[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 6, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57541-57543]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26202]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0737; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-12]

Establishment of Class E Airspace, Twin Bridges, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 and 1,200 feet above the surface at Twin Bridges Airport, Twin
Bridges, MT, to accommodate the development of instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure
procedures at the airport, for the safety and management of aircraft
within the National Airspace System. This action also makes a minor
correction to one geographic coordinate of the airport reference point.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 1, 2018. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can

be viewed online at http://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:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202) 741-6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; 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 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the earth at Twin Bridges Airport, Twin Bridges, MT, for the safety of
aircraft and management of airspace within the National Airspace
System.

History

    On August 28, 2017, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (82 FR 40740) Docket No. FAA-
2017-0737 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Twin Bridges Airport, Twin Bridges, MT. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    Subsequent to publication, the FAA discovered a rounding error
equal to one second of latitude in the geographic coordinates of the
airport listed in the NPRM. The coordinates are corrected (from lat.
45[deg]32'07'' N., to lat. 45[deg]32'08'' N.) in this action.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 4.1-mile radius of Twin Bridges Airport,
Twin Bridges, MT, and within 4.1 miles each side of the 011[deg]
bearing from the airport extending to 12 miles north of the airport,
and within 4.1 miles each side of the 195[deg] bearing from the airport
extending to 13.5 miles south of the airport.
    Additionally, this action establishes Class E airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 20-mile radius of
Twin Bridges Airport. This airspace is necessary to support the new
standard instrument approach procedures for runways 17 and 35 for the
safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Also, the airport reference point latitude coordinate is corrected
to ``lat. 45[deg]32'08'' N.,'' from ``lat. 45[deg]32'07'' N.'' Except
for this correction, this rule is the same as published in the NPRM.

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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 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 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 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ANM MT E5 Twin Bridges, MT [New]

Twin Bridges Airport, MT
    (Lat. 45[deg]32'08'' N., long. 112[deg]18'08'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4.1-mile radius of Twin Bridges Airport, and within 4.1
miles each side of the 011[deg] bearing from the airport extending
to 12 miles north of the airport, and within 4.1 miles each side of
the 195[deg] bearing from the airport extending to 13.5 miles south
of the airport; and that airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the
surface within a 20-mile radius of Twin Bridges Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on November 21, 2017.
Brian J. Johnson,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-26202 Filed 12-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Bifenthrin/ 128825/ BASF DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial   Potatoes DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45794203 Page 1 of 9 Primary Evaluator: Sarah J. Levy, Chemist Registration Action Branch 1 ( RAB1) Health Effects Division ( HED; 7509C) Date: 06 APR 2006 Approved by: George Kramer, Ph. D., Chemist RAB1/ HED ( 7509C) Date: 06 APR 2006 This DER was originally prepared under contract by Dynamac Corporation ( 1910 Sedwick Rd., Bld. 100, Durham, NC 27713; submitted 17 OCT 2005. The DER has been reviewed by HED and revised to reflect current Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) policies.

STUDY REPORT:

45794203. Culligan, J. ( 2001) Magnitude of the Residue of Bifenthrin in/ on Potatoes and Potato Processed Parts Following Treatment with Capture 1.15G and Capture 2EC Insecticide Miticide. Lab Project Number: P 3526. Study No 182POT01R1. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corporation. 240 pages.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Twelve potato field trials were conducted during 2001 comparing the use of two bifenthrin formulations. At each trial, bifenthrin ( 2 lb/ gal emulsifiable concentrate ( EC) or 1.15% granular ( G)) was applied to potatoes as one in furrow application at 0.3 lb ai/ A followed by two broadcast foliar applications of the 2 lb/ gal EC at 0.1 lb ai/ A/ application, for a total of 0.5 lb ai/ A/ season. The in furrow application was made prior to planting, and the foliar applications were made late in the season, approximately 42 and 21 days prior to normal maturity. Duplicate control and treated samples of potatoes were harvested at commercial maturity from treatment at each trial site, at approximately 20 21 day pre harvest intervals ( PHIs). Samples were stored frozen for up to 1 month, an interval supported by the available storage stability data.

The gas chromatography ( GC)/ mass selective detection ( MSD) method used to determine bifenthrin residues in/ on potatoes ( FMC Corporation Report No. P 3426,) was adequately validated in conjunction with the field trial analyses. Briefly, bifenthrin residues are extracted with acetone, concentrated, and purified by silica gel solid phase extraction. The residues were analyzed by GC MSD. The validated limit of quantitation ( LOQ) was 0.05 ppm, and the limit of detection ( LOD) was 0.01 ppm.

Regardless of the type of formulation used for the in furrow application ( G or EC), bifenthrin residues were < 0.05 (< LOQ) ppm in/ on all 48 samples of potatoes harvested at ~ 20 21 day PHIs. The average and highest average field trial ( HAFT) residues in/ on potatoes were 0.025 and 0.05 ppm, respectively. Residue decline information could not be determined from the two decline trials because of the lack of residues found at any of the sampling points.

STUDY/ WAIVER ACCEPTABILITY/ DEFICIENCIES/ CLARIFICATIONS:

Under the conditions and parameters used in the study, the potato field trial residue data are classified as scientifically acceptable, although complete information on soil characteristics Bifenthrin/ 128825/ BASF DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial   Potatoes DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45794203 Page 2 of 9 should typically be supplied for studies in which the pesticide is applied to the soil. The acceptability of this study for regulatory purposes is addressed in the forthcoming U. S. EPA Residue Chemistry Summary Document [ DP#: 310089].

COMPLIANCE:

Signed and dated Good Laboratory Practice ( GLP), Quality Assurance and Data Confidentiality statements were provided. The study authors noted numerous minor deviations from GLP compliance at the trial site, including the collection of weather data and descriptions of the field plot. However, these deviations do not impact the validity of the study.

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Bifenthrin is a broad spectrum, non systemic insecticide/ miticide in the class of synthetic pyrethroids ( Group 3). Bifenthrin is formulated for use on crop plants as a 2.0 lb/ gal EC ( Capture ® 2 EC; EPA Reg. No. 279 3069) and as a 1.15% G ( Capture 1.15G; EPA Reg. No. 279 3244).

TABLE A. 1. Nomenclature of Bifenthrin Compound O O Cl F 3 C CH 3 CH 3 C H 3 Common name Bifenthrin Company experimental names Capture ® Insecticide/ Miticide IUPAC name 2 methylbiphenyl 3 ylmethyl( Z)( 1RS, 3RS) 3( 2 chloro 3,3,3 trifluoroprop 1 enyl) 2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate or 2 methylbiphenyl 3 ylmethyl( Z)( 1RS) cis 3( 2 chloro 3,3,3 trifluoroprop 1 enyl) 2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate CAS name rel 2 methyl( 1,1' biphenyl) 3 yl) methyl( 1R, 3R) 3(( 1Z) 2 chloro 3,3,3 trifluoro 1 propenyl) 2,2 dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate CAS # 82657 04 03 End use products/ EP 2.0 lb/ gal EC ( Capture ® 2EC; EPA Reg No. 279 3069)

1.15% G ( Capture ® 1.15G; EPA Reg No. 279 3244) Bifenthrin/ 128825/ BASF DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial   Potatoes DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45794203 Page 3 of 9 TABLE A. 2. Physicochemical Properties of the Technical Grade Bifenthrin Parameter Value Reference Melting point/ range 68 70.6 ° C pH NA Density at 24 ° C 1.26 g/ mL Water solubility < 0.1 Fg/ L Solvent solubility ( g/ 100 mL) 8.9 in heptane and methanol 125 in acetone, chloroform, ether, methylene chloride, and toluene Vapor pressure ( Pa) at 25 ° C 2.41 x 10 5 Dissociation constant ( pKa) NA Octanol/ water partition coefficient) Kow > 1 x 106 UV/ visible absorption spectrum NA Product Chemistry Chapter of the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decsion ( TRED)

B. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN B. 1. Study Site Information Potatoes were grown and maintained at each trial site using typical agricultural practices for the respective geographical region ( Table B. 1.1). Rainfall, irrigation data, and minimum and maximum average monthly temperatures were reported for most trial sites, although several trial sites just reported general weather observations. Compared to 10 year average data, variations from average precipitation and air temperature were reported at several sites, but no extreme weather conditions were noted that would adversely impact the field trial data. Information was also provided on maintenance chemicals and other pesticides used at each site. However, information on soil characteristics was incomplete; these data are typically required for applications made to the soil.

TABLE B. 1.1. Trial Site Conditions. Soil characteristics1 Trial Identification ( City, State; Year) Type % OM pH CEC ( meq/ g) Dundee, NY; 2001 Loam 3.3 6.2 NR North Rose, NY; 2001 Sand NR NR NR Sunbury, NC; 2001 Fine Sandy Loam NR NR NR Hobe Sound, FL; 2001 Fine Sand NR NR NR Fitchburg, WI; 2001 Silt Loam 2.9 5.5 NR Wahpeton, ND; 2001 Loam 4.3 5.4 NR Center, CO; 2001 Loamy Sand NR NR NR Visalia, CA; 2001 Sandy Loam NR NR NR Moses Lake, WA; 2001 Silt Loam NR NR NR Walla Walla, WA; 2001 Silt Loam 2.5 7.8 NR Jerome, ID; 2001 Loam 1.4 7.4 NR Rupert, ID; 2001 Silt Loam NR NR NR 1 OM = Organic matter, CEC = Cation exchange capacity. These parameters are optional except in cases where their value affects the use pattern for the chemical. Bifenthrin/ 128825/ BASF DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial   Potatoes DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45794203 Page 4 of 9 NR = Not reported Each trial site used two treatment regimes, in addition to a control plot ( Trt 1). For one treatment ( Trt 2), the 1.15% G formulation was used for the in furrow application, and for the other treatment ( Trt 3) the 2 lb/ gal EC formulation was used for the in furrow application. Both treatments used the EC formulation for the foliar application ( Table B. 1.2).

TABLE B. 1.2. Study Use Pattern s. Application Information2 Location ( City, State; Year) Trial ID Treatment No. EP1 Method; Timing Volume ( GPA) Single Rate ( lb ai/ A) RTI3 ( days) Total Rate ( lb ai/ A)

1.15G In Furrow at planting NA 0.3 NA 10 0.1 49 2 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 In Furrow at planting 10 0.3 NA 10 0.1 49 Dundee, NY; 2001 1 3 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 0.5 1.15G In Furrow at planting NA 0.3 NA 10 0.1 52 2 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 In Furrow at planting 10 0.3 NA 10 0.1 52 North Rose, NY; 2001 2 3 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 0.5 1.15G In Furrow at planting NA 0.3 NA 11 0.1 66 2 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 In Furrow at planting 10 0.3 NA 11 0.1 66 Sunbury, NC; 2001 3 3 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 0.5 1.15G In Furrow at planting NA 0.3 NA 10 0.1 49 2 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 In Furrow at planting 10 0.3 NA 10 0.1 49 Hobe Sound, FL; 2001 4 3 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 0.5 1.15G In Furrow at planting NA 0.3 NA 10 0.1 56 2 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 20 days prior to harvest 11 0.1 22 In Furrow at planting 10 0.3 NA 10 0.1 56 Fitchburg, WI; 2001 5 3 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 20 days prior to harvest 11 0.1 22 0.5 1.15G In Furrow at planting NA 0.3 NA 10 0.1 75 2 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 In Furrow at planting 10 0.3 NA 10 0.1 75 Wahpeton, ND; 2001 6 3 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 0.5 Bifenthrin/ 128825/ BASF DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial   Potatoes DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45794203 Page 5 of 9 Application Information2 Location ( City, State; Year) Trial ID Treatment No. EP1 Method; Timing Volume ( GPA) Single Rate ( lb ai/ A) RTI3 ( days) Total Rate ( lb ai/ A)

1.15G In Furrow at planting NA 0.3 NA 10 0.1 64 2 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 In Furrow at planting 10 0.3 NA 10 0.1 64 Center, CO; 2001 7 3 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 0.5 1.15G In Furrow at planting NA 0.3 NA 11 0.1 71 2 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 41 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 In Furrow at planting 10 0.3 NA 11 0.1 71 Visalia, CA; 2001 8 3 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 41 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 0.5 1.15G In Furrow at planting NA 0.3 NA 10 0.1 109 2 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 In Furrow at planting 10 0.3 NA 10 0.1 109 Moses Lake, WA; 2001 9 3 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 0.5 1.15G In Furrow at planting NA 0.3 NA 10 0.1 101 2 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 In Furrow at planting 10 0.3 NA 10 0.1 101 Walla Walla, WA; 2001 10 3 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 21 0.5 1.15G In Furrow at planting NA 0.3 NA 11 0.1 89 2 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 11 0.1 21 In Furrow at planting 11 0.3 NA 11 0.1 89 Jerome, ID; 2001 11 3 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 42 and 21 days prior to harvest 11 0.1 21 0.5 1.15G In Furrow at planting NA 0.3 NA 10 0.1 77 2 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 43 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 22 In Furrow at planting 10 0.3 NA 10 0.1 77 Rupert, ID; 2001 12 3 2 lb/ gal EC Two broadcast foliar applications at 43 and 21 days prior to harvest 10 0.1 22 0.5 1 EP = End use products. 2 No adjuvants were included in any of the spray mixes. 3 RTI = Retreatment Interval Bifenthrin/ 128825/ BASF DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial   Potatoes DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45794203 Page 6 of 9 TABLE B. 1.3. Trial Numbers and Geographical Locations.

Potatoes Requested NAFTA Growing Region1 Submitted Canada US 1 2 NA 2 2 1 NA 1 3 1 NA 1 5 2 NA 2 8  NA 1 9 1 NA 1 10 1 NA 4 11 4 NA

Total 12 NA 12 1 Regions 13 21 and 1A, 5A, 5B, and 7A were not included as the use is for the US only. NA = not applicable.

B. 2. Sample Handling and Preparation Single control and duplicate treated samples of potatoes (  5 lbs) were harvested from each treatment at each site at commercial maturity. Samples were collected 20 21 days following the second foliar application except at the FL trial site, where samples were collected at a 14 day PHI due to an infestation of late blight. At two trial sites in NY and ID, additional duplicate samples were collected at 14, 21, 28, and 35 day PHIs to examine residue decline. All samples were placed into frozen storage within 3.5 hours of sampling. Samples were shipped frozen by ACDS freezer truck to the analytical laboratory ( FMC Corporation, Princeton, NJ), where samples were stored at  18 ° C until extraction for analysis.

B. 3. Analytical Methodology Samples of potatoes were analyzed for residues of bifenthrin using a GC/ MSD method ( FMC Corporation Method P 2132M).

For this method, residues of bifenthrin are extracted with acetone, centrifuged, and concentrated to an aqueous remainder under nitrogen. Residues were then partitioned into hexane and purified on a silica gel solid phase extraction ( SPE) cartridge. Residues are eluted from the SPE cartridge with 10% ethyl acetate/ hexane and concentrated. Residue levels of bifenthrin were analyzed by gas chromatographic analysis using a mass selective detector, using the m/ z 181 ion for quantitation. External standards were used for quantitation.

In conjunction with the analysis of field trial samples, the method was validated using control samples of potatoes fortified with bifenthrin at 0.05, 0.1 and 0.2 ppm.

C. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The number and geographic representation of the potato field trials are adequate. In twelve field trials conducted during 2001, bifenthrin ( G or EC) was applied as an in furrow application at 0.3 Bifenthrin/ 128825/ BASF DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial   Potatoes DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45794203 Page 7 of 9 lb ai/ A/ application and followed by two late season broadcast foliar applications of the 2 lb/ gal EC at 0.1 lb ai/ A/ application, for a total of 0.5 lb ai/ A/ season. The RTIs were 49 109 days between the in furrow application and the 1st foliar application, and 20 22 days between the two foliar applications. A single control and duplicate treated samples of potato tubers were collected at commercial maturity ( 20 21 day PHIs) from each treatment. Samples from the FL trials were collected early ( 14 day PHI) due to problems with infestation of late blight. Additional samples were also collected at 14, 21, 28, and 35 day PHIs from two trials in NY and ID to examine residue decline.

The GC/ MSD method used to determine bifenthrin residues in/ on potatoes was adequately validated concurrently with the field sample analyses. Concurrent validation recoveries from control samples fortified at 0.05 0.2 ppm averaged 72 86% with standard deviations 8 12%. Apparent residues of bifenthrin were < LOQ on all control samples. The validated method LOQ for bifenthrin in potatoes is 0.05 ppm and the LOD is 0.01ppm. Adequate sample calculations and example chromatograms were provided.

The samples were stored frozen from collection to analysis for up to 65 days ( Table C. 2). Storage stability data are available indicating that bifenthrin is stability in frozen potatoes for up to 36 months ( Memo, S. Levy, 21 AUG 2002; DP#: 283808).

TABLE C. 1. Summary of Concurrent Recoveries of Bifenthrin from Potatoes. Analyte Matrix Spike level ( ppm) Sample size ( n) Recoveries (%) Mean " std dev (%) 0.05 6 95, 97, 76, 87, 93, 68 ( 1) 1 86 ± 12 0.1 3 91, 76, 74 80 ± 9 Bifenthrin Potato 0.2 2 66, 77 72 ± 8 1 The number of recoveries outside the 70 120% range is indicated in parentheses.

TABLE C. 2. Summary of Storage Conditions. Matrix Storage Temperature ( ° C) Actual Storage Duration ( days) Interval of Demonstrated Storage Stability ( months) Potato  18 ° C 65 36 1 Bifenthrin TRED, S. Levy, 21 AUG 2002; DP#: 283808.

Regardless of the type of formulation used for the in furrow application ( G or EC), bifenthrin residues were < 0.05 (< LOQ) ppm in/ on all 48 samples of potatoes harvested 14 21 day PHIs ( Table C. 3). Detectable residues of bifenthrin ( 0.01 0.02 ppm) were observed in only 7 of the 48 samples, and these 7 samples were all from trials using the EC for the in furrow application. The average and HAFT residues in/ on potatoes were 0.025 and 0.05 ppm, respectively ( Table C. 4). No pattern of residue decline could be ascertained, as residues were < LOQ in samples from each interval in the two residue decline trials. Bifenthrin/ 128825/ BASF DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial   Potatoes DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45794203 Page 8 of 9 Table C. 3. Residue Data from Potato Fields Trials with Bifentrhin Using G and EC Formulations. Trial ID ( City, State; Year) Zone Potato Variety Commodity Formulations1 Total Rate ( lb ai/ A) PHI ( days) Bifenthrin residues ( ppm)

G + EC 0.5 ND, ND Dundee, NY; 2001 1 NY 79 Tuber EC + EC 0.5 21 ND, ND 14 ND, ND 21 ND, ND 28 ND, ND G + EC 0.5 35 ND, ND 14 ND, ND 21 ( 0.01), ( 0.02) 28 ND, ND North Rose, NY; 2001 1 NY 79 Tuber EC + EC 0.5 35 ND, ( 0.01) G + EC 0.5 ND, ND Sunbury, NC; 2001 2 Superior Tuber EC + EC 0.5 21 ND, ( 0.01) G + EC 0.5 ND, ND Hobe Sound, FL; 2001 3 Red Lasoda Tuber EC + EC 0.5 142 ND, ND G + EC 0.5 ND, ND Fitchburg, WI; 2001 5 Superior Tuber EC + EC 0.5 20 ( 0.02), ( 0.02) G + EC 0.5 ND, ND Wahpeton, ND; 2001 5 Kennebec Tuber EC + EC 0.5 21 ND, ND G + EC 0.5 ND, ND Center, CO; 2001 9 Norkotah Tuber EC + EC 0.5 21 ND, ND G + EC 0.5 ND, ND Visalia, CA; 2001 10 Cherry Red Tuber EC + EC 0.5 21 ND, ND G + EC 0.5 ( 0.01), ND Moses Lake, WA; 2001 11 Russet Burbank Tuber EC + EC 0.5 21 ND, ND G + EC 0.5 ND, ND Walla Walla, WA; 2001 11 Russet Burbank Tuber EC + EC 0.5 21 ND, ( 0.02) G + EC 0.5 ND, ND Jerome, ID; 2001 11 Russet Burbank Tuber EC + EC 0.5 21 ND, ND 14 ND, ND 21 ND, ND 28 ND, ND G + EC 0.5 35 ND, ND 14 ND, ND 21 ND, ND 28 ND, ND Rupert, ID; 2001 11 Russet Burbank Tuber EC + EC 0.5 35 ND, ND 1 The in furrow application was made with a G or EC formulation and all foliar applications were made with an EC formulation. 2 These samples were harvested early due to a blight infestation. ND = Not detectible (< LOD of 0.01 ppm)

TABLE C. 4. Summary of Residue Data from Potato Field Trials with Bifenthrin ( G and EC). Residue Levels2 ( ppm) Commodity Forms. 1 Total Applic. Rate ( lb ai/ A) PHI ( days) n Min. Max. HAFT3 Median Mean Std. Dev. G + EC 0.5 21 24 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.025 0.025  Potatoes EC + EC 0.5 21 24 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.025 0.025  1 The in furrow application was made with a G or EC formulation and all foliar applications were made with an EC formulation. 2 For calculating the mean, median and Std. Dev, ½ the LOQ was used for residues below the LOQ 3 HAFT = Highest Average Field Trial. Bifenthrin/ 128825/ BASF DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial   Potatoes DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45794203 Page 9 of 9 D. CONCLUSION The potato field trial data are adequate and support the use of a single in furrow application of bifenthrin ( G or EC) prior to planting at up to 0.3 lb ai/ A and up to two late season foliar applications of bifenthrin ( EC) at 0.1 lb ai/ A/ application, for a maximum seasonal rate of 0.5 lb ai/ A.

E. REFERENCES DP#: 283808 Subject: Bifenthrin. Residue and Product Chemistry Considerations for the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED) From: S. Levy To: T. Myers Dated: 21 AUG 2002 MRID( s): None F. DOCUMENT TRACKING RDI: RAB1 Chemists ( 16 NOV 2005) Petition#: 3E6882 DP#: 310089 PC Code: 128825 Template Version June 2005


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 97 (Friday, May 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27629-27631]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10752]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-D-0199]

Enforcement Policy Regarding Use of National Health Related Item
Code and National Drug Code Numbers on Device Labels and Packages;
Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance entitled ``Enforcement Policy
Regarding Use of National Health Related Item Code and National Drug
Code Numbers on Device Labels and Packages.'' This guidance describes
the Agency's policy regarding the prohibition against providing
National Health Related Item Code (NHRIC) and National Drug Code (NDC)
numbers on device labels and device packages set forth in FDA
regulations. As described in the guidance, FDA does not intend to
object to the use of FDA legacy identification numbers on device labels
and packages for finished devices manufactured and labeled prior to
September 24, 2023. The guidance is immediately in effect, but it
remains subject to comment in accordance with the Agency's good
guidance practices.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on May 21, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-D-0199 for ``Enforcement Policy Regarding Use of National
Health Related Item Code and National Drug Code Numbers on Device
Labels and Packages; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-
402-7500.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document entitled
``Enforcement Policy Regarding Use of National Health Related Item Code
and National Drug Code Numbers on Device Labels and Packages; Guidance
for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff'' to the Office of
Policy, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Office of Communication,
Outreach, and Development, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm.
3128, Silver Spring, MD 20903. Send one self-addressed adhesive label
to assist that office in processing your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Luxenberg, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3216, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-7043<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Stephen Ripley, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 226 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of
2007 (Pub. L. 110-85) and section 614 of the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) amended the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to add section 519(f)
(21 U.S.C. 360i(f)), which directs FDA to issue regulations
establishing a unique device identification system for medical devices
along with implementation timeframes for certain medical devices. The
final rule (UDI Rule), establishing the unique device identification
system, was published on September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58786).
    Prior to the establishment of the FDA's unique device
identification system, the absence of a standardized, unique
identification system for devices led some companies to obtain a
labeler code from FDA and place NHRIC or NDC numbers on the labels and
packages of certain medical devices. In recognition of this practice,
and to further the objectives of the unique device identification
program, the UDI Rule includes a provision that rescinds any NHRIC or
NDC number, assigned to a medical device.\1\ Under Sec.  801.57(a) (21
CFR 801.57(a)), on the date a device is required to bear a UDI on its
label, any NHRIC or NDC number assigned to that device is rescinded and
may no longer be on the device label or on any device package. If a
device is not required to bear a UDI on its label, any NHRIC or NDC
number assigned to that device is rescinded as of September 24, 2018,
and may no longer be on the device label or on any device package
(Sec.  801.57(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although Sec.  801.57 rescinds any NHRIC or NDC ``assigned''
to a device, such NDC numbers are not assigned in compliance with 21
CFR 207.33. Rather, some device manufacturers had labeler codes
previously assigned to them by FDA, which they used to create
numbers that were labeled as ``NHRIC'' or ``NDC.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons described in the guidance, we believe that
extending the policy for a limited additional time as stakeholders
continue to make changes to transition medical device reimbursement,
supply chain, and procurement systems and processes away from use of
legacy NHRIC and NDC numbers is appropriate and in the interest of the
public health.
    By September 24, 2023, more devices will bear UDIs, and we
anticipate reimbursement, supply chain, and procurement systems will be
better prepared to rely on UDIs. We also intend to work to encourage
UDI adoption throughout healthcare data systems, including in those
that currently rely on NHRIC and NDC numbers to help facilitate a
smooth transition away from use of these legacy identifiers on device
labels and fully realize the benefits of UDI. Additionally, the
guidance addresses requests for continued use of a previously assigned
FDA labeler code under a system for the issuance of UDIs.
    This guidance is being implemented without prior public comment
because the Agency has determined that prior public participation is
not feasible or appropriate (see section 701(h)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act
(21 U.S.C. 371(h)(1)(C)) and 21 CFR 10.115(g)(2)). FDA has determined
that this guidance presents a less burdensome policy that is consistent
with public health. Although this guidance is immediately in effect,
FDA will consider all comments received and revise the guidance
document as appropriate.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Enforcement Policy Regarding Use of
National Health Related Item Code and National Drug Code Numbers on
Device Labels and Packages; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff.'' It does not establish any rights for any person
and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative
approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability
for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents
is available at https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/guidance-documents-medical-devices-and-radiation-emitting-products. This guidance document is also
available at https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents or https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information-biologics/biologics-guidances. Persons unable to download
an electronic copy of ``Enforcement Policy Regarding Use of National
Health Related Item Code and National Drug Code Numbers on Device
Labels and Packages; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff'' may send an email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic copy of the document.
Please use the document number GUD1500044 and complete title to
identify the guidance you are requesting.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no new collection of information, it
does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information.
Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not
required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of
information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections
of information in the following FDA regulations have been approved by
OMB as listed in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           OMB  control
          21 CFR part                     Topic                 No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
801, subpart B, and 830........  Unique Device                 0910-0720
                                  Identification.
800, 801, and 809..............  Medical Device Labeling       0910-0485
                                  Regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: May 17, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-10752 Filed 5-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 48250-48251]
[DOCID:fr22se09-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

September 10, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-423-003.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company TRA Backhaul Errata
Filing.
    Filed Date: 09/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090901-5168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 14, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-320-115.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits an amendment
to a negotiated rate letter agreement executed by Gulf South and one of
its customers in relation to the East Texas to Mississippi Expansion
Project.
    Filed Date: 09/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090902-0161.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 14, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP06-200-062.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC submits Twelfth Revised
Sheet No. 9 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 09/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090904-0055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 15, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-371-002.
    Applicants: Crossroads Pipeline Company.
    Description: Crossroads Pipeline Company submits Twelfth Revised
Sheet 6 to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 09/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090903-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 15, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-845-001.
    Applicants: TransColorado Gas Transmission Company L.
    Description: TransColorado Gas Transmission Company LLC submits
Sub. First Revised Sheet 248 to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume
2.
    Filed Date: 09/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090904-0061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 15, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-872-001.
    Applicants: Arlington Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Arlington Storage Co, LLC submits Sub Original Sheet
No. 2 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 09/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090904-0056.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 15, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP00-425-008.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc submits Second
Revised Sheet 17 to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090908-0061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-932-001.
    Applicants: Monroe Gas Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Monroe Gas Storage Company, LLC submits Substitute
First Revised Sheet No 182 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No
1.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090909-0158.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 21, 2009.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu

of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22726 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50028-50029]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20624]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-500-000]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the
Northern Natural Gas Company Proposed Palmyra to South Sioux City A-
Line Abandonment Project and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Palmyra to South Sioux City A-
line Abandonment Project involving the abandonment of pipeline
facilities in Otoe, Lancaster, Saunders, Dodge, Burt, Thurston, and
Dakota Counties, Nebraska and the construction and operation of
facilities in Otoe, Dakota, and Dodge Counties, Nebraska by Northern
Natural Gas Company (Northern). The Commission will use this EA in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the
environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover concerns the
public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues
to address in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC, on or before 5:00pm Eastern Time on
October 18, 2019.
    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or
concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission
staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission
staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the
EA.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on August 15, 2019, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP19-500-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of
eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an
easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law.
    Northern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/gas/gas.pdf.

Public Participation

    The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which
makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals
regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant
email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and
provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP19-500-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426

Summary of the Proposed Project

    The Palmyra to South Sioux City A-line Abandonment Project consists
of the following:
     Abandonment of 44.2 miles of 20-inch-diameter and 14.8
miles of 16-inch-diameter mainline in Otoe, Lancaster, Saunders, and
Dodge Counties, Nebraska;
     abandonment of 58.7 miles of 16-inch-diameter mainline in
Dodge, Burt, Thurston, and Dakota Counties, Nebraska;
     construction of 1.7 miles of new 24-inch-diameter pipeline
loop, a pig launcher, and two valve sites in Otoe County, Nebraska; \1\
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pipeline loop is a segment of pipe constructed parallel to
an existing pipeline to increase capacity. A ``pig'' is a tool that
the pipeline company inserts into and pushes through the pipeline
for cleaning the pipeline, conducting internal inspections, or other
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     construction of 2.5 miles of a new 24-inch-diameter
pipeline loop, a pig launcher, and a valve site in Dodge County,
Nebraska.
    According to Northern, its project would improve reliability and
provide for the safer long-term operation of its system. The general
location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.

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

Land Requirements for Construction

    The A-line disconnection would temporarily disturb 2 acres of land.
The construction of pipeline loops and associated aboveground
appurtenances would disturb about 121.6 acres of land. Following
construction, Northern would maintain 16.9 acres for permanent
operation of the proposed project's facilities; the remaining acreage
would be restored and revert to former use. At the disconnect sites,
100% of the A-line is co-located with other Northern pipelines.

The EA Process

    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed project under these general
headings:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations
on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the
issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public
record through eLibrary \3\ and the Commission's website (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). If eSubscribed, you will
receive instant email notification when the EA is issued. The EA may be
issued for an allotted public comment period. Commission staff will
consider all comments on the EA before making recommendations to the
Commission. To ensure Commission staff have the opportunity to address
your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section, beginning on page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the EA.\4\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office,
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\5\ The EA for this project will
document findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize
the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. Commission staff will update the environmental
mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices
related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project.
    If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment
period, a Notice of Availability of the EA will be sent to the
environmental mailing list and will provide instructions to access the
electronic document on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov). If you need
to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove
your name from the mailing list, please return the attached ``Mailing
List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP19-500-000). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along
with other related information.

    Dated: September 18, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-20624 Filed 9-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 56759]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22257]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Regulation S-AM; SEC File No. 270-548, OMB Control No. 3235-
0609.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Regulation S-AM (17 CFR Part
248, Subpart B), under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et
seq.) (``FCRA''), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.), the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.),
and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.). The
Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to
the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Regulation S-AM implements the requirements of Section 624 of the
FCRA (15 U.S.C. 1681s-3) as applied to brokers, dealers, and investment
companies, as well as investment advisers and transfer agents that are
registered with the Commission (collectively, ``Covered Persons'').
Under Section 624 and the regulation, before a receiving affiliate may
make marketing solicitations based on the communication of certain
consumer financial information from a Covered Person, the Covered
Person must provide a notice to each affected individual informing the
individual of his or her right to prohibit such marketing. The
regulation potentially applies to all of the approximately 19,856
Covered Persons registered with the Commission, although only
approximately 11,119 of them have one or more corporate affiliates, and
the regulation requires only approximately 1,986 to provide consumers
with an affiliate marketing notice and an opt-out opportunity.
    The Commission staff estimates that there are approximately 11,119
Covered Persons having one or more affiliates, and that they each spend
an average of 0.20 hours per year to review affiliate marketing
practices, for, collectively, an estimated annual time burden of 2,224
hours at an annual internal staff cost of approximately $980,784. The
staff also estimates that approximately 1,986 Covered Persons provide
notice and opt-out opportunities to consumers, and that they each spend
an average of 7.6 hours per year creating notices, providing notices
and opt-out opportunities, monitoring the opt-out notice process,
making and updating records of opt-out elections, and addressing
consumer questions and concerns about opt-out notices, for,
collectively, an estimated annual time burden of 15,094 hours at an
annual internal staff cost of approximately $2,705,054. Thus, the staff
estimates that the collection of information requires a total of
approximately 11,119 respondents to incur an estimated annual burden of
a total of 17,318 hours at a total annual internal cost of compliance
of approximately $3,339,438.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 9, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-22257 Filed 9-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 16)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4047-4050]
[DOCID:fr25ja06-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-KY-0001-200521(f); FRL-8023-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Kentucky; Redesignation of
the Christian County, KY, Portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-
Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a May 20, 2005, final request to redesignate
the Christian County, Kentucky, portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville
8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and a Kentucky State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a 12-year maintenance
plan for Christian County, Kentucky. EPA is also providing information
on the status of the Agency's transportation conformity adequacy
determination for the new motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for
the years 2004 and 2016 that are contained in the 12-year 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for Christian County, Kentucky. EPA is approving such
MVEBs in this action. This final rule addresses comments made on EPA's
proposed rulemaking previously published for this action.

DATES: This rule will be effective February 24, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-KY-0001. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although

listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in Regional Material in E-Docket or in
hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Hou can be reached via
telephone number at<PHONE_NUMBER> or electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Actions Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for the Actions?
III. Response to Comment
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Actions Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is taking final action to change the legal designation of the
Christian County, Kentucky, portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area from nonattainment to attainment for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. The interstate Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area is composed of two counties (i.e., Christian
County, Kentucky, and Montgomery County, Tennessee). EPA is also
approving Kentucky's 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Christian County
(such approval being one of the Clean Air Act (CAA) criteria for
redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed
to help keep the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area (of which Christian
County is a part) in attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next
12 years. These approval actions are based on EPA's determination that
the Commonwealth of Kentucky has demonstrated that Christian County,
Kentucky, has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment
specified in the CAA, and that the entire Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA's analyses for Christian County, Kentucky, and Montgomery County,
Tennessee, are described in detail in the direct final rules published
September 22, 2005, at 70 FR 55550 and 70 FR 55559, respectively.
    EPA is also providing information on the status of the Agency's
transportation conformity adequacy determination for the new MVEBs for
the years 2004 and 2016 that are contained in the maintenance plan for
Christian County, Kentucky. The maintenance plan establishes MVEBs for
the years 2004 and 2016, respectively, of 3.83 tons per day (tpd) and
2.08 tpd for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, and 9.53 tpd
and 3.83 tpd for nitrogen oxides (NOX). Through this action,
EPA is announcing that these MVEBs are adequate for the purposes of
transportation conformity. During EPA's Adequacy public comment period
which began on March 29, 2005, and closed on April 28, 2005, EPA did
not receive any adverse comments related to the MVEBs. EPA is also
approving these MVEBs in this action. Upon the publication of this
final rulemaking in the Federal Register, these MVEBs must be used by
the transportation partners in this area for future conformity
determinations. Additionally, conformity to these new MVEBs must be
demonstrated within 24 months of the effective date of this action,
pursuant to section 6011(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users, which was
signed into law on August 10, 2005.
    Additionally, in this action, EPA is responding to the adverse
comment received on the September 22, 2005, rulemaking proposing to
approve the aforementioned revisions (70 FR 55613).

II. What Is the Background for the Actions?

    In two separate actions published on September 22, 2005, EPA
proposed to approve the redesignation of the Kentucky (70 FR 55613) and
Tennessee (70 FR 55613) portions of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area to attainment. Also on that date, EPA
published two companion direct final rules approving the redesignation
to attainment of the Kentucky (70 FR 55550) and Tennessee (70 FR 55559)
portions of the nonattainment area. The proposed and direct final rules
stated that if EPA received adverse comment by October 24, 2005, the
direct final rule would be withdrawn and would not take effect. EPA
subsequently received an adverse comment regarding the redesignation of
the Kentucky portion of the nonattainment area (i.e., Christian
County). In this action, EPA is addressing the comment and taking final
action as described in section I and section IV.

III. Response to Comments

    The following is a summary of the adverse comment received on the
proposed rule published September 22, 2005, (70 FR 55613) and EPA's
response to the comment.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that the Kentucky Division for Air
Quality (KDAQ) has permitted a new source of NOX in
Muhlenberg County, Kentucky, which borders Christian County. The
commenter states that the source is permitted to emit well over 5,000
tons per year of NOX. The commenter asserts that until KDAQ
establishes that Christian County will be in attainment with the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS with the additional NOX emissions from this
source through a reasonable worst case analysis of the source's
NOX emissions during any one-hour or eight-hour hour period,
EPA should not redesignate Christian County to attainment.
    Response: As detailed in Section III of the September 22, 2005,
direct final rule (70 FR 55550), the CAA provides the requirements for
redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The
Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the
Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan
for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and, (5) the
State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and part D. EPA has determined that all of the
redesignation requirements are met for the Christian County area as
described in the September 22, 2005, rulemaking (70 FR 55550).
    KDAQ has demonstrated that ozone precursor emissions inside the
Christian County nonattainment area will remain at or below attainment
year levels in the future, which indicate the 8-hour ozone standard
will be maintained. Furthermore, as for the impact of emissions outside
of Christian County, the commenter has provided no analysis indicating
that any such emissions would be likely to cause or contribute to
violations in the future. Kentucky had performed a cumulative
assessment of the impacts of current and proposed Kentucky electric
power generating facilities, and concluded that 8-hour ozone violations
are not likely to occur as a consequence of these emissions. The Agency
reviewed this report in response to the commenter's concerns. The
report, ``A Cumulative Assessment of the Environmental Impacts Caused
by Kentucky Electric Generating Units,'' dated December 17, 2001, is
included in the docket for this action. The report documents Kentucky's
analysis of the environmental impacts of 34 existing power plants and
22 proposed new or expanded power plants, including the proposed new
source in Muhlenberg County. Specific to air quality, the report
provides information on the changes in ozone and fine particulates
concentrations with the addition of these 56 proposed and existing
power plants in Kentucky. The emissions modeled for the proposed new
power plant in Muhlenberg County were: 507.4 tons per year (tpy) of
VOCs and 6,030 tpy of NOX. The impact assessment did not
identify potential ozone attainment problems for Christian County,
Kentucky, even though it considered far more sources than only the one
mentioned by the commenter.
    Furthermore, EPA notes that NOX emissions from the
proposed power plant in Muhlenberg County will be subject to the
regional NOX reduction programs of the NOX SIP
Call and, in the future, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR
25162 (May 12, 2005)). Since Kentucky is regulated by those programs,
sources subject to them, including power plants, will remain subject to
an overall NOX emissions budget for the state that will not
increase as a result of the possible new plant in Muhlenberg County.
Consequently, that source would have to obtain NOX
allowances from other sources subject to the NOX SIP Call
and/or CAIR to emit NOX and the sources in the Commonwealth
of Kentucky would remain subject to the same overall NOX
budget.
    The proposed new power plant in Muhlenberg County refers to the
Thoroughbred Generating Station (TGS) project. This project is proposed
to consist of two pulverized coal electric utility steam generating
units with a nominal power generating capacity of 750 megawatts each
and a nominal rated capacity heat input rate of 7,443 pounds per
million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) each. The NOX and
VOC emissions limits for the two pulverized coal combustion units are
proposed to be as follows: 0.08 lb/MMBtu of NOX each
(equivalent to 5,216 tons per year for both units combined) and 0.0072
lb/MMBtu of VOCs each (equivalent to 235 tons per year for both units
combined). The KDAQ has a merged air emissions permitting program in
which a single permit serves as the prevention of significant
deterioration construction permit and the title V operating permit. The
merged permit was issued to Thoroughbred Generating Company, LLC (TGC)
on October 11, 2002, with slight revisions on December 6, 2002, and
February 17, 2005.
    The permit issued to TGC was appealed through Kentucky's
administrative appeals procedure. The Administrative Hearing Officer
(AHO) issued a report with recommendations on August 9, 2005. The AHO
recommended remanding portions of the permit to the KDAQ. The Secretary
of the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet makes the
final determination on the appeal. No determination has yet been made
by the Secretary.
    After KDAQ issued the original permit on October 11, 2002, EPA
received a petition to object to the title V portion of the permit. EPA
is awaiting the conclusion of the Kentucky permit appeal process before
completing a response to the petition. Thus the permit appeal process
for the source has not yet been concluded, and therefore the permit
provisions remain subject to revision. Moreover, EPA believes that for
the reasons set forth above that the TGS does not pose a potential
problem for attainment or maintenance of the standard in the
Clarksville-Hopkinsville area.
    Should monitored violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS occur in
Christian County, the contingency plan within the County's 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan will be implemented to promptly correct the
violations. In the contingency measures section, Kentucky details
actions it will take if there are measured exceedances (i.e., an 8-hour
average equal to or greater than 0.085 parts per million) of the 8-hour
ozone standard, and reserves the right to implement other contingency
measures than those listed for the County if deemed necessary.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to change the legal designation of the
Christian County, Kentucky portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area from nonattainment to attainment for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Through this action, EPA is announcing that the new
2004 and 2016 MVEBs are adequate for transportation conformity
purposes. EPA is also approving into the Kentucky SIP the 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for

Christian County, and the new MVEBs for the years 2004 and 2016,
respectively, of 3.83 tpd and 2.08 tpd for VOC, and 9.53 tpd and 3.83
tpd for NOX.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA does not impose any new requirements on small entities.
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because 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 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely affects the status of a
geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or
allow a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it is not economically significant, and because the Agency does not
have reason to believe that the rule concerns an environmental health
risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
Commonwealth to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no
authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It
would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews
a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that
otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area but does not
impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 27, 2006. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: January 13, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
2. Section 52.920(e) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of the
table for ``8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Christian County,
Kentucky Area'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                                     EPA-Approved Kentucky Non-regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             State submittal
  Name of non-regulatory SIP      Applicable geographic or nonattainment      date/effective         EPA approval date               Explanation
           provision                               area                            date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan   Christian County..........................         05/20/2005  01/25/06 [Insert citation of
 for the Christian County,                                                                      publication]
 Kentucky area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  81.318, the table entitled ``Kentucky--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for ``Clarksville-
Hopkinsville, TN-KY: Christian County'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.318  Kentucky.

* * * * *

                                                            Kentucky--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Designation \a\                                       Category/classification
             Designation              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Date \1\               Type                           Date \1\                              Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY Area:
    Christian County.................     02/24/06  Attainment..................

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-635 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 10568]
[DOCID:fr11mr09-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. QF90-196-002]

Formosa Plastics Corporation, Louisiana; Notice of Filing

March 3, 2009.
    Take notice that on February 26, 2009, Formosa Plastics
Corporation, Louisiana filed a clarification in supplement to the
request for recertification filed with the Commission on December 11,
2008, in response to questions from the Commission on February 20,
2009.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 13, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5225 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P