Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I have used vaping products, and find they are much safer than cigarettes, since there is no smoke involved. I haven't gotten any adverse reaction from the products, and did not get any increased urge to use them. Another advantage is that no smoke is released into the environment, just water vapor, so there is no second-hand smoke.Please keep the comment period open for 180 days.


[Federal Register: June 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 123)]
[Notices]
[Page 31086]
[DOCID:fr29jn09-117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Proposed Release and Closure of Michael Airfield,
Cicero, NY From Its Grant Assurance Obligations, Request for Comments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public
comment on Michael Airfield (1G6), Cicero, New York notice of proposed
closure and release from aeronautical use of the entire airport. The
airport consists of approximately 34.19 acres of airport property,
including runway 10-28, taxiways, aprons, airside and landside
facilities to allow for possible non-aeronautical development. It has
been determined, by closing Michael Airfield, the flying public would
best benefit from using Syracuse Suburban Airport (6NK), Syracuse, New
York. The sponsor who owns and operates both Michael Airfield and
Syracuse Suburban Airport, plans to close 1G6 airport and dispose of
the property. Michael Airfield, a privately owned public use reliever
airport last accepted an airport capital development grant in 1991 for
a runway rehabilitation project, thus, not obligated under the 1996
revenue use policy. The revenue generated from the sale of the closed
airport would not be reinvested into 6NK. Proposals from the sponsor
determined that land constituting Michael Airfield has no aeronautical
use and should be closed. Documents reflecting the sponsor's request
are available, by appointment only, for inspection at the Airport
Sponsor's office and the FAA Airports District Office.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 29, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Steven M. Urlass, Manager, FAA New
York Airports District Office, 600 Old Country Road, Suite 446, Garden
City, New York 11530. In addition, a copy of any comments submitted to
the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. David Pizio, Member, Gildner
Road Associates, LLC, at the following address: 2063 Jamesville
Terrace, Jamesville, New York 13078.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven M. Urlass, Manager, New York
Airports District Office, 600 Old Country Road, Suite 446, Garden City,
New York 11530; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; FAX<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 1st Century (AIR21) requires the FAA
to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment before the
Secretary may waive a sponsor's Federal obligation to use certain
airport land for aeronautical use.

    Issued in Garden City, New York on June 22, 2009.
Steven M. Urlass,
Manager, New York Airports District Office, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. E9-15317 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69810-69811]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24268]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-501-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Marshall County Mine Panel
17w Project 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 proposed Marshall County Mine
Panel 17W Project involving construction and operation of facilities by
Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in Marshall County, West
Virginia. Texas Eastern indicates the project would excavate, elevate
and/or replace certain sections of four different pipelines and
appurtenant facilities located in Marshall County due to planned
longwall mining activities. 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 on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
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. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before October 30, 2016.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on September 29, 2016, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP16-501-000 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 agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    Texas Eastern 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 Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Public Participation

    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 expert staff available to assist you at
(202) 502-8258 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 on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This 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 on the Commission's Web site (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.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; 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
(CP16-501-000) 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

    Texas Eastern proposes to excavate and elevate 0.5-mile-sections of
each of its Lines 10 (30-inch diameter), 15 (30-inch-diameter), 25 (36-
inch-diameter) and 30 (36-inch-diameter) to minimize and monitor
potential strains on the pipelines due to anticipated longwall mining
activities of Marshall Coal. Concurrent with pipeline elevation,
portions of two of the lines, Lines 10 and 15, would be replaced with
new pipe to accommodate a minimum Class 2 design. All but two sections
of Lines 10 and 15 will be removed. Texas Eastern will also perform
maintenance activities on sections of Lines 25 and 30. The four
mainline sections will be returned to natural gas service while
remaining elevated using sandbags and skids during the longwall mining
activities and potential ground subsidence. Once the mining-induced
subsidence and the 2017-2018 heating season have both ended, the two
sections of Lines 10 and 15 located within wetlands will be removed and
the four elevated pipeline sections will be re-installed belowground,
hydrostatically tested, and placed back into service.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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

    Construction workspace would disturb about 54.7 acres of land for
the pipeline excavation, elevation, and/or replacement. Following
construction, Texas Eastern would maintain about 8.6 acres of existing
right-of-way for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the
remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This

process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping
process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we 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;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We 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 our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations 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, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), 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.\4\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA will be sent
to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you
would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the ``Document-less Intervention Guide'' under the ``e-filing'' link on
the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully
described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.

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 Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP16-
501). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings 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 30, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24268 Filed 10-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12792-12793]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft
Prevention Standard; General Motors Corporation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of General Motors
Corporation's (GM) petition for an exemption of the Chevrolet Sonic
vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the
Theft Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency
has determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
model year (MY) 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, W43-
443, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's
phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated December 9, 2010, GM
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Chevrolet Sonic vehicle
line beginning with MY 2012. The petition requested an exemption from
parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device
as standard equipment for the entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an
exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, GM
provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design,
and location of the components of the antitheft device for the
Chevrolet Sonic vehicle line. GM will install a passive, transponder-
based, electronic immobilizer device (PASS-Key III+) as standard
equipment on its Chevrolet Sonic vehicle line beginning with MY 2012.
GM stated that the device will provide protection against unauthorized
use (i.e., starting and engine fueling), but will not provide any
visible or audible indication of unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e.,
flashing lights or horn alarm).
    The PASS-Key III+ device is designed to be active at all times
without direct intervention by the vehicle operator. The system is
fully armed immediately after the ignition has been turned off and the
key removed. Components of the antitheft device include an
electronically-coded ignition key, an antenna module, a controller
module and an engine control module. The ignition key contains
electronics molded into the key head, providing billions of possible
electronic combinations. The electronics receive energy and data from
the controller module. Upon receipt of the data, the key will calculate
a response to the data using secret information and an internal
encryption algorithm, and transmit the response back to the vehicle.
The controller module translates the radio frequency signal received
from the key into a digital signal and compares the received response
to an internally calculated value. If the values match, the key is
recognized as valid and one of 65,534 ``Vehicle Security Passwords'' is
transmitted to the engine control module to enable fueling and starting
of the vehicle. If an invalid key code is received, the PASS-Key III+
controller module will send a ``Disable Password'' to the engine
control module and starting, ignition, and fuel will be inhibited.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, GM
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, GM
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. GM stated that
the design and assembly processes of the system and components are
validated for a vehicle life of 10 years and 150,000 miles of
performance. GM also provided a detailed list of the tests conducted
used to validate integrity, durability and reliability, and after each
test, the components must operate as designed.
    GM stated that the PASS-Key III+ system has been designed to
enhance the functionality and theft protection provided by GM's first,
second and third generation PASS-Key, PASS-key II, and PASS-Key III
systems. GM also stated that there is data provided by the American
Automobile Manufacturers Association to Docket 97-042; Notice 1, that
these systems will be effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft.
    GM indicated that the theft rates, as reported by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC), are
lower for exempted GM models equipped with the electronically coded
systems which have exemptions from the parts-marking requirements of 49
CFR part 541, than the theft rates for earlier models with similar
appearance and construction which were parts-marked. Based on the
performance of the PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key III systems on
other GM models, and the advanced technology utilized in PASS-Key III+
and the Keyless Access System, GM believes that these systems will be
more effective in deterring theft than the parts-marking requirements
of 49 CFR part 541. GM believes that the agency should find that
inclusion of the PASS-Key III+ system on all vehicles in the Chevrolet
Sonic line is sufficient to qualify this vehicle line for full
exemption from the parts-marking requirements.
    GM compared the device proposed for its Chevrolet Sonic vehicle
line with other devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with
the parts-marking requirements. Specifically, the agency notes that in
a previous petition, GM stated that the PASS-Key III+ antitheft device
was also installed in the MY 2003 and 2004 Cadillac CTS vehicle line.
The Cadillac CTS introduced as a MY 2003 vehicle line has been equipped
with the PASS-Key III+ device since the start of production. GM stated
that the theft rate experienced by the CTS line with installation of
the PASS-Key III+ device demonstrates the effectiveness of the device.
The theft rates for the 2003 and 2004 Cadillac CTS exhibit theft rates
that are lower than the median theft rate (3.5826) established by the
agency. The average theft rate using three model years data for the
Cadillac CTS is 0.1906. Additionally, GM stated that the Chevrolet
Equinox which has already been granted a parts-marking exemption by the
agency is equipped with the PASS-Key III+ device. The average theft
rate for the Chevrolet Equinox using three model years data is 1.1202.
The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to devices
for which the agency has previously approved exemptions.
    Based on the evidence submitted by GM, the agency believes that the
antitheft device for the Chevrolet Sonic vehicle line is likely to be
as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-

marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541).
    GM's proposed device lacks an audible or visible alarm. Therefore,
this device cannot perform one of the functions listed in 49 CFR part
543.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to unauthorized attempts to
enter or move the vehicle. Based on comparison of the reduction in the
theft rates of Chevrolet Corvettes using a passive theft deterrent
system along with an audible/visible alarm system to the reduction in
theft rates for the Chevrolet Camaro and the Pontiac Firebird models
equipped with a passive theft deterrent system without an alarm, GM
finds that the lack of an alarm or attention attracting device does not
compromise the theft deterrent performance of a system such as PASS-Key
III+ system. Theft data have indicated a decline in theft rates for
vehicle lines equipped with comparable devices that have received full
exemptions from the parts-marking requirements. In these instances, the
agency has concluded that the lack of a audible or visible alarm has
not prevented these antitheft devices from being effective protection
against theft.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that GM has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Chevrolet Sonic vehicle line is likely to be
as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information
GM provided about its device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide four of the five
types of performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;
preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants;
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full GM's
petition for exemption for the Chevrolet Sonic vehicle line from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2012
model year vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-
1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention
Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains
publication requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543
petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product
nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted
and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order
to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from
the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    If GM decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if GM wishes in the future to modify the device on
which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a part 543
exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under
this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's
exemption is based. Further, part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: March 1, 2011.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-5112 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19262-19265]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07485]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0233; 10022-32-OAR]

Proposed Baseline Approval of the Contact-Handled Transuranic
Waste Characterization Program Implemented at the Department of
Energy's Savannah River Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability; opening of a 45-day public comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
announcing the availability of, and soliciting public comments on, the
proposed ``baseline'' approval of the contact-handled (CH) transuranic
(TRU) debris waste characterization program implemented by the Central
Characterization Program (CCP) at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE)
Savannah River Site (SRS), in Aiken, South Carolina. The inspections
supporting this proposed baseline approval took place from November 30
through December 2, 2020, remotely and at SRS. The EPA identified no
findings or concerns and proposes to approve the SRS CH TRU debris
waste characterization program.
    The EPA's report documenting the inspection results and proposed
baseline approval is available for review in the public docket listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Until the Agency finalizes
its baseline approval decision, the DOE Carlsbad Field Office may not
certify SRS' waste characterization program and the site may not ship
transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for disposal.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0233, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
electronically submit any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods,
the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit: http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Feltcorn<PHONE_NUMBER>) or
Jerry Ellis<PHONE_NUMBER>), Radiation Protection Division, Center for
Waste Management and Regulations, Mail Code 6608T, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460;
email addresses<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 22474e4e4b510c484750505b624752430c454d54.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the files on the
disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0233 and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
     Follow directions: The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    The DOE operates the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility
near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico as a deep geologic repository
for disposal of defense-related TRU radioactive waste. TRU waste
contains more than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes, with
half-lives greater than twenty years, per gram of waste. Much of the
existing TRU waste, which may also be contaminated with hazardous
chemicals, consists of items contaminated during the production of
nuclear weapons, such as debris waste (rags, equipment, tools) and
solid waste (sludges, soil).
    Section 8(d)(2) of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) of 1992
provided that the EPA would certify whether the WIPP facility will
comply with the Agency's final disposal regulations, later codified at
40 CFR part 191, subparts B and C. On May 13, 1998, the Agency
announced its final compliance certification to the Secretary of Energy
(published May 18, 1998; 63 FR 27354), certifying that the WIPP will
comply with the disposal regulations. The EPA's certification of the
WIPP was subject to various conditions, including conditions concerning
quality assurance and waste characterization relating to EPA
inspections, evaluations and approvals of the site-specific TRU waste
characterization programs to ensure compliance with various EPA
regulatory requirements, including those at 40 CFR 194.8,
194.22(a)(2)(i), 194.22(c)(4), 194.24(c)(3) and 194.24(c)(5). In
addition, under the LWA, the initial WIPP certification was subject to
quinquennial (every five years) recertification by the Agency.
    The EPA's inspection and approval processes for waste generator
sites, including quality assurance and waste characterization programs,
are described at 40 CFR 194.8. The Agency has discretion in
establishing technical priorities, the ability to accommodate variation
in the site's waste characterization capabilities, and flexibility in
scheduling site waste characterization inspections.
    In accordance with the conditions in the WIPP compliance
certification and relevant regulatory provisions, including 40 CFR
194.8, the EPA conducts ``baseline'' inspections at waste generator
sites, as well as subsequent inspections to confirm continued
compliance. As part of a baseline inspection, the EPA evaluates each
waste characterization process component (equipment, procedures and
personnel training and experience) for adequacy and appropriateness in
characterizing TRU waste intended for disposal at the WIPP. During the
inspection, the site demonstrates its capabilities to characterize TRU
waste(s) and its ability to comply with the regulatory limits and
tracking requirements under Sec.  194.24. The baseline inspection can
result in approval with limitations and conditions or may require
follow-up inspection(s) before approval. Within the approval
documentation, the EPA specifies what subsequent program changes should
be reported to the Agency, referred to as Tier 1 (T1) or Tier 2 (T2)
changes, depending largely on the anticipated effect of the changes on
data quality.
    A T1 designation requires that the DOE Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO)
provide to the EPA documentation on proposed changes to the approved
components of an individual site-specific waste characterization
process (such as radioassay equipment), which the Agency must approve
before the change can be implemented. Tier 2 designated changes are
minor changes to the approved components of individual waste
characterization processes (such as visual examination procedures)
which must also be reported to the EPA, but the site may implement such
changes without awaiting Agency approval. After receiving notification
of T1 changes, the EPA may choose to inspect the site to

evaluate technical adequacy. The inspections conducted to evaluate T1
or T2 changes are under the authority of the EPA's WIPP compliance
certification conditions and regulations, including 40 CFR 194.8 and
194.24(h). In addition to follow-up inspections, the EPA may opt to
conduct continued compliance inspections at TRU waste sites with a
baseline approval under the authority of the WIPP compliance
certification regulations, including Sec.  194.24(h).
    In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8, the EPA issues a Federal Register
notice proposing a baseline compliance decision, dockets the inspection
report for public review, and seeks public comment on the proposed
decision for a minimum period of 45 days. The report describes the
waste characterization processes the Agency inspected at the site, as
well as their compliance with 40 CFR 194.8 and 194.24 requirements.

A. Proposed Baseline Decision

    This notice announces the EPA's proposed baseline approval of the
CH TRU waste characterization program implemented by the CCP at the
DOE's SRS in Aiken, South Carolina. In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8(b),
the EPA conducted Baseline Inspection No. SRS-CCP-CH-Baseline-2020 on
November 30 through December 2, 2020, remotely and at SRS. Upon EPA's
final approval, DOE may emplace SRS-CCP CH TRU waste in the WIPP.
    SRS was constructed during the early 1950s to produce the basic
materials used in the fabrication of nuclear weapons, primarily tritium
and plutonium-239, in support of the national defense program. Its main
focus has been to develop technical solutions to support national
security and to counter national and international threats. Site
activities support national needs in the areas of nuclear weapons,
nonproliferation and assessments, military technologies and
applications, energy and infrastructure assurance, and homeland
security.
    The EPA had initially approved a CH TRU waste characterization
program at SRS in July 2006. The DOE suspended waste characterization
activities at SRS in February 2016. On October 1, 2020, the DOE's CBFO
informed the Agency that SRS-CCP resumed waste characterization
activities; CBFO then notified the EPA that SRS-CCP would be ready for
an inspection in November 2020. The EPA then concluded that a new
baseline inspection and approval would be necessary.
    The EPA is proposing to approve the SRS-CCP waste characterization
program implemented to characterize CH TRU waste as documented in the
accompanying inspection report. Specifically, the proposed approval
includes:
    (1) The Acceptable Knowledge process for characterizing SRS CH TRU
waste.
    (2) The nondestructive assay systems for measuring the
radioactivity in SRS CH TRU waste.
    (3) The Visual Examination nondestructive examination process to
identify waste material parameters (WMPs) and the physical form of SRS
CH TRU waste.
    (4) The Real-Time Radiography (RTR) nondestructive examination
process to identify WMPs and the physical form of SRS CH TRU waste
using the RTR2 unit.
    Any changes to the waste characterization activities after the date
of the baseline inspection must be reported to and, if applicable,
approved by the EPA according to Table 1 below. All T1 changes must be
submitted for approval before their implementation and will be
evaluated by the EPA. Upon approval, the Agency will post the results
of the evaluations in the EPA's general WIPP docket at regulations.gov
(Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0012). SRS-CCP must submit T2 changes at
the end of the fiscal year quarter in which they were implemented.
    The EPA's final approval decision regarding the SRS-CCP CH waste
characterization program will be conveyed to the DOE separately by
letter following the EPA's review of public comments received in
response to this notice and proposed approval discussed in the
inspection report. This information will be provided through the EPA's
WIPP docket provided for this action at regulations.gov (Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0233), in accordance with 40 CFR 194.8(b)(3). A summary
table of the status of all WIPP-related EPA inspections can also be
found on the EPA website at https://www.epa.gov/radiation/waste-isolation-pilot-plant-wipp-inspections, and any interested party can
get these and other WIPP updates via the Agency's WIPP-NEWS website
(https://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp-news). Individuals may also
subscribe to the WIPP-NEWS email listserv using the instructions on the
website.

 Table 1--Tiering of Contact-Handled Transuranic Waste Characterization
                    Processes Implemented by SRS-CCP
         [November 30-December 2, 2020, SRS baseline inspection]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      SRS-CCP CH waste
                                SRS-CCP CH waste      characterization
      Process elements          characterization     process--T2 changes
                               process--T1 changes            *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptable Knowledge........  Implementation of     Submission of a list
                               payload management.   of active SRS-CCP
                                                     CH AK Experts and
                                                     Site Project
                                                     Managers.
                                                    Notification to the
                                                     EPA upon
                                                     availability of or
                                                     substantive
                                                     modification ** to:
                                                        AK
                                                        summary reports
                                                        (e.g., CCP-AK-
                                                        SRS-4).
                                                        AK
                                                        accuracy reports
                                                        (annually, at a
                                                        minimum).
                                                        Waste
                                                        stream profile
                                                        forms and any
                                                        associated
                                                        change notices.
                                                        Site AK
                                                        procedures
                                                        requiring CBFO
                                                        approval.***
Nondestructive Assay........  New equipment or      Submission of a list
                               substantive           of SRS-CCP NDA
                               physical              operators, expert
                               modifications ** to   analysts and
                               approved equipment.   independent
                              Extension of or        technical reviewers
                               changes to approved   that performed work
                               calibration ranges    during the previous
                               for approved          quarter.
                               equipment.           Relocation of the
                                                     MILCC6 from its
                                                     current location at
                                                     SRS.
                                                    Notification to the
                                                     EPA upon
                                                     substantive
                                                     modification ** to:
                                                        Software
                                                        for approved
                                                        equipment.

                                                        Operating ranges
                                                        upon CBFO
                                                        approval.
                                                        Site NDA
                                                        procedures
                                                        requiring CBFO
                                                        approval.***
Visual Examination..........  Any use of Visual     None.
                               Examination for CH
                               wastes.
Real-time Radiography.......  RTR by any process    New RTR equipment
                               other than CCP-TP-    operated in
                               053.                  accordance with
                                                     procedure CCP-TP-
                                                     053.
                                                    Relocation of
                                                     approved RTR8 from
                                                     its current
                                                     location at SRS.

                                                    Submission of a list
                                                     of SRS-CCP RTR
                                                     operators and
                                                     independent
                                                     technical reviewers
                                                     that performed work
                                                     during the previous
                                                     quarter.
                                                    Notification to the
                                                     EPA upon
                                                     substantive
                                                     modification ** to
                                                     site RTR procedures
                                                     requiring CBFO
                                                     approval.***
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* SRS-CCP will report all unmarked T2 changes to the EPA every three
  months.
** ``Substantive modification'' refers to a change with the potential to
  affect SRS-CCP's CH waste characterization processes or documentation
  of them, excluding changes that are solely related to the environment,
  safety and health; nuclear safety; or the Resource Conservation and
  Recovery Act; or that are editorial in nature or are required to
  address administrative concerns. The EPA may request copies of new
  references that the DOE adds during a document revision.
*** Site procedures include any procedures used by SRS-CCP personnel
  that require Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) approval. This includes SRS-
  CCP-specific procedures as well as applicable CCP-wide procedures.

III. Availability of the Baseline Inspection Report and Proposed
Approval for Public Comment

    The EPA has placed the report discussing the results of the
inspection of the CH TRU waste characterization program at SRS in the
public docket as described in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8, the Agency is providing the public 45
days to comment on this and other documents and the EPA's proposed
decision to approve the SRS CH TRU waste characterization program. The
Agency will accept public comment on this notice and supplemental
information as described in Section I above. At the end of the public
comment period, the EPA will evaluate all relevant public comments and,
as the Agency may deem appropriate and necessary, revise the report and
proposed decision or take other appropriate action. If the EPA
concludes that there are no unresolved issues after the public comment
period, the Agency will issue an approval letter and the final report.
The letter of approval will authorize the DOE to use the approved waste
characterization processes to characterize CH TRU waste at SRS.
    Information on the approval decision will be filed in the official
public docket opened for this action on www.regulations.gov, Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0233 (as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
document).

Jonathan Edwards,
Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
[FR Doc. 2021-07485 Filed 4-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


300	0.000136	0.000048	0.000184	6,500

Multiple Activities Worker

Multiple Activities for Seed treatment (4)	Single Layer, Gloves	0.042
0.0016	Onion (bulb)	0.06	5,500	0.01155	0.0088	0.02035	59

300	0.000631	0.00048	0.001111	1,100

a	Daily amounts treated values are based on exposure SAC Policy #15 or
the information provided by the Registrant through Registration
Division.  5,500 for film-coated treatment,

                  300 for pelletizing treatment.

b	Daily dermal dose (mg/kg/d) =  [unit dermal exposure (mg/lb ai) *
dermal absorption (0.05) * application rate (lb ai/lb seed) * daily
amounts treated]/ body weight (60 kg).

c	Daily inhalation dose (mg/kg/d) = [unit exposure (mg/lb ai) *
application. rate (lb ai/lb seed) * daily amounts treated]/ body weight
(60 kg).

d	Combined daily dose (mg/kg/d) =  Daily dermal dose (mg/kg/d) + Daily
inhalation dose (mg/kg/d).

e	MOE = NOAEL (1.2  mg/kg/d) / combined daily dose.  UF = 100.

Table 9.1.b.  Thiamethoxam Non-Cancer Risk for Secondary Seed Handlers.

Exposure Scenario (Scenario #)

Mitigation Level

Dermal Unit Exposure (mg/lb ai)

Inhalation Unit Exposure   (mg/lb ai)

Seed Species

Application Rate

(lb ai  per lb seed)

Amount Planteda

(lb seed pnted/day)

Daily

Dermal

Dose b (mg/kg/day)

Daily

Inhalation

Dosec (mg/kg/day)

Combined Daily Dosed (mg/kg/day)

MOEe

Secondary Seed Handlers

Secondary Seed Handlers: planting seeds in the field	Single Layer,
Gloves	0.25	0.00342	Onion (bulb)	0.06	400	0.005	0.00136	0.00636	190

240	0.003	0.000816	0.003816	310

a	Daily amounts planted values are based on exposure SAC Policy #15 or
the information provided by the Registrant through Registration
Division.

b	Daily dermal dose (mg/kg/d) =  [unit dermal exposure (mg/lb ai) *
dermal absorption (0.05) * application rate (lb ai/lb seed) * daily
amounts treated]/ body weight (60 kg).

c	Daily inhalation dose (mg/kg/d) = [unit exposure (mg/lb ai) *
application. rate (lb ai/lb seed) * daily amounts treated]/ body weight
(60 kg).

d	Combined daily dose (mg/kg/d) =  Daily dermal dose (mg/kg/d) + Daily
inhalation dose (mg/kg/d).

e	MOE = NOAEL (1.2 mg/kg/d) / combined daily dose.  UF = 100.

Secondary Seed Handlers  tc \l2 "5.2.2  Post-application

The exposure scenario for secondary seed handlers from treated seeds
consists of the farmer purchasing bags of treated seeds, placing the
seeds in the hopper, and planting seeds in fields.  The exposure
associated with handling treated seeds was calculated using unit
exposures given in the HED Exposure Science Advisory Council (ExpoSAC)
SOP #14 (May 1, 2003).

Secondary Seed Handler’s Exposure and Risk

All MOEs for secondary seed handlers are greater than 100 and do not
exceed HED’s level of concern at the single layer plus gloves level of
mitigation (190 or 310).  A summary of the exposure/risk values is
presented in Table 9.1.b.

The secondary seed handler’s exposure estimates in this assessment are
based on a central tendency estimate of unit exposure, upper-percentile
assumptions for the application rate, and a conservative estimate of
exposure frequency; and are assumed to be representative of high-end
exposures.  The uncertainties associated with this assessment stem from
the use of surrogate exposure data (e.g., differences in use scenario
and data confidence) and assumptions regarding that amount of chemical
handled.  The estimated exposures are believed to be reasonable high-end
estimates based on observations from field studies and professional
judgement.

9.2  Short- and Intermediate-Term Postapplication Risk  TC \l2 "9.2
Short-Term Postapplication Risk

Based on the Agency's current practices, a quantitative postapplication
inhalation exposure assessment was not performed for thiamethoxam at
this time primarily because it has a very low vapor pressure (6.6 x 10-9
@ 25oC), inhalation exposure is expected to be negligible as a result of
indoor crack and crevice use.  However, volatilization of pesticides may
be a potential source of postapplication inhalation exposure to
individuals nearby to pesticide applications.  The Agency sought expert
advice and input on issues related to volatilization of pesticides from
its Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP) in December 2009.  The Agency received the SAP’s
final report on March 2, 2010 (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP /meetings/2009/"
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP /meetings/2009/  120109meeting.html).
The Agency is in the process of evaluating the SAP report and may, as
appropriate, develop policies and procedures to identify the need for
and, subsequently, the way to incorporate postapplication inhalation
exposure into the Agency's risk assessments.  If new policies or
procedures are put into place, the Agency may revisit the need for a
quantitative postapplication inhalation exposure assessment for
thiamethoxam.

Since no quantitative postapplication assessment was completed for
treated seeds, the restricted entry interval (REI) is based on the acute
toxicity of thiamethoxam technical material which is classified as
Category IV for acute dermal toxicity and for skin and eye irritation
potential.  The default restricted-entry interval is 12 hours for active
ingredients classified as acute toxicity categories III or IV for these
routes of exposure.  In accordance with the Worker Protection Standard
(WPS), for purposes of seed treatment, once the seeds are planted,
workers can enter during the REI, provided they do not contact the
soil/media subsurface that contains the treated seeds.  Therefore, HED
concurs with the 12-hour REI on the proposed label for seed treatment.
HED recommends that the Registration Division ensure that appropriate
language is placed on the product label to require the label on treated
seed to include the restricted-entry interval following the planting of
treated seed. (Note:  HED does not have transfer coefficients to assess
postapplication dermal exposures to pesticides in the soil.)

Potential postapplication dermal exposure to workers entering Actara®
Insecticide treated fields of barley to do scouting and irrigation were
previously assessed (D332064, Margarita Collates; March, 2007).  All
scenarios resulted in MOEs greater than 100 and therefore are not of
concern.

10.0  Regulatory Recommendations and Data Needs  TC \l1 "10.0
Regulatory Recommendations and Data Needs

HED recommends that the tolerance expression be revised as follows:
Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide thiamethoxam,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in
the table below.  Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below
is to be determined by measuring only thiamethoxam
(3-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro-5-methyl-N-nitro-4H-1,3,5-ox
adiazin-4-imine) and its metabolite CGA-322704 [ N
-(2-chloro-thiazol-5-ylmethyl) - N '-methyl- N '-nitro-guanidine],
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of thiamethoxam, in or the
commodities, as shown in Table 10.

The submitted residue data for dry bulb onions are adequate.  Because a
large percentage (86%) of the residue values for onions were below the
combined LOQ of 0.022 ppm, the tolerance harmonization spreadsheet was
not used to determine an appropriate tolerance.  Instead, the maximum
residue value (0.026 ppm) from the crop field trials was used to
determine a tolerance.  The recommended tolerance in dry bulb onion is
0.03 ppm (see Table 10, below).

The established tolerances for barley commodities were reassessed
following submission of additional crop field trial data (including
residue decline data).  The aggregate of residue data support the
Section 3 registration of Actara® Insecticide on barley.  They also
confirm that the established tolerances for the combined thiamethoxam
ROCs in/on barley grain at 0.30 ppm, and barley hay and straw at 0.40
ppm each are adequate.

There are no Codex or Mexican MRLs established for residues of
thiamethoxam in/on the crops associated with this assessment.  Canada
has established an MRL of 0.02 mg/kg for residues of thiamethoxam and
CGA-322704 in all food crops, and is transitioning to specific commodity
MRLs (all at 0.02 mg/kg) on a variety of crops including various cereal
grains, peas and beans, soybeans, sweet corn, and sunflower.

Table 10	Tolerance Summary for Thiamethoxam.

Commodity	Proposed/Established Tolerance (ppm)	Recommended Tolerance
(ppm)	Comments; Correct Commodity Definition

Onion, bulb	0.03	0.03	Adequate dry bulb onion residue data are
available.

Barley, grain	0.30	0.30	The established barley commodity tolerances
remain adequate following evaluation of additional data.

Barley, hay	0.40	0.40

	Barley, straw	0.40	0.40

10.1  Toxicology  TC \l2 "10.1  Toxicology

870-7800 Immunotoxicity Study

The petitioner should submit, as a condition of registration, an
immunotoxicity study.  This study is now required under the new 40 CFR
Part 158 data requirements, and was required in conjunction with the
previous risk assessment.  The study remains a data gap for
thiamethoxam.

Route to Route Extrapolation Approach

Based on the available toxicity database and the Agency's current
practices, short- and intermediate-term inhalation risks for
thiamethoxam were assessed using an oral toxicity study.  The Agency
sought expert advice and input on issues related to this route to route
extrapolation approach (i.e. the use of oral toxicity studies for
inhalation risk assessment) from its Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) in December 2009.  The
Agency received the SAP’s final report on March 2, 2010 (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP/meetings/2009"
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP/meetings/2009  /120109meeting.html).  The
Agency is in the process of evaluating the SAP report and may, as
appropriate, re-examine and develop new policies and procedures for
conducting inhalation risk assessments, including route to route
extrapolation of toxicity data.  If any new policies or procedures are
developed, the Agency may revisit the need for an inhalation toxicity
study for thiamethoxam
湡⽤牯愠爠ⵥ硥浡湩瑡潩景琠敨椠桮污瑡潩潴楸楣
祴爠獩獡敳獳敭瑮മㄍ⸰′删獥摩敵䌠敨業瑳祲–䍔
尠㉬∠〱㈮†敒楳畤桃浥獩牴ᕹ഍㘸⸰㈱〰䐠物捥楴
湯⁳潦⁲獕൥

 h

!

#

0

<

>

?

N

‹

©

ª

¬

¯

°

´

µ

º

¼

Å

Æ

È

Ø

hŽ

hŽ

‚

ª

Æ

é

+

„

Þ

-

)

*

+

,

-

I

J

K

L

b

c

d

~

€

‚

ƒ

„

…

†

¢

£

 £

¤

¥

¼

½

¾

Ø

Ù

Ú

Û

Ü

Ý

Þ

ß

à

ü

ý

þ

ÿ

 Þ

ô

jŸ

j"

j“

 h

 h?

 h?

 h?

 h?

h

 h

 h

 h

 h

 h

H*

{

|

¸

Ò

Ó

Ž

£

¸

»

Ó

N

hO

hO

騀䈋逘$騆

퀀ࠂ䀇

퀀ࠂ䀇

	@

	@

퀀ࠂ䀇

	@

퀀ࠂ䀇

	@

퀀ࠂ䀇

	@

	@

퀀ࠂ䀇

	@

	@

퀀ࠂ䀇

	@

	@

퀀ࠂ䀇

摧✾=

 h

 h

h

퀀ࠂ䀇

퀀ࠂ䀇

	@

	@

퀀ࠂ䀇

	@

	@

	@

퀀ࠂ䀇

퀀ࠂ䀇

	@

	@

퀀ࠂ䀇

”ÿs	8

摧䯵1

摧䯵1

摧䯵1

摧䯵1

愀Ĥ摧䯵1

摧䯵1

摧䯵1

摧䯵1

摧䯵1

愀Ĥ摧䯵1

摧䯵1

摧憛o

摧多î

hõ$

摧砻5	㜀$␸䠀$摧浿ô

摧砻5

 hu

hõ$

 hu

ô

h

h

h

hõ$

h

摧捺\

Ѐ

Ѐ

Ѐ

Ѐ

Ѐ

h

h

摧࠮æ

hÎX

 h

Ѐ

Ѐ

Ѐ

yt

Ѐ

Ѐ

Ѐ

Ѐ

Ѐ

Ѐ

h

㄀$ᨀ

摧汤z

+

@

G

O

\

a

g

p

x

…

†

‡

ˆ

‰

Š

Š

‹

Œ

˜

¡

ª

°

±

·

¸

Ý

ì

ö

ý

!

"

=

>

i

~

„

‹

˜

£

«

²

º

½

¾

¿

À

Á

Â

Ã

Ä

È

Ñ

Ù

â

è

é

Ff

h?

 h

摧ἑ¹

The product label for Cruiser® 70WS (EPA Registration #100-1294) should
be revised to specify that only registered crops may be replanted
immediately following harvest, or as soon as practical following the
last application.  For all other crops, a 120-day PBI should be
observed.

10.3  Occupational and Residential Exposure  TC \l2 "10.3  Occupational
and Residential Exposure

860.1200 Directions for Use --  Use Limitation

HED believes that this multiple activities scenario MOE over estimates
the risk, however until data/information are available to further refine
the actual exposure/risk, HED recommends that the label limit the pounds
of formulated product used per handler to 260 lbs.  If the maximum
amount of CRUISER® 70WS Insecticide that can be used to treat bulb
onion seed in a seed treatment facility is limited to 260 lbs per day
(based on ca. 3,000 lbs seeds treated per 8 hour day) the MOE for
multiple activities worker is 110.  This requires that a worker
performing tasks associated with seed treatment limit exposure to 260
lbs. of formulated product (for Cruiser® 70WS) per day.  This
limitation should be reflected on the label.

References:  TC \l1 "References

D371848.  Thiamethoxam: Occupational and Residential Exposure/Risk
Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Registration for Seed Treatment Use on
Bulb Onions.  Shih-Chi Wang; 3 May 2010.

D368072.  Tier II Drinking Water Exposure Assessment to Establish a
Tolerance of Thiamethoxam on Onion Seed.  Christopher M. Koper; February
2, 2010.

Thiamethoxam.  Acute and Chronic Aggregate Dietary (Food and Drinking
Water) Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Section 3 Registration as a
Seed Treatment on Onion, Dry Bulb.  Dennis McNeilly; 3 May 2010.

D367065.  Thiamethoxam.  Petition to Establish a Permanent Tolerance for
Residues of the Insecticide Resulting from Food/Feed Use as a Seed
Treatment on Bulb Onions.  Response to Data Gaps from Conditional
Registration of Various Food/Feed Crops (as Specified in HED Memo
D281702; M. Doherty; 17 April 2007).  Summary of Analytical Chemistry
and Residue Data.  William Drew; 3 May 2010.

D329466.  Thiamethoxam Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed New
Uses or Revised Uses on Artichoke, Barley, Brassica Vegetables,
Bushberry, Caneberry, Cotton, Cranberry, Cucurbit Vegetables, Fruiting
Vegetables, Hops, Juneberry, Leafy Vegetables, Legume Vegetables,
Lingonberry, Mint, Oilseed Crops, Pecan, Pome Fruit, Potato Seed Pieces,
Root Vegetables (Except Sugarbeet), Salal, Stone Fruit, Strawberry,
Tobacco, Tuberous and Corm Vegetables, and Turf.  Michael Doherty, 22
May 2007.

D364256.  Thiamethoxam.  Acute and Chronic Aggregate Dietary (Food and
Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Section 3
Registration of Thiamethoxam on Rice, Sugar Beets, and Tropical Fruits.
Dennis McNeilly, June 30, 2009.

ExpoSAC Policy 14: Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Seed
Treatment, May 1, 2003.

ExpoSAC Policy 15:   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Amount of Seed Treated or
Planted per Day, March 2, 2004.

HED Draft Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) for Residential
Exposure Assessments (12/18/97), and the Revisions to the Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP’s) for Residential Exposure Assessment
(Science Advisory Council for Exposure Policy 12, Revised February 22,
2001).

Thiamethoxam
                                       D373596/D375248

 PAGE

Page   PAGE  3  of   NUMPAGES  51


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72517-72518]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23223]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3596-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Florida; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Florida (FEMA-3596-EM), dated August 28, 2023, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 5, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective September 4, 2023.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used

for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans;
97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster
Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA);
97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing
Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared
Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-23223 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: February 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 22)]
[Notices]
[Page 6068]
[DOCID:fr04fe09-86]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Wednesday,
February 4, 2009 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of
the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
February 4, 2009 will be:

Formal orders of investigation;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
Resolution of litigation claims;
A regulatory matter regarding a financial institution; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 30, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2333 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P