, seed at 5.0 ppm ( 4F6895). The petitioner, IR 4, further proposes, upon approval of the aforementioned tolerances, to remove established tolerances for residues of the herbicide clethodim and its metabolites containing the 2 cyclohexene 1 one moiety in or on the raw agricultural commodities lettuce, leaf, beans, dry, and spinach.

EPA has determined that the petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition. This notice includes a summary of the petition prepared by Valent U. S. A. Corporation, the registrant, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 8025.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of clethodim is adequately understood for the purpose of the proposed tolerances.

2. Analytical method.

Practical analytical methods for detecting and measuring levels of clethodim and its metabolites have been developed and validated in/ on all appropriate agricultural commodities, respective processing fractions, milk, animal tissues, and environmental samples. The methods have been validated at independent laboratories, and EPA has successfully performed an analytical method trial. For most commodities, the primary enforcement method is EPA RM 26D 3, a high performance liquid chromatography ( HPLC) method capable of distinguishing clethodim from the structurally related herbicide sethoxydim. 3. Magnitude of residues. Residue data on flax, basil ( fresh and dried), chives ( fresh and dried), hops, asparagus, head lettuce, sesame, snap bean, pea ( dry), lima bean ( succulent shelled), and pea ( succulent), have been submitted which adequately support the requested tolerances.

B. Toxicological Profile The toxicological profile for clethodim which supports this petition for tolerances was previously published in the Federal Register of March 14, 2001 ( 66 FR 14829) ( FRL 6770 8).

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. Chronic dietary analyses were conducted to estimate exposure to potential clethodim residues in/ on the following crops: peanuts, cotton, vegetable, tuberous and corm ( Group 1C), vegetable, brassica, head and stem ( Group 5A), brassica, leafy greens ( Group 5B), vegetable, fruiting ( Group 8), melon ( Group 9A), squash/ cucumber ( Group 9B), cranberry, strawberry, sunflower, canola, flax, alfalfa, mint, and clover ( existing tolerances); vegetable, root and tuber ( Group 1), vegetable, leaves of root and tuber ( Group 2), vegetable, bulb ( Group 3), berry ( Group 13)( tolerances to be proposed in the future); and herbs ( Group 19A), asparagus, vegetable, leafy ( Group 4), vegetable, legume ( Group 6), hops, safflower, and sesame ( tolerances proposed in the current petition). The Cumulative and Aggregate Risk Evaluation System ( CARES) Version 1.1 was used to conduct this assessment. Actual residue data and conservative estimates for percentages of the crop treated were used in these assessments. No adjustments were made for common washing, cooking or preparation practices. Exposure estimates for water were made based upon modeling ( GENEEC and SCI GROW).

i. Food. The chronic dietary exposure estimate of clethodim residues in food at the 100th percentile was calculated to be, at most, 24.2% of the chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( c PAD) with a Margin of Exposure ( MOE) of 410. The population subgroup with the highest exposure was children 1 2 years old. The c PAD was defined as the NOEL from a dog chronic feeding study and includes an uncertainty factor of 100 to account for intra and inter species variation ( NOEL = 1.0 mg/ kg bw/ day, c PAD = 0.01 mg/ kg/ day).

ii. Drinking water. Since clethodim is applied outdoors postemergence to growing agricultural crops, the potential exists for clethodim and/ or its metabolites to reach ground or surface water that may be used for drinking water. To model very conservative estimates of the potential concentrations of clethodim and its sulfoxide metabolite in drinking water, the Agency used SCI GROW for groundwater, and Generic Expected Environmental Concentration ( GENEEC) for surface water. The sum of the parent and metabolite estimated concentrations in surface water greatly exceeded those in groundwater. Based on the GENEEC and SCI GROW models, the estimated environmental concentrations ( EECs) of clethodim for chronic exposures are estimated to be 24.2 ppb for surface water and 0.49 ppb for ground water [ Federal Register of March 14, 2001 ( 66 FR 14829) ( FRL 6770 8)]. Using standard assumptions about body weight and water consumption, the worse case chronic exposure from drinking water would, therefore, be 0.0007 and 0.0024 mg/ kg bw/ day for adults and children, respectively; 24% of the cPAD for children. Based on this worse case analysis, the contribution of water to the chronic dietary risk exceeds food, but is still acceptable.

2. Non dietary exposure. Clethodim is currently registered for use on the following residential non food sites: ornamental plants, wooden containers for growing plants, golf course turf, walkways, trails, and paths. There are no indoor uses registered for clethodim. Clethodim kills grassy weeds and does not control broadleaf weeds. Therefore, clethodim is not used broadcast on turf, but only on edges and walkways, thus greatly reducing the risk of residential exposure. The Agency did calculate that these potential exposures to homeowner applicators and other potential exposed individuals lead to acceptable Margins of Exposure ( MOE) ( April 8, 1998, 63 FR 17101)( FRL 5784 9). However, because the Agency did not identify short or intermediate term dermal toxic endpoints of concern, these risk analyses are no longer necessary.

D. Cumulative Effects. There are other pesticidal compounds that are structurally related to clethodim, including sethoxydim, cycloxydim, and tralkoxydim. Analytical methods convert some of these herbicides and their metabolites to common moieties. Plant and animal metabolism data demonstrate that no common metabolites are formed. In consideration of potential cumulative effects of clethodim and other substances that may have a common mechanism of toxicity, there are currently no available data or other reliable information indicating that any toxic effects produced by clethodim would be cumulative with those of other chemical compounds. Thus, only the potential risks of clethodim have been considered in this assessment of aggregate exposure and effects.

Valent USA Corporation will submit information for EPA to consider concerning potential cumulative effects of clethodim consistent with the schedule established by EPA on August 4, 1997 ( 62 FR 42020)( FRL 5734 6) and other subsequent EPA publications pursuant to the Food Quality Protection Act.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population chronic exposure and risk i. Adult sub populations. Using the dietary exposure assessment procedures described above for clethodim, calculated chronic dietary exposure  taking into account per cent of crop treated and using actual field residues  from existing and proposed uses of clethodim is minimal. The estimated chronic dietary exposure from food for the U. S. population was 0.00047 mg/ kg bw/ day, 4.7% of the cPAD. Addition of the small but worse case potential chronic exposure from drinking water ( calculated above) increases exposure by 0.0007 mg/ kg bw/ day and the maximum occupancy of the cPAD from 4.7% to 11.7%. Generally, the Agency has no cause for concern if total residue contribution is less than 100 percent of the cPAD. It can be concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U. S. population from aggregate, chronic exposure to clethodim residues.

ii. Acute dietary exposure and risk  Adult sub populations. An acute dietary endpoint was not identified. Thus, the risk from acute aggregate dietary exposure to clethodim is considered to be negligible. iii. Non dietary exposure and aggregate risk  Adult sub populations. Acute, short term, and intermediate term dermal and inhalation risk assessments for residential exposure to clethodim are not required because no significant toxicological effects were observed.

2. Infants and children i. Safety factor for infants and children. The toxicological data base for evaluating prenatal and postnatal toxicity for clethodim is complete with respect to current data requirements. There are no special prenatal or postnatal toxicity concerns for infants and children, based on the results of the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies or the 3 generation reproductive toxicity study in rats. Valent USA Corporation concludes that reliable data support use of the standard 100 fold uncertainty factor and that an additional uncertainty factor is not needed for clethodim to be further protective of infants and children.

ii. Chronic exposure and risk  Infant and child sub populations. Using the conservative exposure assumptions described above ( anticipated residues and percent of crop treated), the percentage of the cPAD that will be utilized by dietary ( food only) exposure to residues of clethodim was 24.2% for children , 1 2 years old. Adding the worse case potential incremental exposure to infants and children from clethodim in drinking water ( 0.0024 mg/ kg bw/ day) greatly increases the aggregate, chronic dietary exposure and the occupancy of the cPAD by 24% to 48.2%. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the cPAD because the cPAD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health. It can be concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate, chronic exposure to clethodim residues.

iii. Acute dietary exposure and risk  Infant and child sub populations. An acute dietary endpoint was not identified. Thus, the risk from acute aggregate dietary exposure to clethodim is considered to be negligible.

iv. Non dietary exposure and aggregate risk  Infant and child sub populations. Acute, short term, and intermediate term dermal and inhalation risk assessments for residential exposure to clethodim are not required because no significant toxicological effects were observed.

F. International Tolerances Codex, Canadian, or Mexican maximum residue levels ( MRLs) have been established or proposed for residues of clethodim in/ on sugar beets ( 0.1 ppm), potatoes ( 0.2 ppm), rape seed ( 0.5 ppm), rape seed oils ( 0.5 ppm), sunflower seed ( 0.5 ppm), and sunflower seed oils ( 0.05 ppm). There are no conflicts between this proposed action and existing international residue limits.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35763-35764]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12688]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0494; FRL-9922-01-OECA]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Tips
and Complaints Regarding Environmental Violations (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Tips and Complaints
Regarding Environmental Violations'' (EPA ICR No. 2219.06, OMB Control
No. 2020-0032), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before
doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through February 28,
2023. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 12, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2009-0494, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Le Desma; Legal Counsel
Division; Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training;
Environmental Protection Agency, Building 25, Box 25227, Denver Federal
Center, Denver, CO 80025; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(303) 462-9075; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider
the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR
package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that
time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the
submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional
comments to OMB.
    Abstract: EPA tips and complaints web form is intended to provide
an easy and convenient means by which members of the public can supply
information to EPA regarding suspected violations of environmental law.
The decision to provide a tip or complaint is entirely voluntary and
use of the webform when supplying a tip or complaint is also entirely
voluntary. Tippers need not supply contact information or other
personal identifiers. Those who do supply such information, however,
should know that this information may be shared by EPA with appropriate
administrative, law enforcement, and judicial entities engaged in
investigating or adjudicating the tip or complaint.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents are expected to be
members of the general public as well as employees of any company
subject to federal environmental regulation. There is no specific
industry or group of industries about which EPA expects tips or
complaints.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,585 per month (total).
    Frequency of response: generally, a one-time response.
    Total estimated burden: 9,510 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $487,673 (per year), includes no annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is an increase of 924 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase reflects the fact that tips and
complaints are being filed at a higher rate as the website becomes more
widely known, a strong indication of the continued success of this
program. There has been no change in the information being reported or
the estimated burden per respondent.

    Dated: June 2, 2022.
Henry Barnet,
Director, Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training.
[FR Doc. 2022-12688 Filed 6-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 216 (Friday, November 12, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62749-62750]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24459]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0978; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-21]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of the Class D and Class E Airspace and
Revocation of Class E Airspace; Hammond, LA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class D and Class E airspace
and revoke Class E airspace at Hammond, LA. The FAA is proposing this
action as the result of an airspace review due to the decommissioning
of the Hammond very high frequency (VHF) omnidirectional range (VOR).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0978/Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-21, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email:
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend the Class D airspace and the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and remove the Class
E airspace area designated as an extension to the Class D airspace at
Hammond Northshore Regional Airport, Hammond, LA, to support instrument
flight rule operations at this airport, and removing the Class E
airspace area designated as an extension to the Class D airspace at
Hammond Municipal Airport, Hammond, LA, as it is duplicate airspace.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2021-0978/
Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-21.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:
    Amending the Class D airspace at Hammond Northshore Regional
Airport, Hammond, LA, by replacing the outdated term ``Airport/Facility
Directory'' with ``Chart Supplement;''
    Removing the Class E airspace area designated as an extension to
the Class D airspace at Hammond Northshore Regional Airport as it is no
longer required;
    Removing the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Hammond Municipal Airport, Hammond, LA, as it is
duplicate airspace and not required;
    And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to within a 6.6-mile (decreased from a 7.5-mile)
radius of Hammond Northshore Regional Airport.

    This action is the result of an airspace review due to the
decommissioning of the Hammond NDB which provided guidance to
instrument procedures at this airport.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs
5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated
August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW LA D Hammond, LA [Amended]

Hammond Northshore Regional Airport, LA
    (Lat. 30[deg]31'18'' N, long. 90[deg]25'06'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Hammond Northshore
Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

ASW LA E4 Hammond, LA [Removed]

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW LA E5 Hammond, LA [Removed]

ASW LA E5 Hammond, LA [Amended]

Hammond Northshore Regional Airport, LA
    (Lat. 30[deg]31'18'' N, long. 90[deg]25'06'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Hammond Northshore Regional Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 4, 2021.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-24459 Filed 11-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52851-52852]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20865]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. RM12-17-000; Order No. 781]

Revisions to Procedural Regulations Governing Transportation by
Intrastate Pipelines; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final rule (RM12-17-
000) which was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, July 30,

2013 (78 FR 45850). The regulations amends its regulations to provide
optional notice procedures for processing rate filings by those natural
gas pipelines that fall under the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to
the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 or the Natural Gas Act. The rule
results in regulatory certainty and a reduction of regulatory burdens.

DATES: Effective September 30, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Tishman (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>James Sarikas (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need for Correction

    On July 18, 2013, the Commission issued a ``Final Rule, Order No.
781'' in the above-captioned proceeding. Revisions to Procedural
Regulations Governing Transportation by Intrastate Pipelines, 144 FERC
] 61,034 (2013).
    This document serves to correct the table in Paragraph 82.
Specifically, the last figure in the ``total Annual Burden Hours''
column is changed from ``854'' to ``852''.
    Accordingly, in rule FR Doc. No. 2013-17822 published in the July
30, 2013 (78 FR 45850), on page 45861, in the table in paragraph 82,
the entry in the ``Total annual burden hours (a x b)'' column for the
entry ``FERC-549 Total,'' the figure ``854'' is corrected to read
``852''.

    Dated: August 21, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-20865 Filed 8-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


The U.S. EPA HRS vapor intrusion addition webpage is located at:

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsaddition.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsaddition.htm


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 29, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-1997-2128, OST-2000-7338, and

					       DOCKET OST-2002-13855

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Application of    US AIRWAYS, INC.,  filed  11/25/03 for:

XX  Renewal of exemption under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

DOCKET OST-1997-2128:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between (1) the terminal point Charlotte, North Carolina, and the
terminal point Cancun, Mexico; and (2) the terminal point Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, and the terminal point Cancun, Mexico.

DOCKET OST-2000-7338:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between the terminal point Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the terminal
point Cancun, Mexico.

US Airways requests that the two exemption authorities described above
be renewed with a common expiration date to run concurrently with its
other Cancun exemption authority in Docket OST-2002-13855, set to expire
on December 4, 2004.  US Airways also requests that its Cancun exemption
authorities be consolidated into one of the referenced dockets.

Applicant rep:   Howard Kass<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:  Linda L.
Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted, subject to conditions (See below).

The action above was effective when taken:   January 29, 2004 ,  through
 December 4, 2004  .

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		        Office of International Aviation

XX  Authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement between
the United States and the Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

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

Special Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is
subject to the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of
Appendix A of Order 88-10-2.

Remarks:  We have granted the carrier’s request to consolidate the
exemption authority granted here into Docket OST-2002-13855.  Thus, the
carrier may henceforth file in Docket OST-2002-13855 at such time as it
seeks to make requests concerning its exemption authority to serve the
Charlotte/Philadelphia/Pittsburgh-Cancun markets.

________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

-  see next page -

														2

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

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

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

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

						APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

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

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

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

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

											8/2003