[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81930-81931]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33455]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9614-3]

Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public
comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), notice is hereby given of a proposed
settlement agreement between Sierra Club and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. On March 2, 2011, Sierra Club submitted to Lisa
Jackson, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA'') a Notice of intent to sue, pursuant to CAA section 304(b)(2),
for alleged failure to make determinations of whether certain areas
designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (``8-Hour ozone standard'') have attained that
standard, pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA. Sierra Club's
Notice alleged that EPA failed to perform nondiscretionary duties under
the CAA as to whether seven 1997 8-hour ozone areas: (1) Boston-
Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern Massachusetts), (2) Chicago-Gary-Lake
County (Illinois portion), (3) New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
(New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut portions), (4) Springfield
(Western Massachusetts), (5) St. Louis (Illinois and Missouri
portions), (6) Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill (North Carolina and South
Carolina portions), and (7) Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (New Hampshire
portion) attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by the applicable
attainment date. The proposed settlement agreement includes the
Parties' agreement that EPA has taken actions with respect to three of
these areas--the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth, Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock
Hill, and Chicago-Gary-Lake County areas--that have rendered moot the
allegations in Sierra Club's Notice related to these areas. The
proposed settlement agreement establishes deadlines for EPA to make
determinations for the remaining four areas: New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island (NY, NJ, CT) Springfield (Western MA), Boston-
Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern MA), and St. Louis (IL, MO).

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be
received by January 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2011-1021, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method);
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or

ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kendra Sagoff, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    The proposed settlement agreement would avoid a lawsuit seeking to
compel the Administrator to take various actions related to whether
seven areas: (1) Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern Massachusetts), (2)
Chicago-Gary-Lake County (Illinois portion), (3) New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut portions),
(4) Springfield (Western Massachusetts), (5) St. Louis (Illinois and
Missouri portions), (6) Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill (North Carolina
and South Carolina portions), and (7) Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (New
Hampshire portion), which are designated as nonattainment for ozone,
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
The proposed settlement agreement states that Sierra Club and EPA have
agreed that EPA has taken actions with regard to the Boston-Manchester-
Portsmouth, Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, and Chicago-Gary-Lake County
areas, rendering the allegations regarding those areas moot.
    The proposed settlement agreement provides various dates by which
EPA must propose a determination and make a final determination as to
whether each of the four remaining areas listed in the Notice has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by the applicable attainment
date. These areas are: New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NY,
NJ, CT), Springfield (Western MA), Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern
MA), and St. Louis (IL, MO).
    No later than 15 business days following signature on each notice
related to a proposed or final determination specified in the proposed
settlement agreement, EPA is required to send the notice to the Office
of the Federal Register for review and publication in the Federal
Register.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as
parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the
Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed
settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations
that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate,
or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the
Department of Justice determines that consent to this settlement
agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be
affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement
Agreement

A. How can I get a copy of the settlement agreement?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2011-1021) contains a copy of the proposed settlement
agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing
at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: December 22, 2011.
Patricia Embrey,
Acting Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-33455 Filed 12-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact:
Hope Johnson<PHONE_NUMBER>

OAT AGRIO CO., LTD.
EPA Company No. 11581

5F8408

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (5F8408) from OAT AGRIO CO., LTD., 1-3-1 Kanda Ogawa-machi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0052, Japan proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.

   	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of

	Flutianil, (Z)-2-[2-fluoro-5-(trifluoromethyl)phenylthio]-2-[3-(2-methoxyphenyl)-1,3-thiazolidin-2-ylidene]acetonitrile, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on apple, fruit at 0.2 ppm, apple, juice at 0.03 ppm, apple, wet pomace at 2 ppm, cantaloupe at 0.07 ppm, cherry, fruit at 0.4 ppm, cucumber at 0.02 ppm, grape, fruit at 0.7 ppm, grape, juice at 0.2 ppm, grape, raisins at 0.3 ppm, squash at 0.03 ppm, and strawberry, fruit at 0.3 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A.	Residue Chemistry

 Plant metabolism.

The plant metabolism of flutianil is adequately understood in four diverse crops: apple, cucumber, grape and lettuce. The parent compound, flutianil, accounted for the majority of residues extracted in all crops. The metabolism of flutianil in plants is understood for the purposes of the proposed tolerances.

 Analytical method.

The following analytical method was used for apple, cantaloupe, cherry, cucumber, squash and strawberry samples:  residues were extracted with acetonitrile/water solution and the aqueous sample was cleaned up by liquid/liquid partition with hexane. The organic phase was concentrated and further cleaned up using a silica gel column. Quantitation was achieved by GC/MSD in selective ion monitoring mode.

The lowest level of method validation (LLMV) in the apple study was 0.01 ppm. Based on recoveries of samples fortified at the LLMV, the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) were calculated as 0.001 ppm and 0.0037 ppm, respectively for the apple RAC, 0.002 ppm and 0.0046 ppm for apple juice, and as 0.0003 ppm and 0.00076 ppm, respectively, for apple wet pomace.

The LLMV in the cantaloupe study was 0.010 ppm. Based on recoveries of samples fortified at the LLMV, the LOD and LOQ were calculated as 0.001 ppm and 0.0038 ppm, respectively.

For the cherry study, the LLMV was 0.010 ppm.

Based on recoveries of samples fortified at the LLMV, the LOD and LOQ were calculated as 0.0009 ppm and 0.0027 ppm, respectively in the cucumber study. The LLMV in the cucumber study was 0.01 ppm.

In the squash study, the LLMV in this study was 0.01 ppm. Based on recoveries of samples fortified at the LLMV, LOD and LOQ were calculated as 0.001 ppm and 0.0030 ppm, respectively.

The LOD was determined to be 0.0025 ppm for strawberry, and the LOQ was 0.0076 ppm. The LLMV was 0.010 ppm for strawberry.

In the grape RAC and PC study, the analytical method was as follows:  flutianil residues were analyzed and quantified in grapes, grape juice and raisins by gas chromatography after extraction and cleanup. Flutianil metabolite OC-56635 residues were analyzed and quantified in grapes, grape juice and raisins by high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectral detection (LCMS/MS). A LOQ of 0.01 mg/kg was determined for flutianil and OC-56635 in grapes and grape juice. A LOQ of 0.10 mg/kg was determined for flutianil and OC-56635 in raisins. The limit of detection was set at 30% of the LOQ.

 Magnitude of residues.

Apple

Foliar applications of flutianil (V-10118, a 5EC formulation) at a rate of approximately 0.04 lb ai/A each were made 4 times (~7 day retreatment interval), for a total of approximately 0.16 lb ai/A in the apple magnitude of residues study. The results from the trials show that the maximum residues in/on apple were 0.095 ppm. V-10118 was also applied at 5X the application rate (approximately 0.2 lb ai/A) at three sites to provide apples for processing into juice and wet pomace. The results from the trials show that the maximum residues in/on apple juice to be 0.016 ppm and wet pomace to be 1 ppm.

Cantaloupe

For cantaloupes, foliar applications of V-10118 at a rate of approximately 0.04 lb ai/A each were made 5 times (~7 day retreatment interval), for a total of approximately 0.20 lb ai/A.  The results from the trials show that the maximum residues in/on cantaloupe were 0.042 ppm.
Cherry

Foliar applications of V-10118 at a rate of approximately 0.04 lb ai/A each were made 4 times (~7 day retreatment interval), for a total of approximately 0.16 lb ai/A for cherry.  Five applications were made at the Washington site for a total of approximately 0.20 lb ai/A due to a delay in crop maturity. The results from the trials show that the maximum residues in/on cherry were 0.26 ppm.

Cucumber

For cucumbers, six trials were conducted in the field and two trials were conducted in the greenhouse.  Foliar applications of V-10118 at a rate of approximately 0.04 lb ai/A each were made 5 times (~7 day retreatment interval), for a total of approximately 0.20 lb ai/A. The maximum residues in/on cucumber were 0.014 ppm.

Grape

Foliar applications of flutianil at a rate of approximately 0.09 lb ai/ha each were made 5 times (~7 day retreatment interval), for a total of approximately 0.49 lb ai/ha in the grape residue study.  Flutianil residues in treated grape samples ranged from <LOQ to 0.4977 ppm. OC-56635 residues in treated grape samples ranged from <LOQ to 0.0536 ppm.  For grape raisins and juice, flutianil was also applied at 5X the application rate (approximately 0.49 lb ai/ha per application) at one site to provide grapes for processing into juice and raisins.    Flutianil residues in grape juice were found with a maximum residue of 0.2059 ppm. Flutianil residues in raisins were found with a maximum residue of 0.2993 ppm.   OC-56635 residues in grape juice were found with a maximum residue of 0.0187 ppm.  OC-56635 residues in raisins were found with a maximum residue of <LOQ.

Squash

For squash (summer), the trials were conducted foliar applications of V-10118 at a rate of approximately 0.04 lb ai/A each were made 5 times (~7 day retreatment interval), for a total of approximately 0.20 lb ai/A.  The results from the trials show that the maximum residue in/on summer squash is 0.021 ppm.

Strawberry

For strawberries, trials foliar applications of V-10118 at a rate of approximately 0.04 lb ai/A each were made 5 times (~7 day retreatment interval), for a total of approximately 0.20 lb ai/A.
At the Florida trial, one additional application was needed to allow the fruit to ripen for a total of approximately 0.24 lb ai/A.  At the Colorado trial, two additional applications were needed to obtain fruit for harvest for a total of approximately 0.28 lb ai/A. The results from the trials show that the maximum residues in/on strawberry were 0.24 ppm.

B. Toxicological Profile

      1. Acute toxicity.

Technical flutianil shows low acute toxicity (Toxicity Category IV) via the oral, dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. Flutianil has a very low acute oral (LD50: >5,000 mg/kg bw), dermal (LD50: >5,000 mg/kg bw) and inhalation toxicity (LC50: >5.17 mg/L air) in male and female rats. Flutianil shows no irritation to the eye or skin and shows no skin sensitization potential under the conditions of the guinea pig maximization test. There were no acute neurotoxicity concerns.
      2. Genotoxicity.

Flutianil was tested for its genotoxic potential in a battery of four in vitro or in vivo studies covering all required end-points (gene mutations, chromosomal aberrations). There was no evidence of genotoxicity.

      3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.

Flutianil shows no evidence of primary developmental or reproductive effects. In the prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and in the two-generation reproduction study in rats, neither fetal toxicity nor maternal toxicity was present. There was no evidence to suggest that Flutianil possessed a teratogenic potential in either species.

      4. Subchronic toxicity.

The subchronic toxicity of Flutianil was investigated in 90-day toxicity studies via the oral route in mouse, rat and dog and via inhalation and dermal routes in 28-day toxicity studies in the rat. Rats, dogs, and mice tolerated the chemical in excess of the limit dose without mortalities or clinical signs.  The NOAEL for oral studies were 1387 mg/kg, 1271 mg/kg, and 1000 mg/kg in mouse, rat and dog respectively.  The NOEL in the rat for dermal exposure was >1000 mg/kg and for inhalation was 14.4 mg/kg (100 mg/m[3]).

      5. Chronic toxicity.

The chronic toxicity of Flutianil was evaluated in the dog, rat, and mouse. Oncogenic potential was evaluated in rats and mice. The NOAEL from the one-year feeding study in the dog was 1000 mg/kg bw/day. The NOAEL for the rat was 249 mg/kg, the highest dose evaluated.  The NOAEL in the oncogenic mouse study was 1063 mg/kg bw/day.  No flutianil induced carcinogenicity was observed. Flutianil is not likely to be carcinogenic, based on rat and mouse bioassays as well as negative in vivo and in vitro mutagenic effects.

      6. Animal metabolism.

The elimination of flutianil was very rapid with over 90% being eliminated in the first 24 hours with little absorbed material.  Absorption of [[14]C]-flutianil was low and biotransformation of absorbed radioactivity was rapid, giving rise to an extensive range and number of metabolites. The number and nature of metabolites and difference in radio-profiles for animals dosed with [trifluoromethyl-[14]C] and [2-methoxyphenyl-U-[14]C] labelled flutianil suggested that cleavage of the molecule was a significant process in the metabolic pathway.  This was observed in both the rat and goat metabolism studies.

      7. Metabolite toxicology.

One major soil metabolite was evaluated in a 28-day study which showed a NOAEL of 1380 mg/kg, which was similar to parent flutianil.  Mutagenicity testing (in vitro bacterial reverse mutation and mouse lymphoma gene mutation and in vivo mouse micronucleus) was conducted with three major metabolites and all were negative.

      8. Endocrine disruption.

The toxicology database for Flutianil is current and complete. Studies in this database include evaluation of the potential effects on reproduction and development and an evaluation of the pathology of the endocrine organs following short- or long-term exposure. No endocrine disruption is expected to be present following exposure to Flutianil.

      9. Immunotoxicity.

Flutianil was evaluated in a 28-day dietary immunotoxicity study.  The NOEL was greater than 1251 mg/kg.  There was no effect on immune function.

B.	Toxicological Endpoints

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flutianil used for human risk assessment is shown in the following table:
                Doses and Toxicological Endpoints for Flutianil
                               Exposure/Scenario
Dose Used in Risk Assessment, Interspecies, Intraspecies and any Traditional UF
                             FQPA SF and Level of
                          Concern for Risk Assessment
                        Study and Toxicological Effects
Acute Dietary (females 13-49 years of age)
Not selected
NA
No toxicological endpoint attributable to a single exposure was identified in the available toxicology studies.
Acute Dietary (General population including infants and children)
Not selected
NA
No toxicological endpoint attributable to a single exposure was identified in the available toxicology studies.
Chronic Dietary (All populations)
NOAEL = 249 mg/kg/day
UF = 100
Chronic RfD = 2.49 mg/kg/day
FQPA SF = 1x
cPAD = Chronic RfD
Combined Chronic Toxicity/
Carcinogenicity Study in Rat
(MRID No. 49490550)
LOAEL = Not identified
NOAEL male: 249 mg/kg
Incidental Oral Short-Term
(1  -  30 days)
NOAEL =1000 mg/kg/day
UF = 100
LOC for MOE = 100
Developmental Toxicity in Rabbit
(MRID No. 49490545)
LOAEL = Not identified
NOAEL = 1000 mg/kg
Incidental Oral Intermediate-Term (1 - 6 months)
NOAEL = 1271 mg/kg/day
UF = 100
LOC for MOE = 100
Subchronic Oral Toxicity in Rat
(MRID No. 49490537)
LOAEL = Not identified
NOAEL 1271 mg/kg
Dermal (All durations)
NA
NA
No systemic toxicity was identified in the dermal 28-day study; Highest Dose Tested was 1,000 mg/kg/day.
Inhalation (All durations)
NOAEL =14.4 mg/kg/day
UF = 100
LOC for MOE = 100
Residential
LOC for MOE = 100
Occupational
28-Day Inhalation Toxicity in Rat (MRID No. 49490541)
LOAEL = 1000 mg/m[3] based on organ weight changes and histopathological changes in liver and thyroid. (144 mg/kg conversion)
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)
Classification: "Not likely to be carcinogenic in humans.''
UF = uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = any additional safety factor retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level, PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic) RfD = reference dose, MOE = margin of exposure, LOC = level of concern, NA = Not Applicable

C.	Exposure Assessment

	1. 	Dietary Exposure

	a.	Acute exposure

Acute dietary risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one day or single exposure. An acute risk assessment was not performed. No toxicological endpoint attributable to a single (acute) dietary exposure was identified.

	b.	Chronic exposure

A chronic dietary risk assessment was conducted for flutianil use on apple, cantaloupe, cherry, cucumber, grape, squash and strawberry at the proposed tolerances using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID(TM), Version 4.02) which uses food translations based on EPA/USDA FCID recipe set as of August 2014. The chronic dietary risk estimates are below HED's level of concern for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups. The most highly exposed population subgroups (0.1% of the RfD) were children 1-2 years old and children 3-5 years old.

Summary of Chronic Dietary (Food + Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk for Flutianil

                              Population Subgroup

                            Exposure (mg/kg bw/day)

                               Percent of RfD[1]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US population

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000414
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All infants ( < 1 year old)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000901
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children (1-2 years old)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.002257
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.1%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children (3-5 years old)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.001446
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.1%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children (6-12 years old)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000642
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Youth (13-19 years old)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000239
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adults (20-49 years old)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000243
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adults (50+ years old)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000304
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.8%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Females (13-49 years old)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000272
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0%
	[1] RfD = 2.49 mg/kg/day

	c.	Cancer
In accordance with the EPA Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, flutianil may be classified as "Not likely to be carcinogenic in humans" and is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans. Animal evidence demonstrates the lack of carcinogenic effects in both sexes in well-designed and well-conducted studies in rats and mice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      	2.	Non-dietary exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	a.	Occupational exposure

Flutianil is formulated a 5% emulsifiable concentrate to be applied to strawberry, cantaloupe, cucumber, summer squash, apple, cherry, and grape using groundboom or airblast spray equipment. The potential exposures and associated risks for handlers mixing, loading and applying flutianil and for workers re-entering treated areas are based on the proposed label for GATTEN(R) fungicide (flutianil 5% liquid formulation). The maximum application rate is 0.04 lb ai/acre. A maximum of four to five applications are allowed per year, depending upon crop, with a 7-day application interval.

Short- and intermediate-term dermal and inhalation exposures are predicted for occupational handlers mixing, loading, and applying flutianil. Since flutianil-specific exposure data are not available, handler scenarios were assessed using the EPA Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table - Revised March 2013. The occupational handler exposure and risk estimates for flutianil are listed below.

       Occupational Handler Exposure & Risk Estimates for Flutianil
                    Short- & Intermediate-Term Exposure
                      Unit Exposure[1] (mg/lb ai handled)
                               Application Rate
                                   (lb ai/A)
                           Units Treated[2] (A/day)
                    Average Daily Dose[3] (mg ai/kg bw/day)
                     Short- & Intermediate-Term MOE[4]
      Mixer/Loader  -  Liquids  -  Open Loading for Airblast Application
                                    Dermal
                                    0.0376
                                     0.04
                                      40
                                   0.000158
                                   8,000,000
                                  Inhalation
                                   0.000219
                                     0.04
                                      40
                                  0.00000438
                                   3,300,000
     Mixer/Loader  -  Liquids  -  Open Loading for Groundboom Application
                                    Dermal
                                    0.0376
                                     0.04
                                      80
                                   0.000316
                                   4,000,000
                                  Inhalation
                                   0.000219
                                     0.04
                                      80
                                  0.00000876
                                   1,600,000
                      Applicator  -  Liquids  -  Airblast
                                    Dermal
                                     1.59
                                     0.04
                                      40
                                    0.00668
                                    190,000
                                  Inhalation
                                    0.00471
                                     0.04
                                      40
                                   0.0000942
                                    150,000
                     Applicator  -  Liquids  -  Groundboom
                                    Dermal
                                    0.0161
                                     0.04
                                      80
                                   0.000135
                                   9,400,000
                                  Inhalation
                                    0.00471
                                     0.04
                                      80
                                   0.000188
                                    76,000
[1] Unit Exposure (UE) = mg ai/lb ai handled from Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table - Revised March 2013.  PPE = long-sleeve shirt, long pants, socks, shoes, gloves.
[2] Units Treated taken from Science Advisory Council for Exposure, Standard Operating Procedure 9.1, Standard Values for Daily Acres Treated in Agriculture, Rev. 25, September 2001.
[3] Average Daily Dose (ADD) = Unit Exposure x Application Rate x Units Treated x Absorption Factor / Body Weight (80 kg).  Dermal absorption factor = 21%, inhalation absorption factor = 100%.
[4] Margin of Exposure (MOE) = NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / ADD (mg/kg/day); NOAELdermal = 1271 mg/kg/day, NOAELinhalation = 14.4 mg/kg/day for all durations.

Short- and intermediate-term dermal exposures are predicted for post-application exposure to workers performing typical agricultural tasks.  Since flutianil-specific exposure data are not available, post-application scenarios were assessed using Science Advisory Council for Exposure (ExpoSAC) Policy 3  -  Revised March 2013. The occupational post-application exposure and risk estimates for flutianil are listed below.

  Occupational Post-Application Exposure & Risk Estimates for Flutianil
                    Short- & Intermediate-Term Exposure
                                     Crop
                                   Activity
                      Transfer Coefficient[1] (cm[2]/hr)
                               Application Rate
                                   (lb ai/A)
                    Average Daily Dose[2] (mg ai/kg bw/day)
                     Short- & Intermediate-Term MOE[3]
                                    Dermal
                                  Strawberry
                                 Hand Harvest
                                     1,100
                                     0.04
                                    0.0026
                                    490,000
                                    Dermal
                      Cantaloupe, Cucumber, Summer Squash
                              Hand Set Irrigation
                                     1,900
                                     0.04
                                    0.0045
                                    280,000
                                    Dermal
                                 Apple, Cherry
                                Thinning Fruit
                                     3,600
                                     0.04
                                    0.0085
                                    150,000
                                    Dermal
                                    Grapes
                  Tying/Training, Hand Harvest, Leaf Pulling
                                    10,100
                                     0.04
                                     0.024
                                    53,000
[1] Transfer Coefficient from Science Advisory Council for Exposure (ExpoSAC) Policy 3  -  Revised March 2013.  PPE = long-sleeve shirt, long pants, socks, shoes.
[3] Average Daily Dose (ADD) = Transfer Coefficient (TC) x Dislodgeable Foliar Residue (DFR) x Duration * Absorption Factor / Body Weight (80 kg).  DFR = 25% * Application Rate, Duration = 8 hrs/day, Dermal Absorption Factor = 21%.
[4] Margin of Exposure (MOE) = NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / ADD (mg/kg/day); NOAELdermal = 1271 mg/kg/day for all durations.

All occupational handler and post-application exposures from agricultural applications of flutianil result in MOEs greater than 100 and therefore do not exceed HED's level of concern.

	b.	Residential (Non-occupational) exposure and risk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no proposed uses of flutianil which would lead to direct exposure to resident, either through mixing, loading and application, or due to post application exposure; however, there are potential indirect post-application exposures to adults and children due to drift onto residential lawns from agricultural applications.  These indirect post-application scenarios were assessed based on the proposed label for GATTEN(R) fungicide (flutianil 5% liquid formulation) using draft Residential Exposure Assessment Standard Operating Procedures - Addenda 1: Consideration of Spray Drift (November 1, 2013). The greatest indirect residential exposure potential is from groundboom application to cantaloupe, cucumber, summer squash or strawberries. The residential post-application exposure and risk estimates for flutianil are listed below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Residential Exposure & Risk Estimates for Flutianil
                    Short- & Intermediate-Term Exposure
                                   Lifestage
                      Drift Application Rate[1] (lb ai/A)
                    Average Daily Dose[2] (mg ai/kg bw/day)
                     Short- & Intermediate-Term MOE[3]
                               High Contact Lawn
                                    Dermal
                                     Adult
                                    0.0075
                                    0.00059
                                   2,200,000
                                    Dermal
                               1 to <2 years
                                    0.0075
                                    0.0012
                                   1,100,000
                                 Hand-to Mouth
                                Incidental Oral
                               1 to <2 years
                                    0.0075
                                    0.00011
                                  11,000,000
                                Object-to-Mouth
                                Incidental Oral
                               1 to <2 years
                                    0.0075
                                   0.0000035
                                  370,000,000
                                Soil Ingestion
                                Incidental Oral
                               1 to <2 years
                                    0.0075
                                  0.00000025
                                 5,000,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.  	Cumulative Effects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity: Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider "available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity."

Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to flutianil and any other substances, and flutianil does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. Therefore for the purposes of this tolerance action, EPA has not assumed that flutianil has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. 	Safety Factor for Infants and Children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In general, Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional ten-fold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a MOE analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans.

Prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rabbits and rats showed no qualitative/qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility in offspring.  The 2-generation reproduction study in rats did not show evidence of qualitative/qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility in offspring.

The toxicology database for flutianil is complete. The data are sufficient for endpoint selection for exposure/risk assessment scenarios and for evaluation of the requirements under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). Evidence of quantitative and qualitative susceptibility of offspring was not observed, and therefore, the FQPA 10x safety factor was reduced to 1x.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. 	Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed uses are the first uses proposed for flutianil in the United States.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Acute risk
An acute risk assessment was not performed. No toxicological endpoint attributable to a single (acute) dietary exposure was identified. Therefore, acute risk from flutianil exposure to is not expected.

 Chronic risk

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, it was concluded that exposure to flutianil from food and water will utilize 0.0% of the RfD for the U.S. population, and 0.1% of the RfD for children 1-2 years old and children 3-5 years old, the subpopulations at greatest exposure. Based on the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to residues of flutianil is not expected. Therefore, the aggregate exposure is not expected to exceed 100% of the RfD.

 Short-term risk

Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water. There are no proposed uses of flutianil which would lead to direct exposure to resident, either through mixing, loading and application or due to post application exposure; however, there are potential indirect post-application exposures to adults and children due to drift onto residential lawns from agricultural applications.  Short-term aggregate exposure is not expected to exceed the Agency's level of concern.

 Intermediate-term risk

Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account non-dietary, non-occupational exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure is not expected to exceed the Agency's level of concern.

Cancer risk

Flutianil should be classified as, "Not likely to be carcinogenic in humans.'' Flutianil is not expected to pose a cancer risk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Determination of safety
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these risk assessments, it is concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to flutianil residues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.	 International Tolerances

Tolerances have been established in Japan for the following crops:  eggplant (0.2 ppm), cucumber (including gherkin (0.2 ppm)), pumpkin (including squash (0.05 ppm)), watermelon (0.05 ppm), melons (0.05 ppm) and strawberry (0.5 ppm).  Tolerances have been established in Korea for the following crops:  green and red pepper (0.5 ppm), strawberry (0.3 ppm), melon (0.05 ppm), watermelon (0.05 ppm), cucumber (0.05 ppm), Korean melon (0.05 ppm) and sweet pepper (0.5 ppm).


[Federal Register: November 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 59971]
[DOCID:fr19no09-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1490-050]

Brazos River Authority; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

November 12, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-project use of project lands.
    b. Project No: 1490-050.
    c. Date Filed: August 11, 2009, supplemented October 27, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Brazos River Authority.
    e. Name of Project: Morris Sheppard Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Possum Kingdom Lake in Palo Pinto County, TX.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Phillip Ford,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mark Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: December 14, 2009.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, it
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: Brazos River Authority (licensee)
requests Commission authorization to grant Tim Hester and Gaines Bend
Development Inc. (grantees), permission to construct and operate a
marina on lands within the project boundary. The marina's facilities
would include 91 boat slips, a ship store, a 740-foot wave attenuator,
a swim area, a fuel dock, and a boat ramp. These facilities would serve
the public and residents of the Gaines Bend subdivision, and would
provide access to a restaurant and a dry storage facility located
adjacent to and outside the project boundary. Prior to filing of the
application, the grantee consulted with appropriate agencies and other
entities, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, and Texas Historical Commission.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-27734 Filed 11-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21240-21242]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08807]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9925-75-Region 2]

New York State Prohibition of Discharges of Vessel Sewage;
Proposed Determination

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed determination.

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

SUMMARY: By petition dated May 19, 2014 and submitted pursuant to 33
CFR 1322(f)(3) and 40 CFR 140.4(a), the State of New York certified
that the protection and enhancement of the waters of Seneca Lake,
Cayuga Lake, the Seneca River and tributaries thereto requires greater
environmental protection than the applicable Federal standards provide
and petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2, for
a determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary
removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably
available for those waters, so that the State may completely prohibit
the discharge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated or not,
into such waters. Upon consideration of the petition, EPA proposes to
make the requested determination and hereby invites the public to
comment on the proposed determination.

DATES: Comments relevant to this proposed determination are due by May
18, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include ``Comments on Proposed
Determination on Seneca Lake/Cayuga Lake NDZ Petition'' in the subject
line of the message.
     Mail and Hand Delivery/Courier: Moses Chang, U.S. EPA
Region 2, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866. Deliveries
are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of
operation (8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal
holidays), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Moses Chang,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Petition: To receive a copy of the petition, please contact Moses
Chang at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
The Proposed No Discharge Zone

    New York proposes to establish a vessel waste No Discharge Zone
(NDZ) covering the approximately 150 square miles of connected waters
and tributaries of Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake and the Seneca River.

Certification of Need

    New York's petition contains a certification by the Commissioner of
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
that the protection and enhancement of Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake, the
Seneca River and the navigable tributaries thereto, requires greater
environmental protection than the applicable Federal standards provide.
The certification states that Cayuga Lake and Seneca Lake are water
bodies of unique ecological, economic and public health significance,
as well as drinking water sources. Pathogens and chemicals contained in
the currently-lawful effluent from discharging marine sanitation
devices (MSDs) threaten public health and the environment and
contravene the State's ongoing efforts to control point and non-point
source pollution from municipal discharges, combined sewer overflows
and stormwater runoff. A NDZ designation covering the waters of each
lake represents one component of a comprehensive approach to water
quality management. Protecting Cayuga Lake and Seneca Lake warrants
this greater level of environmental protection in order to maintain
excellent water quality, prevent future degradation and speed the
recovery of impaired segments. Seneca Lake is the largest and deepest
of all the Finger Lakes at 4.2 trillion gallons in volume and 291 feet
in average depth. The maximum depth of the lake is 618 feet. The Seneca
Lake Watershed comprises 14% of the greater Oswego River Watershed.
While the water quality of the lake is generally good, the lake is on
the NYSDEC Priority Waterbody List (PWL) as a Water with Minor Impacts.
This means that the current uses of the lake are fully supported but
some negative water quality impacts have been observed and action must
be taken to ensure that the water will continue to support its uses in
the future. Pollutants that negatively impact the lake include
pathogens and oxygen demand from the Watkins Glen wastewater treatment
plant and general lakeside activities as well as sediment from eroding
stream banks and steep slopes surrounding the lake. As part of its
broader efforts to protect and enhance the water quality of Seneca
Lake, New York seeks to eliminate the discharge of pathogens and
chemicals from all vessels using the lake.
    Cayuga Lake has a maximum depth of 435 feet and a volume of about
2.5 trillion gallons. The Cayuga Lake Watershed comprises 15% of the
greater Oswego River Watershed. While the water quality of Cayuga Lake
is generally good, the northern to mid-south portions of the lake are
on the NYSDEC Priority Waterbody List (PWL) as Threatened Segments
because of the lake's significant value as a drinking water resource.
As part of its broader effort to preserve and enhance water quality to
maintain the lake's use as drinking waters with minimal required
treatment, New York seeks to eliminate the discharge of pathogens and
chemicals from all vessels using the lake.

Adequacy of Sewage Removal and Treatment Facilities

    In determining whether adequate facilities exist for the safe and
sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels using a water
body, EPA relies on the ``Clean Vessel Act: Pumpout Station and Dump
Station Technical Guidelines,'' (59 FR 11290, March 10, 1994) published
by the Department of the Interior (DOI), which provides that at least
one pumpout station should be provided for every 300 to 600 boats over
16 feet in length. The guidance also provides that approximately 20% of
boats between 16 and 26 feet, 50% of boats between 26 and 40 feet and
all vessels over 40 feet in length can be assumed to have an installed
toilet with some type of MSD. Vessels below 16 feet in length are
generally presumed not to have an MSD onboard.

Estimated Vessel Population

    In support of its petition, New York provided information on the
vessel population in the proposed NDZ. The population of recreational
vessels using Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake and the Seneca River was
estimated based on the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation's 2012 Boating Report (OPRHP Report) for the
counties of Cayuga, Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Stueben, Tompkins and
Yates, which surround the lakes. While it is very unlikely that every
single vessel registered in these counties will operate in the proposed
NDZ simultaneously, the state took a conservative approach and
considered all boats registered in these counties as part of the
overall recreational vessel population of the proposed NDZ. According
to the OPRHP Report, in the seven counties surrounding the proposed
NDZ, there are 16,740 registered boats between 16 and 25 feet long,
1161 boats between 26 and 40 feet long and 71 boats over 40 feet long.
Applying the percentages in the DOI guidance yields an estimate of
3,967 recreational vessels with MSDs that operate in the proposed NDZ.
    The population of commercial vessels using Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake
and the Seneca River was estimated based on information provided by the
Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Board and the Finger Lakes
Institute as well as information obtained from the Internet.
    According to these sources, the majority of commercial vessels
operating in the proposed NDZ are chartered fishing boats. There are at
least 18 charter services that operate primarily in Seneca Lake and
Cayuga Lake, as well as 11 cruise companies. These companies own
anywhere from one to three vessels. A conservative assumption of 40
companies (18 charter companies + 11 cruise companies + 11 unlisted
business) with 3 vessels each yields a total of 120 commercial vessels
that operate in the proposed NDZ. As an additional conservative
assumption, all 120 commercial vessels are assumed to have MSDs.
Therefore, there are approximately 4,090 vessels with MSDs operating in
the proposed NDZ.

Available Pumpout Facilities

    In further support of its petition, New York provided information
on the number of pumpout facilities available to the recreational and
commercial vessels in the proposed NDZ. The federal Clean Vessel Act of
1992 made grants available to states for construction, replacement and
renovation of recreational vessel pumpouts. New York applied for the
first federal grant in 1994 and initiated a statewide program known as
the Clean Vessel Assistance Program (CVAP), managed and administered by
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) that has
helped establish and support 17 pumpout facilities serving Seneca Lake
and Cayuga Lake, of which two are pumpout boats and 15 are dockside
pumpouts. EPA independently updated and verified these pumpout
information and concluded that two pumpout boats are out of operation
and only 14 dockside pumpouts are operational. An additional 3 pumpout
facilities are available to the public but are not funded through CVAP.
All these current 17 pumpout (14 CVAP + 3 non-CVAP pumpouts = 17
pumpouts) facilities either discharge to a holding tank, to a municipal
wastewater treatment plant or to an on-site septic system.
    While some commercial shipping vessels are so large as to require
special docking accommodations or mobile pumpouts to access pumpout
services, the commercial vessels that operate in the proposed NDZ are
all small enough to use the same pumpouts that the recreational vessels
use. Therefore, the total number of pumpout facilities available for
use by the vessels that operate in the proposed NDZ is 17. A list of
pumpout facilities, phone numbers, locations, hours of operation, water
depth and fees is provided below:

                                               Pumpout Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Location Lat./        Contact      *Days and hours   Water depth
      #               Name                Long.          information     of  operation       (feet)       Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............  Cayuga-Seneca--     Seneca Lake State<PHONE_NUMBER>  April 1-September            6      $2.00
                Lock CS1-4.         Park, 42.870575/-                   30, 24 hours.
                                    76.939667.
2............  Cayuga Lake.......  Allan H Treman.<PHONE_NUMBER>  May 1-October 15,            7       2.00
                                    State Marine                        24 hours.
                                    Park, 42.458467/-
                                    76.513033.
3............  Cayuga Lake.......  Frontenac Harbor,<PHONE_NUMBER>  April 1-October              4       5.00
                                    42.839778/-                         15, 9:00 a.m.-
                                    76.695769.                          4:30 p.m..
4............  Seneca Lake.......  Barret Marine,<PHONE_NUMBER>  Year round, 8:00             5       0.00
                                    Inc.--Stationary,                   a.m.-7:00 p.m..
                                    42.874176/-
                                    76.935906.
5............  Seneca Lake.......  Village Marina,<PHONE_NUMBER>  June -October,               5       5.00
                                    42.384630/-                         11:00 a.m.-6:00
                                    76.87871697.                        p.m..
6............  Seneca Lake.......  Stivers (GPJ)<PHONE_NUMBER>  May 1--Labor Day,            6       5.00
                                    Seneca Marine,                      8:00 a.m.-8:00
                                    Inc., 42.868925/-                   p.m..
                                    76.939064.
7............  Cayuga Lake.......  Johnson Boat Yard<PHONE_NUMBER>  April 1-November             6       0.00
                                    (dba)--Pierce                       1, 9:00 a.m.-
                                    Cleveland, Inc.,                    5:00 p.m..
                                    42.452369/-
                                    76.510231.
8............  Seneca Lake.......  Montour Falls-V<PHONE_NUMBER>  May 2-October 15,          4.5       5.00
                                    Municipal Marina,                   7:00 a.m.-7:00
                                    42.354167/-                         p.m..
                                    76.853333.
9............  Cayuga Seneca--     Oak Island Marine<PHONE_NUMBER>  April 1-October              8       0.00
                Lock CS1-4.         Facility,                           1, 24 hours.
                                    42.900983/-
                                    76.866894.
10...........  Cayuga Lake.......  Hibiscus Harbor,<PHONE_NUMBER>  April 1-November            12       5.00
                                    42.856781/-                         1, 24 hours.
                                    76.706081.

11...........  Seneca Lake.......  Frog Hollow<PHONE_NUMBER>  April 15-November            5       5.00
                                    Marina, 42.370636/                  15, 9:00 a.m.-
                                    -76.859106.                         5:00 p.m..
12...........  Seneca Lake.......  Seneca Falls-V,<PHONE_NUMBER>  May 1-November 1,           20       2.00
                                    42.909675/-                         24 hours.
                                    76.795868.
13...........  Cayuga-Seneca--     Waterloo Harbor,<PHONE_NUMBER>  May 1-September             10       5.00
                Lock CS1-4.         42.540172/-                         30, 24 hours.
                                    76.524237.
14...........  Seneca Lake.......  Glen Harbor<PHONE_NUMBER>  April 15-October             6       0.00
                                    Marina, 42.383099/                  15, 10:00 a.m.-
                                    -76.861575.                         5:00 p.m..
15...........  Cayuga Lake.......  Eagles Landing<PHONE_NUMBER>  April 15-October       Unknown       0.00
                                    Marina, 42.072211/                  15.
                                    -76.548915.
16...........  Cayuga Lake.......  Taughannock Falls<PHONE_NUMBER>  March 1-October              6       0.00
                                    State Park,                         15.
                                    42.547636/-
                                    76.595714.
17...........  Seneca Lake.......  Sampson State Park<PHONE_NUMBER>  April 15-October       Unknown       0.00
                                    Marina, 42.4247/-                   20.
                                    76.9119.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Please note that the actual days of operation depend on the weather.

  Ratio of Pumpouts Facilities to Vessels Operating in the Proposed NDZ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Total      Boat:
             Total boat registrations                pumpout    pumpout
                                                   facilities    ratio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4,090............................................          17      241:1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on a total vessel population of 4,090 and 17 currently
available pumpout facilities, the ratio of boats to pumpouts is 241:1,
which means there are significantly more pumpouts than the recommended
range of 300-600:1. Also, the pumpouts are evenly distributed between
the lakes (7 in Cayuga Lake and 10 in Seneca Lake). Therefore, EPA
proposes to issue a determination that adequate pumpout facilities for
the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage for all vessels
are reasonably available for the waters of Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake and
the Seneca River.
    A 30-day period for public comment has been opened on this matter
and EPA invites any comments relevant to its proposed determination.
If, after the public comment period ends, EPA makes a final
determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary
removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably
available for the waters of Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake and the Seneca
River, the State may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels
of any sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters.

Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2015-08807 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 68425]
[DOCID:fr10no05-83]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL06-18-000]

Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Complainant v. Northern States
Power Company, Minnesota d/b/a Xcel Energy, and Midwest Independent
System Operator, Inc., Respondent; Notice of Complaint

November 4, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 4, 2005, the Minnesota Municipal Power
Agency (MMPA) filed a complaint against Northern States Power Company
(Minnesota), d/b/a Xcel Energy (NSP), and the Midwest Independent
System Operator, Inc. (MISOD), for refusing to provide transmission
service to the MMPA for service under the MMPA/NSP Interconnection &
Interchange Agreement to MMPA member City of Buffalo.
    MMAP states that copies of this complaint and support documents
have been served to NSP and MISO.
    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 and 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 parties to 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 November 25, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6218 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P