  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 FILE NAME:   company.wpt   (1/1/2005) (xml)

Template Number P25

ATTENTION:

	All commodity terms must comply with the Food and Feed Commodity
Vocabulary database (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foodfeed/).

	All text in blue font (instructions for preparing the document), should
be removed prior to sending the document to the Federal Register Staff.
Instructional text and prompts in green font should also be removed.

COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE

(1/1/2005)

EPA Registration Division contact:  Shaja R. Brothers,<PHONE_NUMBER>

TEMPLATE:

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

7E7245

	EPA has received a pesticide petition 7E7245 from Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W,
Princeton, NJ 08540 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. to increase the tolerance for residues of the fungicide
pyraclostrobin, carbamic acid,
[2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-,
methyl ester and its metabolite methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)
pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]o-tolyl] carbamate (BF 500-3); expressed as parent
compound in or on the raw agricultural commodity barley, grain at 1.3
parts per million (ppm), and barley, straw at 9.0 ppm.  EPA has
determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the
elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has
not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time
or whether the data supports granting of the petition.  Additional data
may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant and animal metabolism. Nature of the residue studies (OPPTS
860.1300) were conducted in grape, potato and wheat as representative
crops in order to characterize the fate of pyraclostrobin in all crop
matrices.  Pyraclostrobin demonstrated a similar pathway and fate in all
three crops. In all three crops the pyraclostrobin Residues of Concern
(ROC) of were characterized as parent (pyraclostrobin) and BAS 500-3),
methyl-N[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-3yl]oxy]o-tolyl] carbamate.  In
hens the residues of concern were determined to be parent compound and a
hydroxlated metabolite, BAS 500-16.  In goats the residues of concern
were determined to be parent and a hydroxylated metabolite BAS 500-10.

	2. Analytical method.   In plants the method of analysis is aqueous
organic solvent extraction, column clean up and quantitation by
LC/MS/MS.  In animals the method of analysis involves base hydrolysis,
organic extraction, column clean up and quantitation by LC/MS/MS or
derivatization (methylation) followed by quantitation by GC/MS.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Field trials were conducted in Colorado and
Idaho during 2004 and 2005 in support of establishing a tolerance for
residues of pyraclostrobin in barley at a reduced pre-harvest interval.
All field trials were carried out using the maximum labeled rate,
maximum number of applications, and the proposed pre-harvest interval.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  Pyraclostrobin and its formulated products have
favorable acute toxicity. The acute toxicity studies place technical
pyraclostrobin in toxicity category IV for acute oral and acute
inhalation and category III for acute dermal.  Pyraclostrobin is
category III for both eye and skin irritation, and it is not a dermal
sensitizer.  Two formulated end use products are proposed, an
Emulsifiable Concentrate (EC) and an Extruded Granule (EG).  The EC has
an acute oral toxicity category of II, acute dermal of III, acute
inhalation of IV, eye and skin irritation categories of III, and is not
a dermal sensitizer.  The EG has acute oral and dermal toxicity
categories of III, acute inhalation of IV, eye irritation of III, skin
irritation of IV and is not a dermal sensitizer.

	2. Genotoxicty.  Pyraclostrobin was negative for inducing mutations in
both an in vitro Ames test and an in vitro CHO/HGPRT Locus Mammalian
Cell Mutation Assay.  Pyraclostrobin also demonstrated no chromosomal
effects in an in vitro V79 Cells CHO Cytogenetic Assay and an in vivo
Mouse Micronucleus test.  An additional in vitro study investigating DNA
damage and repair also showed no effects. Pyraclostrobin has been tested
in a total of 5 genetic toxicology assays consisting of in vitro and in
vivo studies.  It can be stated that pyraclostrobin did not show any
mutagenic, clastogenic or other genotoxic activity when tested under the
conditions of the studies mentioned above.  Therefore, pyraclostrobin
does not pose a genotoxic hazard to humans.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.  The reproductive and
developmental toxicity of pyraclostrobin was investigated in a
2-generation rat reproduction study as well as in rat and rabbit
teratology studies.  There were no adverse effects on reproduction,
systemic toxicity to adults or developmental toxicity in the
two-generation study so the NOAEL is the highest dose tested of 300 ppm
(approximately 32.6 mg/kg bw/day).

No teratogenic effects were noted in either the rat or rabbit
developmental studies.  In the rat study, maternal toxicity observed at
the mid and high dose consisted of decreased food consumption and body
weight gain.  Developmental changes noted at the high dose were
increased incidences of dilated renal pelvis and cervical ribs with no
cartilage.  The maternal NOAEL was 10 mg/kg bw and the developmental
NOAEL was 25 mg/kg bw.  I

In the rabbit teratology study, maternal toxicity observed at the mid
and high doses consisted of decreased food consumption and body weight
gain (severe at the high dose).  An increased postimplantation loss was
also observed at the mid and high doses due to an increase in early
resorptions.  In rabbits, these types of effects are often observed with
significant stress on the mothers (as seen by the body weight gain
decrease in this study) and not indicative of frank developmental
toxicity.  The NOAEL for both maternal and developmental toxicity was 5
mg/kg bw.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. The subchronic toxicity of pyraclostrobin was
investigated in 90-day feeding studies with rats, mice and dogs, and in
a 28-day dermal administration study in rats.  A 90-day neurotoxicity
study in rats was also performed.  Generally, mild toxicity was
observed.  At high dose levels in feeding studies, general findings in
all three species were decreased food consumption and body weight gain
and a thickening of the duodenum.  Anemia occurred at high dose levels
in both rats and mice with accompanying extramedullary hematopoiesis of
the spleen in rats.  In rats only, a finding of liver cell hypertrophy
was indicative of a physiological response to the handling of the
chemical.   The lowest NOAEL in the 90-day feeding studies was from the
dog study and determined to be 5.8 mg/kg bw/day.

In the 28-day repeat dose dermal study, no systemic effects were noted
up to the highest dose tested of 250 mg/kg bw/day.

In a 90-day rat neurotoxicity study, a direct neurotoxic effect was not
observed.

	5. Chronic toxicity. Pyraclostrobin was administered to groups of 5
male and 5 female purebred Beagle dogs in the diet at concentrations of
0, 100, 200 and 400 ppm over a period of 12 months.   Signs of toxicity
were observed at the high dose.  Diarrhea was observed throughout the
study period for both sexes. High dose males and females initially lost
weight and body weight gain was decreased for the entire study period
for females.  Hematological changes observed were an increase in white
blood cells in males, and an increase in platelets in both sexes at the
high dose.  Clinical chemistry demonstrated a decrease in serum total
protein, albumin, globulins and cholesterol in high dose animals of both
sexes possibly due to the diarrhea and reduced nutritional status of the
animals.  The NOAEL was 200 ppm (ca. 5.5 mg/kg bw/day males; 5.4 mg/kg
bw/day females).

In an oncogenicity study, pyraclostrobin was administered to groups of
50 male and 50 female Wistar rats at dietary concentrations of 0; 25;
75, and 200 ppm for 24 months.  In a companion chronic toxicity study,
20 rats/sex were used at the same dose levels as in the oncogenicity
study.  A body weight gain depression of 10-11% in males and 14-22% in
females with an accompanying decrease in food efficiency was observed at
the high dose.  There was no evidence that pyraclostrobin produced a
carcinogenic effect in rats.  The NOAEL for the chronic rat and the
cancer rat study is 75 ppm (ca. 3.4 mg/kg bw/day males; 4.7 mg/kg bw/day
females).

Pyraclostrobin was administered to groups of 50 male and 50 female
B6C3F1 mice at dietary concentrations of 0, 10, 30, 120 and 180 ppm
(females only) for 18 months.  Body weights were reduced at the highest
doses tested in both males and females.  At the high dose, body weight
gain decreases of 27% in females and 29% in males with an accompanying
decrease in food efficiency were observed.  No other signs of toxicity
were noted at any dose level.  The NOAEL  was found to be 30 ppm (ca.
4.1 mg/kg bw/day) for males. The Agency determined that the body weight
effect at the high dose in females was not sufficient to determine an
MTD.  Therefore the NOAEL for females is considered greater than the
highest dose tested of 32.8 mg/kg bw/day.   There was no evidence that
pyraclostrobin produced a carcinogenic effect in mice.

	6. Animal metabolism. In a rat metabolism study with pyraclostrobin,
10-13% of the administered dose was excreted in the urine and 74-91% in
the feces within 48 hours.  Excretion via bile was significant
accounting for 35-38% of the administered dose. By 120 hours after
dosing, very little radioactivity remained in tissues. Pyraclostrobin
was rapidly and almost completely metabolized.  Very little unchanged
parent was detected.  The phase one biotransformation is characterized
by N-demethoxylation, various hydroxylations, cleavage of the ether bond
and further oxidation of the two resulting molecule parts.  Conjugation
of the formed hydroxyl groups by glucuronic acid or sulfate also
occurred. In summary, pyraclostrobin is extensively metabolized and
rapidly eliminated primarily via the bile, with no evidence of
accumulation in tissues.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. A comparison of the rat metabolism results
with the plant metabolism/residue results indicates that toxicology
studies performed with the parent pyraclostrobin are sufficient to cover
dietary exposure.  Plant residues are primarily the parent compound with
a fraction (up to 10-20% at most) being the demethoxylated parent.  This
metabolite is referred to as BF 500-3 in the plant studies and as 500M07
in the rat study.  This metabolite in the rat is the first step in the
major biotransformation process leading to the majority of the
metabolites determined in the major excretion pathway.

	8. Endocrine disruption.  Endocrine effects. No specific tests have
been conducted with pyraclostrobin to determine whether the chemical may
have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a
naturally occurring estrogen or other endocrine effects.  However, there
were no significant findings in other relevant toxicity studies (i.e.,
subchronic and chronic toxicity, teratology and multi-generation
reproductive studies) which would suggest that pyraclostrobin produces
endocrine related effects.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Exposure assessments were conducted to evaluate
the potential risk due to acute and chronic dietary exposure of the U.S.
population to residues of pyraclostrobin.  This fungicide and its
desmethoxy metabolite, in or on raw agricultural commodities, and
metabolites in or on animal fat, liver, meat and meat byproducts were
expressed as the parent compound.  The tolerance values previously
established for various cereals, vegetables, fruits, and animal products
are listed in the U.S. EPA final rule published in the Federal Register
October 29, 2004 (Vol 69, No. 209, p 63083 – 63100) and U.S. 40 CFR §
180.582.  This analysis included all current and proposed tolerance
values for barley grain (1.3 ppm), cotton (undelinted seed 0.4 ppm, gin
byproducts 30 ppm), Belgium endive (11 ppm), strawberries (1.2 ppm),
dried shelled peas and beans (0.5 ppm), fresh herbs (30 ppm), mango (0.7
ppm), papaya (0.7 ppm), avocado (0.7 ppm), black sapote (0.7 ppm), mamey
sapote (0.7 ppm), canistel (0.7 ppm), sapodilla (0.7 ppm), star apple
(0.7 ppm), oat grain (0.9 ppm), oil seed crop group 20 (0.4 ppm), and
increased tolerance values for the berry crop group (4 ppm).

The pyraclostrobin chronic reference dose (cRfD) is 0.034 mg/kg bw/day
based on the NOAEL of 3.4 mg/kg bw/day in the rat chronic toxicity study
and a 100X safety factor.  The acute reference dose (aRfD) is 3 mg/kg
b.w./day for the general population based on a NOAEL from the acute
neurotoxicity study of 300 mg/kg bw/day and a 100X safety factor.  For
females of child bearing years (13-49 years), the aRfD is 0.05 mg/kg
b.w./day based on the NOAEL of 5 mg/kg bw/day from the rabbit teratology
study and a 100X safety factor.  The EPA determined that the FQPA safety
factor should be 1X for all exposure scenarios.  Therefore, the acute
Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD) and the chronic Population Adjusted Dose
(cPAD) are the same as the aRfD and cRfD, respectively.

		i. Food.  Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment

The acute dietary exposure estimates were based on tolerance values,
default processing factors, and 100% crop treated values for all
commodities except for leafy vegetables, pome fruit, stone fruit, and
citrus crop groups where the percent crop treated (%CT) and values
listed in the U.S. EPA document DP Barcode No. D323632 (November 30,
2005) were utilized.  In addition, for crops in the leafy vegetable crop
group the highest average field trial (HAFT) residue level was used in
place of the tolerance as noted in DP Barcode No. D323632.  The
consumption data was from the USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII 1994 - 1996, 1998) and the EPA Food Commodity
Ingredient Database (FCID) using Exponent's Dietary Exposure Evaluation
Module (DEEM-FCID) software.

The acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) used for females 13-49 years
of age was 0.05 mg/kg bw/day and 3.0 mg/kg bw/day for all other
sub-populations.   Considering the exposure assumptions discussed above,
pyraclostobin acute dietary exposure from food is less than 2.5 % aPAD
for the U.S. population and all sub-populations except females 13-49
years of age that occupies 53.2% of the aPAD.  The results of the acute
dietary assessment are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.	Results for Pyraclostrobin Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis
Considering all Current and Proposed Tolerances Including Barley Grain
(1.3 ppm) Using DEEM-FCID at the 95th Percentile

Population	Exposure Estimate	%aPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)*

U.S. Population	0.031750	1.06

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.045808	1.53

Children (1-2 years old)	0.072522	2.42

Children (3-5 years old)	0.056051	1.87

Children (6-12 years old)	0.034733	1.16

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.024346	0.81

Females (13-49 years old)	0.026597	53.19

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.026228	0.87

Adults (50+ years old)	0.026868	0.90

aPAD = acute population adjusted dose

* Exposure Estimate (95th percentile) was based on tolerance values,
default processing factors, and considering 100% crop treated for all
commodities except for leafy vegetables, pome fruit, stone fruit, and
citrus fruit groups which included the percent crop treated values
listed in U.S. EPA document DP Barcode No. D323632 (November 30, 2005).
In addition, HAFT level residues were used for leafy vegetables.

The results of the analysis show that for all sub-populations, the
exposures are below the Agency's level of concern (< 100% aPAD).
Additional refinements in the dietary risk assessment (i.e. utilizing
anticipated residue values, processing factors, percent crop treated
values for all crops) would further reduce the estimated exposure
values.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

The chronic dietary exposure estimates were based on tolerance or
proposed tolerance values for all commodities with the exception that
anticipated residues were utilized for leafy vegetables.  Default
processing factors, specific processing factors and % crop treated
values were used as listed in the U.S. EPA document DP Barcode No.
D323632 (November 30, 2005).   A value of 100% crop treated was used for
oat, oil seeds, fresh herbs, meat and milk, avocado, banana, Belgium
endive, canistel, mango, papaya, cotton, and mamey sapote.  The
consumption data was from the USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII 1994 - 1996, 1998) and the EPA Food Commodity
Ingredient Database (FCID) using Exponent's Dietary Exposure Evaluation
Module (DEEM-FCID) software.

The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) used for U.S. population and
all sub-populations is 0.034 mg/kg bw/day. Considering the exposure
assumptions discussed above, pyraclostobin chronic dietary exposure from
food for the U.S. population was 8.0 % of the cPAD.  The most highly
exposure population sub group was children 1-2 years of age at 24.6%
cPAD.   The results of the chronic dietary assessment are presented in
Table 2.

Table 2. 	Results for Pyraclostrobin Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis
Considering all Current and Proposed Tolerances Including Barley Grain
(1.3 ppm) Using DEEM-FCID

Population	Exposure Estimate	%cPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

U.S. Population	0.002711	8.0

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.003998	11.8

Children (1-2 years old)	0.008369	24.6

Children (3-5 years old)	0.006291	18.5

Children (6-12 years old)	0.003777	11.1

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.002141	6.3

Females (13-49 years old)	0.001992	5.9

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.002058	6.1

Adults (50+ years old)	0.002221	6.5

cPAD = chronic  population adjusted dose

* Exposure estimates based on tolerance values for all commodities with
the exception of anticipated residues for leafy vegetables; processing
factors and % crop treated values were used as listed in the U.S. EPA
document DP Barcode No. D323632 (November 30, 2005) with 100% crop
treated values for oat, oil seeds, fresh herbs, meat and milk, avocado,
banana, Belgium endive, canistel, mango, papaya, cotton, and mamey
sapote.

The results of the analysis show that for all sub-populations, the
exposures are below a level of concern (< 100% cPAD).  Additional
refinements in the chronic dietary risk assessment (i.e. utilizing
anticipated residue values for all crops) would further reduce the
estimated exposure values.

		ii. Drinking water. Based on the PRZM/EXAMS and SCIGROW models, the
peak EDWCs of pyraclostrobin for acute exposure are estimated to be 22.6
ug/L (ppb) in surface water and 0.02 ug/L in shallow ground water.  The
peak EDWCs for chronic exposure are estimated to be 1.9 ug/L in surface
water and 0.02 ug/L in shallow ground water.  These concentrations are
based on maximum applications to turf, which have the highest labeled
application rate of any pyraclostrobin use.

Drinking water contributions were assessed based on the maximum
estimated pyraclostrobin water concentrations (acute - 22.6 ug/L,
chronic 1.9 ug/L), and water consumption and body weights reported in
CSFII, using DEEM-FCID software.  The acute and chronic estimated water
exposure values are summarized in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.  Minimal
exposure of pyraclostrobin occurs through drinking water with < 0.5% the
aPAD and cPAD for all subpopulations with the exception of females 13-49
years of age with a 2.2% aPAD.

Table 3. 	Results for Pyraclostrobin Acute Water Exposure Analysis
Considering the Maximum Estimated Acute Drinking Water Concentration
using

DEEM-FCID

Population	Water Exposure Estimate	%aPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

U.S. Population	0.001181	0.04

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.004451	0.15

Children (1-2 years old)	0.001852	0.06

Children (3-5 years old)	0.001692	0.06

Children (6-12 years old)	0.001178	0.04

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.000958	0.03

Females (13-49 years old)	0.001100	2.20

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.001094	0.04

Adults (50+ years old)	0.000988	0.03

aPAD = acute  population adjusted dose

Based on estimated acute surface water value of 22.6 ug/L

Table 4. 	Results for Pyraclostrobin Chronic Water Exposure Analysis
Considering the Maximum Estimated Chronic Drinking Water Concentration
using DEEM-FCID

Population	Water Exposure Estimate	%cPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

U.S. Population	0.00004	0.1

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.000131	0.4

Children (1-2 years old)	0.000059	0.2

Children (3-5 years old)	0.000056	0.2

Children (6-12 years old)	0.000038	0.1

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.000029	0.1

Females (13-49 years old)	0.000037	0.1

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.000037	0.1

Adults (50+ years old)	0.000039	0.1

cPAD = chronic  population adjusted dose

Based on estimated chronic surface water value of 1.9 ug/L

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk (Food and water)

The aggregate acute risk includes residues of pyraclostrobin from food
and water (Table 5). Exposures from residential uses are not included in
the acute aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate that there are
no safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new
uses, and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable
certainty of no harm.

Table 5. 	Estimated Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk of Pyraclostrobin

Population Subgroup	aPAD (mg/kg/day)	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% aPAD

U.S. Population	3	0.031750	0.001181	0.032931	1.10

All Infants (< 1 yr old)	3	0.045808	0.004451	0.076973	2.57

Children 1-2 years	3	0.072522	0.001852	0.057903	1.93

Children 3-5 years	3	0.056051	0.001692	0.036425	1.21

Children 6 – 12 years	3	0.034733	0.001178	0.025524	0.85

Youth 13-19 years	3	0.026228	0.000958	0.027186	0.91

Females 13-49 years	0.05	0.026597	0.001100	0.027697	55.39

Adults 20-49 years	3	0.026228	0.001094	0.027962	0.93

Adults + 50	3	0.026868	0.000988	0.027585	0.92

Short- and Intermediate Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food,water,
and residential)

Short-term aggregate risk from pyraclostrobin takes into account
exposures from dietary consumption (food and water) and residential
exposure from turf use.  Post application exposure from the turf use is
considered short-term.  The aggregate MOEs from food, water, and
residential exposure are 129 and 267 for children 1-2 years old and the
US population, respectively.  These MOEs are greater than the target MOE
of 100 which indicates there is no safety concern.  The results of the
analysis are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. 	Estimated Short/Intermediate Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk
of Pyraclostrobin

Population	NOAEL (mg/kg/day)	Target MOE1	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Residential Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure
(mg/kg/day)	MOE2

US	5.8	100	0.002711	0.00004	0.019	0.021751	267

Child 1-2 yr old	5.8	100	0.008369	0.000059	0.036425	0.044853	129

1 Target MOE is 100.

2 Aggregate MOE = (NOAEL / (Food + Water + Residential Exposure)

 Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)

The aggregate chronic risk includes residues of pyraclostrobin from food
and water (Table 7). Exposures from residential uses are not included in
the chronic aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate there are no
safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses,
and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable
certainty of no harm.

  Table 7. 	Estimated Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk of
Pyraclostrobin

Population Subgroup	cPAD (mg/kg/day)	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% cPAD

U.S. Population	0.034	0.002711	0.000040	0.002751	8.09

All Infants (< 1 yr old)	0.034	0.003998	0.000131	0.004129	12.14

Children 1-2 years	0.034	0.008369	0.000059	0.008428	24.79

Children 3-5 years	0.034	0.006291	0.000056	0.006347	18.67

Children 6 – 12 years	0.034	0.003777	0.000038	0.003815	11.22

Youth 13-19 years	0.034	0.002141	0.000029	0.002170	6.38

Females 13-49 years	0.034	0.001992	0.000037	0.002029	5.97

Adults 20-49 years	0.034	0.002058	0.000037	0.002095	6.16

Adults + 50	0.034	0.002221	0.000039	0.002260	6.65

Aggregate Cancer Risk for U.S. Population

The aggregate MOE value (considering food and drinking water) was
calculated for pyraclostrobin and is shown in Table 8.  The 36-year
average of pyraclostrobin in surface water that was estimated by
PRZM/EXAMS for use in the chronic/cancer risk assessment is 1.2 ug/L.
The results demonstrate there are no safety concerns for US population
based on established and new uses, and that the results clearly meet the
FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.

Table 8. 	Aggregate Cancer Risk of Pyraclostrobin to the U.S. Population

Population	NOAEL (mg/kg/day)	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water Exposure
(mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total MOE

U.S. Population	32.80	0.002711	0.000025	0.002736	11988

		2. Non-dietary exposure. Pyraclostrobin is registered for use on
residential and recreational turf.  The applications to turf will be
made only by professional pest control operators.  Therefore,
residential handler exposure was not evaluated.  The exposure assessment
cited in this notice of filing was transcribed from the most recent
Federal Register Notice on pyraclostrobin (U.S. EPA final rule published
in the Federal Register October 29, 2004 [Vol 69, No. 209, p 63083 –
63100).  The EPA evaluated the following post-application exposure
scenarios 1) adults and toddler post-application dermal exposure 2)
toddlers’ incidental ingestion of pesticide residues on lawns form
hand-to-mouth transfer, 3) toddlers’ object-to-mouth transfer from
mouthing pesticide-treated turfgrass, and 4) toddlers’ incidental
ingestion of soil from pesticide-treated residential areas.  The
post-application exposure assessment was based on generic assumptions
specified in the Recommended Revisions to the Residential Standard
Operating Procedures and recommended approaches by an EPA science
advisory council.  A dermal absorption value of 14% was used in the
assessment of pyraclostrobin. The exposure and risk estimates for the
residential exposure scenarios are assessed for the day of application
because adults and toddlers could contact treated turf immediately after
application.  All short-/intermediate term MOE were greater than 100
which indicates that exposure from all residential scenarios result in
exposures below a level of concern.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) 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.'  Pyraclostrobin is a foliar fungicide
which belongs to the new class of strobilurin chemistry.  It is a
synthetic analog of strobilurin A, a naturally occurring antifungal
metabolite of the mushroom Strobillurus tenacellus (Anke et. al., 1977).
The active ingredient acts in the fungal cell through inhibition of
electron transport in the mitochondrial respiratory chain at the
position of the cytochrome-bc1 complex.  The protective effect is due to
the resultant death of the fungal cells by disorganization of the fungal
membrane system.  Pyraclostrobin also acts curatively to prevent the
increase and spread of fungal infections by inhibiting mycelial growth
and sporulation on the leaf surface. Pyraclostrobin inhibits spore
germination, germ tube growth and penetration into the host tissues.

The EPA is currently developing methodology to perform cumulative risk
assessments.  At this time, there is no available data to determine
whether pyraclostrobin has a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk
assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a
cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity,
pyraclostrobin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite common to
other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Based on this risk assessment, BASF concludes that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population from the aggregate exposure to pyraclostrobin residues.

	2. Infants and children. Based on this risk assessment, BASF concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants
or children from the aggregate exposure to pyraclostrobin residues.

F. International Tolerances

	No Codex or Mexican maximum residue levels (MRLs) have been proposed or
are established for residues of pyraclostrobin.  Therefore, no tolerance
discrepancies exist between countries for this chemical.  Since the
application for registration of pyraclostrobin was reviewed jointly with
the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Canada, several Canadian
MRLs for pyraclostrobin are proposed and are expected to be published
soon.  However, the joint review is expected to have eliminated the
potential for discrepancies between U.S. tolerances and Canadian MRLs.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 141 (Monday, July 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 44135]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15870]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4628-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Virginia; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-4628-DR), dated October 26,
2021, and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on July 1, 2022.

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: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Catharine O.
Fan, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Gerard M. Stolar as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    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. 2022-15870 Filed 7-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19787-19789]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07254]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0276; Special Conditions No. 25-815-SC]

Special Conditions: Peregrine; Installed Rechargeable Lithium
Batteries

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for a supplemental type
certificate to install rechargeable lithium batteries in an electronic
standby instrument on certain transport category airplanes. These
airplanes, as modified by Peregrine, will have a novel or unusual
design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in
the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This
design feature is the installation of an electronic standby instrument
supply that contains rechargeable lithium batteries. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Peregrine on April 6, 2022. Send
comments on or before May 23, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2022-0276 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as
described in the following paragraph, and other information as
described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received
without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information you provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing
each substantive verbal contact received about this proposal.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this Notice contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this Notice, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and the indicated comments
will not be placed in the public docket of this Notice. Submissions
containing CBI should be sent to Nazih Khaouly, Aircraft Systems, AIR-
623, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Comments
the FAA receives, which are not specifically designated as CBI, will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nazih Khaouly, Aircraft Systems, AIR-
623, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substance of these special conditions
has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in
several prior instances with no substantive comments received.
Therefore, the FAA finds that, pursuant to Sec.  11.38(b), new comments
are unlikely, and public notice and comment prior to this publication
are unnecessary, and finds that, for the same reason, good cause exists
for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal
Register.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking
by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for
comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the
comments received.

Background

    On October 7, 2021, Peregrine applied for a supplemental type
certificate (STC) to install rechargeable lithium batteries in an
electronic standby instrument. Peregrine wants to apply this STC to
multiple transport category airplanes and may periodically amend this
STC to expand its applicability to include additional transport
category airplane makes and models.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR), Sec.  21.101, Peregrine must show that airplanes, for which they
make application to modify by STC no. ST01985WI, as changed, continue
to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in each
airplane's respective type certificate or the applicable regulations in
effect on the date of application for the change except for earlier
amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards because of a novel or unusual design
feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of
Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model
for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for an STC to
modify any other model included on the same type certificate to
incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would also apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special

conditions, the airplanes modified by STC no. ST01985WI must comply
with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34
and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The airplanes with STC no. ST01985WI will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design feature:
    The installation of an electronic standby instrument containing a
rechargeable lithium ion battery.

Discussion

    Rechargeable lithium batteries are considered to be a novel or
unusual design feature in transport category airplanes, with respect to
the requirements in Sec.  25.1353. This type of battery has certain
failure, operational, and maintenance characteristics that differ
significantly from those of the nickel-cadmium and lead-acid
rechargeable batteries currently approved for installation on transport
category airplanes. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into
airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery-
cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery
packs introduces failure modes that require unique design
considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.
    Special Condition 1 requires that each individual cell within a
battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures.
Special Condition 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire
battery. Special Condition 2 requires that the battery be designed to
prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained,
uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to
adjacent cells.
    Special Conditions 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the cells
and battery are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable
failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to
various factors beyond the control of the designer. Therefore, other
special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its
occupants if failure occurs.
    Special Conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory. Special
Condition 4 clarifies that the flammable-fluid fire-protection
requirements of Sec.  25.863 apply to rechargeable lithium battery
installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane
that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems.
Rechargeable lithium batteries contain electrolyte that is a flammable
fluid.
    Special Condition 5 requires each rechargeable lithium battery
installation to not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems,
equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may
escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure
condition. Special Condition 6 requires each rechargeable lithium
battery installation to have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect
on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat
it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The
means of meeting special conditions 5 and 6 may be the same, but they
are independent requirements addressing different hazards. Special
Condition 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, whereas special
condition 6 addresses heat.
    Special Condition 9 requires rechargeable lithium batteries to have
``automatic'' means, for charge rate and disconnect, due to the fast-
acting nature of lithium battery chemical reactions. Manual
intervention would not be timely or effective in mitigating the hazards
associated with these batteries.
    These special conditions apply to all rechargeable lithium battery
installations in lieu of Sec.  25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment
25-123 or Sec.  25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those
regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
airplane models listed on the approved model list (AML) of STC no.
ST01985WI, which is available at rgl.faa.gov. All models listed in the
AML must be evaluated and determined to comply with these special
conditions. Additionally each new model added to the AML subsequently
must also be evaluated and determined to comply with these special
conditions. Should Peregrine apply at a later date for a change to STC
no. ST01985WI to include any other model on the AML to incorporate the
same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would
apply to that model as well. Should Peregrine apply at a later date for
another STC to modify any other model included on the type certificates
of the models on the STC no. ST01985WI AML to incorporate the same
novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also
apply to that model as well. These special conditions are not
applicable to those models in which applicable special conditions for
rechargeable lithium batteries have already been issued against the
type certificate for that specific model.

Conclusion

    This action only affects the installation of an electronic standby
instrument that contains rechargeable lithium batteries on the airplane
models listed on the AML of STC no. ST01985WI. It is not a rule of
general applicability and affects only the applicant who will apply to
the FAA for approval of these features on the airplanes.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for airplane models listed on the approved
model list of supplemental type certificate no. ST01985WI, as modified
by Peregrine.
    In lieu of Sec.  25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at amendment 25-123, or
Sec.  25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each
rechargeable lithium battery installation must:
    1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures
under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and
explosion.
    2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining,
uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure, and automatically
control the charge rate of each cell to protect against adverse
operating conditions, such as cell imbalance, back charging,
overcharging and overheating.
    3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or
as a result of its failure that may accumulate in hazardous quantities
within the airplane.
    4. Meet the requirements of Sec.  25.863.
    5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment,
or

electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in
such a way as to cause a major or more-severe failure condition.
    6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane
structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can
generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.
    7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flight
crew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.
    8. Have a monitoring and warning feature that alerts the flightcrew
when its charge state falls below acceptable levels if its function is
required for safe operation of the airplane.
    9. Have a means to automatically disconnect from its charging
source in the event of an over-temperature condition, cell failure or
battery failure.

    Note:  A battery system consists of the battery, battery
charger, and any protective monitoring and alerting circuitry or
hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents
(where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special
conditions, a battery and the battery system is referred to as a
battery.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 1, 2022.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-07254 Filed 4-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


37131 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Notices ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   6715   1]

Continuous Release Reporting Regulations ( CRRR) Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ( CERCLA); Request for Comment on Renewal Information Collection AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit the following continuing Information Collection Request ( ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB): Continuous Release Reporting Regulations ( CRRR) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ( CERCLA) ( EPA ICR No. 1445.05, OMB No. 2050   0086). This is a request to renew an existing ICR that is currently approved. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the collection. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 14, 2000. ADDRESSES: Comments submitted by regular U. S. Postal Service mail should be sent to: Docket Coordinator, Superfund Docket Office, Mail Code 5201G, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number 102RQ   CR2 in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Comments may also be submitted electronically or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for these submission methods as provided in unit III of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Beasley, ( 703) 603   9086. Facsimile number: ( 703) 603   9104. Electronic address: beasley. lynn@ epa. gov. Comments should not be submitted to this contact person. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does This Notice Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this notice if you are in charge of a facility that releases hazardous substances into the environment as specified in section 103( a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ( CERCLA), as amended. According to section 103( a) of CERCLA, if the facility you are in charge of releases a hazardous substance that equals or exceeds its reportable quantity ( RQ) and the release is not Federally permitted, you are required to notify the National Response Center ( NRC) of the release immediately. However, according to section 103( f)( 2) of CERCLA, if the release at the facility you are in charge of is `` continuous,'' and `` stable in quantity and rate,'' you may be exempted from the per occurrence notification requirements of section 103( a) of CERCLA. To determine if the facility you are in charge of is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in the Continuing Release Reporting Regulations ( CRRR) ( 40 CFR part 302.8).

II. How Can I Get Additional Information or Copies of This Document or Other Support Documents?

A. By Phone, Fax, or E Mail If you have any questions or need additional information about this notice or the information collection request ( ICR) referenced, please contact Lynn Beasley, ( 703) 603   9086. Facsimile number: ( 703) 603   9104. Electronic address: beasley. lynn@ epa. gov.

B. In Person The official record for this notice, including the public version, and the referenced ICR have been established under docket control number 102RQ   CR2 ( including comments and data submitted electronically, as described below). A public version of this record, including printed, paper versions of any electronic comments, which does not include any information claimed as Confidential Business Information ( CBI), and the referenced ICR are available for inspection in the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund Docket Office, Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The Superfund Docket is open from 9 AM to 4 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the Superfund Docket is ( 703) 603   9232.

III. How Can I Respond to This Notice?

A. How and to Whom Do I Submit the Comments? You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. Be sure to identify the docket control number 102RQ   CR2 on any correspondence. 1. By mail. Submit written comments to: Docket Coordinator, Superfund Docket Office, Mail Code 5201G, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 2. In person or by courier. Deliver written comments to: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund Docket Office, Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Telephone: ( 703) 603   9232. 3. Electronically. Submit your comments and/ or data electronically by e mail to: superfund. docket@ epa. gov. Please note that you should not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comment and data will also be accepted on standard computer disks in WordPerfect 6/ 7/ 8 or ASCII file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the docket control number 102RQ   CR2. Electronic comments on this notice may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

B. How Should I Handle CBI Information That I Want to Submit To EPA? You may claim information that you submit in response to this notice as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must also be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public docket by EPA without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult with Lynn Beasley, ( 703) 603   9086. Facsimile number: ( 703) 603   9104. Electronic address: beasley. lynn@ epa. gov.

C. What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in? Pursuant to section 3506( c)( 2)( a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to: 1. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of EPA, including whether the information will have practical utility. 2. Evaluate the accuracy of EPA's estimates of the burdens of the proposed collections of information.

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 15: 40 Jun 12, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13JNN1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 13JNN1 37132 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Notices 3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. 4. Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated or electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology, e. g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

D. What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

EPA invites you to provide your views on the various options EPA proposes, new approaches EPA hasn't considered, the potential impacts of the various options ( including possible unintended consequences), and any data or information that you would like EPA to consider during the development of the final action. You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: · Explain your views as clearly as possible. · Describe any assumptions that you used. · Provide technical information and/ or data to support your views. · If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate. · Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. · Offer alternative ways to improve the rule or collection activity. · Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. · At the beginning of your comments ( e. g., as part of the `` Subject'' heading), be sure to properly identify the document on which you are commenting. You can do this by providing the docket control number assigned to this notice, along with the name, date, and Federal Register citation, or by using the appropriate EPA ICR or the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) control number.

IV. To What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Notice Apply?

EPA is seeking comments on the following ICR: Title: Continuous Release Reporting Regulations ( CRRR) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ( CERCLA). ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1445.05, OMB No. 2050   0086. ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on September 30, 2000. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's information collections appear on the collection instruments or instructions, in the Federal Register notices for related rulemakings and ICR notices, and, if the collection is contained in a regulation, in a table of OMB approval numbers in 40 CFR part 9. Abstract: Section 103( a) of CERCLA, as amended, requires the person in charge of a facility to immediately notify the NRC of a hazardous substance release into the environment if the amount of the release equals or exceeds the substance's RQ. The RQ of every hazardous substance can be found in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR part 302.4. Section 103( f)( 2) of CERCLA provides facilities relief from this per occurrence notification requirement if the hazardous substance release above the RQ is continuous, and stable in quantity and rate. Under the CRRR, a continuous release of a hazardous substance above the RQ requires an initial telephone call to the NRC, an initial written report to the EPA Region, and, if the source and chemical composition of the continuous release does not change and the level of the continuous release does not significantly increase, a follow up written report to the EPA Region one year after submission of the initial written report. If the source or chemical composition of the previously reported continuous release changes, notifying the NRC and EPA Region of a change in the source or composition of the release is required. Further, a significant increase in the level of the previously reported continuous release must be reported immediately to the NRC according to section 103( a) of CERCLA. Finally, any change in information submitted in support of a continuous release notification must be reported to the EPA Region. The reporting of a hazardous substance release that is above the substance's RQ allows the Federal government to determine whether a Federal response action is required to control or mitigate any potential adverse effects to public health or welfare or the environment. The continuous release of hazardous substance information collected under CERCLA section 103( f)( 2) is also available to EPA program offices and other Federal agencies who use the information to evaluate the potential need for additional regulations, new permitting requirements for specific substances or sources, or improved emergency response planning. Release notification information, which is stored in the national Continuous Release Emergency Response Notification System ( CR   ERNS) data base, is available to State and local government authorities as well as the general public. State and local government authorities and facilities subject to the CRRR use release information for purposes of local emergency response planning. Members of the general public, who have access to release information through the Freedom of Information Act, may request release information for purposes of maintaining an awareness of what types of releases are occurring in different localities and what actions, if any, are being taken to protect public health and welfare and the environment. CR ERNS fact sheets, which provide summary and statistical information about hazardous substance release notifications, also are available to the public.

V. What Are EPA's Burden and Cost Estimates for This ICR? Under the PRA, `` burden'' means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. For this collection, it includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and use technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized in this notice. The annual public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 77 hours per affected facility. The following is a summary of the estimates taken from the ICR: Respondents/ affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use certain specified hazardous substances. Estimated total number of facilities that will have to report continuous hazardous substance releases per year: 2,342. Frequency of response: After reporting the continuous release to the NRC and EPA Region initially, only an annual report to the EPA Region is necessary unless there is a change in the source of VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 15: 40 Jun 12, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13JNN1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 13JNN1 37133 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Notices the continuous release, a change in the chemical composition of the continuous release, or a significant increase in the level of the continuous release. In these cases the person in charge of the facility has to notify the NRC and/ or the EPA Region of the change in the continuous release. Estimated total annual burden hours: 24,732 hours. Estimated total annual burden costs: $ 725,000.

VI. Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval?

In the renewal ICR, EPA will review the current burden and cost statement and adjust it accordingly. EPA does not expect the burden and cost statement in the renewal ICR to be any greater than the burden and cost statement in the current ICR.

VII. What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5( a)( 1)( iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact Lynn Beasley, ( 703) 603   9086. Facsimile number: ( 703) 603   9104. Electronic address: beasley. lynn@ epa. gov.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Information collection requests, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

Dated: June 1, 2000. Stephen D. Luftig, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. [ FR Doc. 00   14869 Filed 6   12   00; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Final Comment Request AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ACTION: Final notice of submission for OMB review.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC) has submitted a request for clearance of the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB). A notice that the EEOC would be submitting this request was published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2000, allowing for a 60 day public comment period. No public comments were received. DATES: Written comments on this final notice must be submitted on or before July 13, 2000. ADDRESSES: Comments on this final notice should be submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Stuart Shapiro, Desk Officer for the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or electronically mailed to SSHAPIRO@ OMB. EOP. GOV. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request should be addressed to Mr. Neckere at the address below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joachim Neckere, Director, Program Research and Surveys Division, 1801 L Street, NW., Room 9222, Washington, DC 20507, ( 202) 663   4958 ( voice) or ( 202) 663   7063 ( TDD). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Collection Title: State and Local Government Information ( EEO   4). OMB Number: 3046   0008. Frequency of Report: Biennial. Type of Respondent: State and local government jurisdictions with 100 or more full time employees. Description of Affected Public: State and local governments excluding elementary and secondary public school districts. Number of Responses: 10,000. Reporting Hours: 40,000. Number of Forms: 1. Federal Cost: $ 47,000. Abstract: Section 709( c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 2000e   8( c), requires employers to make and keep records relevant to a determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed and to make reports therefrom as required by the EEOC. Accordingly, the EEOC has issued regulations which set forth the reporting requirements for various kinds of employers. State and local governments with 100 or more full time employees have been required to submit EEO   4 reports since 1973 ( biennially in odd numbered years since 1993). The individual reports are confidential. EEO   4 data are used by the EEOC to investigate charges of discrimination against state and local governments. In addition, the data are used to support EEOC decisions and conciliations, and for research. The data are shared with several other Federal government agencies. Pursuant to section 709( d) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, EEO   4 data are also shared with 86 State and Local Fair Employment Practices Agencies ( FEPAs). Aggregated data are also used by researchers and the general public. Burden Statement: The estimated number of respondents included in the EEO   4 survey is 5,000 state and local governments. The estimated number of responses per respondent is approximately 2 EEO   4 reports and the reporting burden averages between 1 and 5 hours per response, including the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data, and complete and review the collection of information. The total number of responses is thus 10,000 reports while the total burden is estimated to be 40,000 hours, including recordkeeping burden. In order to help reduce burden, respondents are encouraged to report data on electronic media such as magnetic tapes and diskettes.

Dated: June 7, 2000. For the Commission. Ida L. Castro, Chairwoman. [ FR Doc. 00   14889 Filed 6   12   00; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750   01   M FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection( s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission for Extension Under Delegated Authority; Comments Requested June 7, 2000. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection( s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104   13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning ( a)

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 15: 40 Jun 12, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13JNN1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 13JNN1


March 3, 2004 Honorable Donald L. Carcieri Governor of Rhode Island State House Executive Chambers Providence, RI 02903 Dear Governor Carcieri:

Thank you for your letter forwarding Rhode Island's recommendations on air quality designations for the national health based standards for fine particles. We received your letter on February 18, 2004.

Your letter is an important step toward providing citizens in your state with critical information about air pollution levels in their community. We intend to carefully review the recommendations and work with the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management in determining final designations. The EPA must make its final official designation decisions for fine particles by December 31, 2004.

We look forward to working with Rhode Island in the coming months on designations for the fine particle standards. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me or Tim Williamson, Acting Manager of the Air Quality Planning Unit, at 617 918 1099.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Varney Regional Administrator cc: Frederick J. Vincent, Interim Director, RI DEM Stephen Majkut, OAR, RI DEM


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32918-32919]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15022]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0244]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Transco, Inc.; Application for
Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final determination; denial of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny the application of
Transco, Inc. (Transco) (USDOT # 1062707) for an exemption from the 30-
minute rest break provision of the Agency's hours-of-service (HOS)
regulations for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. Transco asked
that its drivers be permitted to comply with the 30-minute rest break
requirement while performing ``on-duty, not-driving'' tasks. Due to the
nature of its operations, Transco believes that compliance with the 30-
minute rest break provision negatively impacts the overall safety and
general health of its CMV drivers. FMCSA has analyzed the exemption
application and public comments, and has determined that the applicant
would not achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater
than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.

DATES: FMCSA denied the application for exemption by letter dated
February 27, 2017, after notice and opportunity for public comment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    FMCSA reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency and the reasons for denying an application must be published
in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)).
    On December 27, 2011 (76 FR 81133), FMCSA published a final rule
amending its hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for drivers of
property-carrying CMVs. The rule included a provision requiring many
CMV drivers to take a rest break during the work day. Drivers may drive
a CMV only if 8 hours or less have passed since the end of the driver's
last off-duty or sleeper-berth period of at least 30 minutes. FMCSA did
not specify when drivers must take the 30-minute break, but the rule
requires that they wait no longer than 8 hours after the last off-duty
or sleeper-berth period of that length or longer to take the break if
they want to continue driving (49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii)).

III. Request for Exemption

    Transco seeks an exemption from the 30-minute rest break provision.
Transco, operating through McLane Company, Inc., employs over 4,000
drivers who deliver freight from distribution centers to grocery stores
and restaurants throughout the United States. Transco drivers make an
average of nine stops per day during which they offload freight to
customers. Transco contends that because its operations differ greatly
from long-haul operations it should not be subject to the rest break
requirement. It contends that the frequent stops serve the purpose of
the 30-minute rest break because they break the monotony and stress of
driving for Transco's drivers. Transco argues that physically-active
offloading is in fact better for the health of its drivers than 30
minutes free of

work-related duties. It asserts that the 30-minute break unnecessarily
imposes unhealthy sedentary activity on Transco drivers. Finally,
Transco believes that the granting of this exemption would reduce the
number of motor vehicle accidents and congestion on public roads by
reducing the overall miles Transco travels to deliver to its customers.
A copy of the Transco's application for exemption is available for
review in the docket for this notice.

Public Comments

    On September 28, 2016, FMCSA published Transco's application for
exemption and requested public comment (81 FR 66734). The Agency
received 54 comments to the docket, mostly from CMV drivers. More than
40 of the comments opposed the Transco application for exemption. The
principal concern of the CMV drivers was that the exemption would
convert obvious on-duty time to off-duty time. The Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety expressed concern that rigorous physical
activity (loading and unloading) would be substituted for the respite
from driver duties provided by the 30-minute rest break. The
International Brotherhood of Teamsters opposed the application. It
pointed out that the applicant described the typical driver workday as
being 19 hours long, making the rest break even more critical to safety
and driver health.

FMCSA Decision

    When FMCSA proposed the provision requiring a 30-minute rest break,
it relied upon research indicating that periods free from work
responsibilities are followed by improved work performance. The
research showed that this improvement was experienced regardless of the
precise nature of the worker's duties. FMCSA believes that, whatever
the relative degree of monotony associated with long-haul and local-
delivery driving, the fact is that both types of drivers are
susceptible to fatigue as the workday progresses. The Agency believes
that rest breaks provide a benefit to both types of drivers, and that
safety is improved by allowing drivers to take a break from their
duties during the work day. The rest break is especially important for
Transco drivers because they accumulate fatigue both from the lifting
of their unloading tasks and from 19-hour days.
    For these reasons, FMCSA has denied the applicant's request for
exemption.

    Issued on: July 11, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-15022 Filed 7-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16604-16605]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06461]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0178]

Consolidation of Redundant Coast Guard Boat Stations--Decision

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

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

SUMMARY: On February 14, 2020, the Coast Guard announced the potential
consolidation of several redundant Coast Guard boat stations and
solicited public comments to inform the decision making process. After
reading the public comments, the Coast Guard has decided to consolidate
four (4) Coast Guard boat stations to increase staffing and capacity
levels at nearby boat stations that are better equipped to respond to
calls for rescue.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Todd Aikins, Coast Guard Office of Boat Forces; telephone
202-372-2463], email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    This notice is issued under authority of 14 U.S.C. 909 and 910. The
Coast Guard engaged in public outreach and connected with locals in the
area of the boat stations to be closed. Opportunities were provided for
a public meeting, but because of the pandemic it was decided that such
collaboration was better done virtually.

Response to Public Comments

    The Coast Guard received 111 distinct public submissions in
response to the Federal Register Notice. Five supported the
consolidations, while 106 raised concerns (one of the five supporting
comments recommended consolidating a single station as a proof of
concept).
    In the following discussion, we summarize the reasons or
information some commenters gave in support of their position or
recommendation. After each summary, we state our response.
    No comments were submitted with concerns about the consolidation of
Station(small) Roosevelt Inlet.
    No comments were submitted with concerns about the consolidation of
Station(small) Salem.
    Two comments were submitted with concerns about the consolidation
of Station(small) Shark River. One comment noted that a fast response
is needed in the area, while the other asked that the decision be
postponed until after the local COVID stay-at-home orders were lifted.
The Coast Guard complied with the latter comment, and is following the
findings of contractor analyses and the referenced GAO report that
finds the remaining response sufficient in this area, most notably from
Station Manasquan Inlet, fewer than ten miles away.
    Four comments were submitted with concerns about the consolidation
of Station(small) Fishers Island. All comments noted the area near Race
Rock Lighthouse and its treacherous current, necessitating a fast Coast
Guard Response. The Coast Guard is following the findings of contractor
analyses and the referenced GAO report that finds the remaining
response sufficient in this area, most notably from Station New London,
fewer than ten miles away.
    One hundred comments were submitted with concerns about the
consolidation of Station Oxford. Twenty comments were general in
nature, stating that the station is important and should not be closed.
69 comments noted that the area near Station Oxford is heavily worked
and traveled, local resources have limited crews and hours, and that
response from Station Annapolis would take too long. Six comments noted
that Station Oxford was necessary for local triathlons, regattas, and
other races. Three comments noted that boat safety checks are crucial
to limiting the number of mariners in distress in the area. One comment
noted that Station Oxford is critical to LMR in Terrapin Cover. One
commenter felt that the data used in the studies was outdated and took
issue with the fact that only the Coast Guard Districts with the most
redundancy were included in the analyses instead of every station. In
response to these concerns, Station Oxford will be removed as a
candidate for closure in FY21 and analyzed further.

    Dated: March 23, 2021.
J.B. Rush,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Boat Forces.
[FR Doc. 2021-06461 Filed 3-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 45193]
[DOCID:fr01se09-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

August 21, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-906-000.
    Applicants: Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company submits Tenth
Revised Sheet No 4 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be
effective 10/1/09.
    Filed Date: 08/19/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090819-0642.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 31, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-912-000.
    Applicants: Venice Gathering System, LLC.
    Description: Venice Gathering System, LLC submits Ninth Revised
Sheet 4 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective
10/1/09.
    Filed Date: 08/19/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090820-0050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 31, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-913-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Equitrans, LP submits Twenty-Fifth Revised Sheet 5 et
al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective 10/1/09.
    Filed Date: 08/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090821-0105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 01, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21000 Filed 8-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 42563]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17182]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736.
Extension: Rule 17f-2(e),
    SEC File No. 270-37, OMB Control No. 3235-0031.
    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information provided for in Rule 17f-2(e) (17 C.F.R. 240.17f-2(e))
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The
Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to
the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Rule 17f-2(e) requires every member of a national securities
exchange, broker, dealer, registered transfer agent, and registered
clearing agency (``covered entities'') claiming an exemption from the
fingerprinting requirements of Rule 17f-2 to make and keep current a
statement entitled ``Notice Pursuant to Rule 17f-2'' (``Notice'')
containing the information specified in paragraph (e)(1) to support
their claim of exemption.
    Rule 17f-2(e) contains no filing requirement. Instead, paragraph
(e)(2) requires covered entities to keep a copy of the Notice in an
easily accessible place at the organization's principal office and at
the office employing the persons for whom exemptions are claimed and to
make the Notice available upon request for inspection by the
Commission, appropriate regulatory agency (if not the Commission) or
other designated examining authority. Notices prepared pursuant to Rule
17f-2(e) must be maintained for as long as the covered entity claims an
exemption from the fingerprinting requirements of Rule 17f-2. The
recordkeeping requirement under Rule 17f-2(e) assists the Commission
and other regulatory agencies with ensuring compliance with Rule 17f-2.
    We estimate that approximately 75 respondents will incur an average
burden of 30 minutes per year to comply with this rule, which
represents the time it takes for a staff person at a covered entity to
properly document a claimed exemption from the fingerprinting
requirements of Rule 17f-2 in the required Notice and to properly
retain the Notice according to the entity's record retention policies
and procedures. The total annual burden for all covered entities is
approximately 38 hours (75 entities x .5 hours, rounded up).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 16, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17182 Filed 7-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P