[Federal Register: March 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 46)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11000-11002]
[DOCID:fr10mr10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0124]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Freeport LNG Basin, Freeport, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has established a permanent security zone in
the Freeport LNG Basin. This security zone is needed to protect
vessels, waterfront facilities, the public, and other surrounding areas
from destruction, loss, or injury caused by sabotage, subversive acts,
accidents, or other actions of a similar nature. Entry into this zone
is prohibited, except for vessels that have obtained the express

permission from the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston or his
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective April 9, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-0124 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2008-0124 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Lieutenant Commander Kevin Ivey, Marine Safety Unit
Galveston, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On April 30, 2009 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Security Zone; Freeport LNG Basin, Freeport, TX in the
Federal Register (33 FR 19926). We received no comments on the proposed
rule.

Background and Purpose

    Heightened awareness of potential terrorist acts requires enhanced
security of our ports, harbors, and vessels. To enhance security, the
Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston has established a permanent
security zone.
    This rule establishes a new distinct security zone within the port
of Freeport, TX. This zone protects waterfront facilities, persons, and
vessels from subversive or terrorist acts. Vessels operating within the
Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston Zone are potential targets of
terrorist attacks, or platforms from which terrorist attacks may be
launched upon from other vessels, waterfront facilities, and adjacent
population centers.
    This zone is for an area concentrated with commercial facilities
considered critical to national security. This rule is not designed to
restrict access to vessels engaged, or assisting in commerce with
waterfront facilities within the security zones, vessels operated by
port authorities, vessels operated by waterfront facilities within the
security zones, and vessels operated by federal, state, county or
municipal agencies. By limiting access to this area the Coast Guard
reduces potential methods of attack on vessels, waterfront facilities,
and adjacent population centers located within the zones. All vessels
not exempted under Sec.  165.814 desiring to enter this zone are
required to obtain express permission from the Captain of the Port
Houston-Galveston or his designated representative prior to entry.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    No comments were received regarding this rule. The Coast Guard is
implementing the rule as proposed, without change.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. The economic impact of this rule is so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation was unnecessary. The basis of
this finding is that this security zone does not interfere with regular
vessel traffic within the Freeport Ship Channel or the Intracoastal
Waterway.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reason: This
rule does not interfere with regular vessel traffic within the Freeport
Ship Channel and/or the Intracoastal Waterway.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction because this rule involves a regulation
establishing, disestablishing, or changing Regulated Navigation Areas
and security or safety zones.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  165.814--
0
a. Remove paragraph (b);
0
b. Redesignate paragraph (c) as (b); and
0
c. Add paragraph (a)(5)(vi) and revise redesignated paragraph (b)(2) to
read as follows:

Sec.  165.814  Security Zone; Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston
Zone.

    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (vi) The Freeport LNG Basin containing all waters shoreward of a
line drawn between the eastern point at latitude 28[deg]56'25'' N,
095[deg]18'13'' W, and the western point at 28[deg]56'28'' N,
095[deg]18'31'' W, east towards the jetties.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Other persons or vessels requiring entry into a zone described
in this section must request express permission to enter from the
Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston, or designated representative.
The Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston's designated representatives
are any personnel granted authority by the Captain of the Port Houston-
Galveston to receive, evaluate, and issue written security zone entry
permits, or the designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel
described in paragraph (b)(4).
* * * * *

    Dated: December 28, 2009.
M.E. Woodring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston.
[FR Doc. 2010-5056 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 60518]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25135]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4029-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Texas; Amendment No. 5 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 State of Texas (FEMA-4029-DR), dated September 9, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 23, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of
September 9, 2011.

    Harrison, Smith, and Upshur Counties for Individual Assistance.

    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.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-25135 Filed 9-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 217 (Monday, November 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 71365]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24846]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-10885; 34-90338; File No. 265-28]

Investor Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory
Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice
that it will hold a public meeting. The public is invited to submit
written statements to the Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, December 3, 2020 from
10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. (ET). Written statements should be received
on or before December 3, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be conducted by remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F St NE, Washington, DC 20549. The
meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.
Written statements may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Statements

    [ssquf] Use the Commission's internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
    [ssquf] Send an email message to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File No. 265-28 on the subject line; or

Paper Statements

    [ssquf] Send paper statements to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC
20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. 265-28. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one
method.
    Statements also will be available for website viewing and printing
in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Room 1503,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without
change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact
or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Oorloff Sharma, Chief Counsel,
Office of the Investor Advocate, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public,
except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an
administrative work session during lunch. Persons needing special
accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the
contact person listed in the section above entitled FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. The agenda for the meeting includes: welcome
remarks; announcement of results of officers election; approval of
previous meeting minutes; a panel discussion regarding corporate
disclosure during COVID-19; a panel discussion regarding COVID-19
implications for next proxy season; subcommittee reports; and a non-
public administrative session.

    Dated: November 4, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-24846 Filed 11-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 126 (Thursday, June 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38334-38340]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16376]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0475; FRL-9426-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 2002 Base Year Emission
Inventory, Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Contingency Measures,
Reasonably Available Control Measures, and Transportation Conformity
Budgets for the Washington, DC Area 1997 8-Hour Moderate Ozone
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland,
and the Commonwealth of Virginia (the States). These revisions pertain
to the 2002 base year emissions inventory, the reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan, RFP contingency measure, and reasonably available
control measure (RACM) requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the
Washington, DC area moderate 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
(Washington Area). EPA is also proposing to approve the transportation
conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) associated with this
revision. EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revisions because they
satisfy the emission inventory, RFP, RACM, RFP contingency measures,
and transportation conformity requirements for areas classified as
moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) and demonstrate further progress in reducing
ozone precursors. This action is being taken under the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2010-0475 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0475, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2010-0475. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index.

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in
hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the District of Columbia Department of the Environment,
Air Quality Division, 51 N Street, NE., Fifth Floor, Washington, DC
20002; the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington
Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230; and the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond,
Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria A. Pino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is provided to aid in locating
information in this document.

Table of Contents

I. What is the background of this action?
II. What is EPA's evaluation of the revision?
III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
IV. What action is EPA proposing?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this action?

    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it
at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA
set the 8-hour ozone standard based on scientific evidence
demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone
concentrations and over longer periods of time, than was understood
when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was set. EPA determined
that the 8-hour standard would be more protective of human health,
especially children and adults who are active outdoors, and individuals
with a pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became effective on June 15,
2004. Among those nonattainment areas is the Washington Area. The
Washington Area includes the District of Columbia (the District);
Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties and the cities
of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park in
Virginia (the Northern Virginia area) and Calvert, Charles, Frederick,
Montgomery, and Prince George's Counties in Maryland. Pursuant to Phase
1 of the 1997 8-hour ozone implementation rule (Phase 1 rule),
published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), an area was classified under
Subpart 2 of the CAA based on its 8-hour design value if that area had
a 1-hour design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design
value in Table 1 of Subpart 2). Based on this criterion, the Washington
Area was classified under Subpart 2 as a moderate nonattainment area.
See 40 CFR 81.309, 81.321, and 81.347.
    These designations triggered the CAA's section 110(a)(1)
requirement that states must submit attainment demonstrations for their
nonattainment areas to EPA by no later than three years after the
promulgation of a NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA's Phase 1 specifies that
states must submit attainment demonstrations for their nonattainment
areas to the EPA by no later than three years from the effective date
of designation, that is, by June 15, 2007.
    On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), as revised on June 8, 2007 (72
FR 31727), EPA published the Phase 2 final rule for implementation of
the 1997 8-hour standard (Phase 2 rule). The Phase 2 rule addressed the
RFP control and planning obligations as they apply to areas designated
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Among other things, the Phase 1 and 2 rules outline the SIP
requirements and deadlines for various requirements in areas designated
as moderate nonattainment. The rules further require that modeling and
attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress plans,
reasonably available control measures, projection year emission
inventories, motor vehicle emissions budgets, and contingency measures
were all due by June 15, 2007 (40 CFR 51.908(a), (c)).
    Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and EPA's 1997 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (40 CFR 51.910) require each 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area designated moderate and above to submit an emissions
inventory and RFP Plan for review and approval into its SIP.

II. What is EPA's evaluation of the revision?

    The District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE), the
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), and the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) worked together to develop
a joint plan for the Washington Area to address the attainment
demonstration, 2002 base year emissions inventory, the RFP plan, RFP
contingency measure, and RACM requirements. This plan, entitled ``Plan
to Improve Air Quality in the Washington, DC-MD-VA Region, State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-Hour Ozone Standard, Moderate Area
SIP,'' will be referred to as ``the Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan''
throughout this document. The Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan was
submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision by DDOE on June 12, 2007, by MDE
on June 4, 2007, and by VADEQ on June 12, 2007. These SIP revisions
also establish a MVEB for 2008 for the Washington Area. These SIP
revisions were subject to notice and comment by the public and the
States addressed the comments received on the proposed SIPs. All
sections of these SIP submittals, with the exception of the attainment
demonstration, will be discussed in this rulemaking. The attainment
demonstration sections of the SIP submittals will be discussed in a
separate rulemaking.

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory

    An emissions inventory, required by section 172(c)(3) of the CAA,
is a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions
from all sources. For ozone nonattainment areas, the emissions
inventory needs to contain volatile organic compound (VOC) and oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) emissions because these pollutants are
precursors to ozone formation. EPA recommended 2002 as the base year
emissions inventory, and is therefore the starting point for
calculating RFP. A summary of the Washington Area 2002 base year VOC
and NOX emissions inventories is included in Table 1, below.

  Table 1--Washington Area 2002 Base-Year VOC Emissions in Tons per Day
                                  (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Emission source  category                 VOC        NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................................      12.91      220.6
Stationary Area...................................     192.64      24.25
Non-Road Mobile...................................     125.79      85.72
On-Road Mobile....................................     116.94     266.65
                                                   ---------------------

    Total (excluding Biogenics)...................     448.28     597.22
                                                   =====================
Biogenics.........................................     314.74       3.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA reviewed the 2002 base year inventory for the Washington Area and
determined that the procedures, methodologies, and results used to
develop the Washington Area 2002 base year inventory are approvable.

B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory, 2008 RFP Target Levels

    The process for determining the emissions baseline from which the
RFP reductions are calculated is described in section 182(b)(1) of the
CAA and 40 CFR 51.910. This baseline value has been determined to be
the 2002 adjusted base year inventory. Sections 182(b)(1)(B) and (D)
require the exclusion from the base year inventory of emissions
benefits resulting from the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
(FMVCP) regulations promulgated by January 1, 1990 and the Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) regulations promulgated June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666). The
FMVCP and RVP emissions reductions are determined by the state using
EPA's on-road mobile source emissions modeling software, MOBILE6. The
FMVCP and RVP emission reductions are then removed from the base year
inventory by the state, resulting in an adjusted base year inventory.
The emission reductions needed to satisfy the RFP requirement are then
calculated from the adjusted base year inventory. These reductions are
then subtracted from the adjusted base year inventory to establish the
emissions target for the RFP milestone year (2008).
    For moderate areas like the Washington Area, the CAA specifies a 15
percent reduction in ozone precursor emissions over an initial 6-year
period. In the Phase 2 Rule (70 FR 71612), EPA interpreted this
requirement for areas that were also designated nonattainment and
classified as moderate or higher for the 1-hour ozone standard. In the
Phase 2 Rule, EPA provided that an area classified as moderate or
higher that has the same boundaries as an area, or is entirely composed
of several areas or portions of areas, for which EPA fully approved a
15 percent plan for the 1-hour NAAQS, is considered to have met the
requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA for the 8-hour NAAQS. In
this situation, a moderate nonattainment area is subject to RFP under
section 172(c)(2) of the CAA and shall submit, no later than 3 years
after designation for the 8-hour NAAQS, a SIP revision that meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.910(b)(2). The RFP SIP revision must provide
for a 15 percent emission reduction (either NOX and/or VOC)
accounting for any growth that occurs during the 6-year period
following the baseline emissions inventory year, that is, 2002-2008.
    The Washington nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone standard
was classified as severe. For the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA fully
approved the 15 percent ROP plans for the Washington, DC 1-hour severe
ozone nonattainment area on August 5, 1999 (64 FR 42600), July 44686),
and October 6, 2000 (65 FR 59727). Therefore, according to the Phase 2
Rule, the RFP plan for the Washington Area may use either
NOX or VOC emissions reductions (or both) to achieve the 15
percent emission reduction requirement.
    According to section 182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA, emission reductions
that resulted from the FMVCP and RVP rules promulgated prior to 1990
are not creditable for achieving RFP emission reductions. Therefore,
the 2002 base year inventory must be adjusted by subtracting the VOC
and NOX emission reductions that are expected to occur
between 2002 and the future milestone years due to the FMVCP and RVP
rules.
    The States set out the calculations for the adjusted base year
inventory and 2008 RFP target levels. The Washington Area 2002
anthropogenic base year inventory is shown in Table 2, below.

     Table 2--Washington Area 2002 Anthropogenic Base Year Inventory
                           [Ozone season tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source category                      VOC         NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................................      12.91      220.6
Area.............................................     192.64       24.25
Nonroad..........................................     125.79       85.72
On-Road..........................................     116.94      266.65
                                                  ----------------------
    Total........................................     448.28      597.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The States calculated the non-creditable emission reductions between
2002 and 2008 by modeling its 2002 and 2008 motor vehicle emissions
with all post-1990 CAA measures turned off, and calculating the
difference, as shown below in Table 3.

       Table 3--Washington Area Non-Creditable Emission Reductions
                           [Ozone season tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Source category                      VOC        NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) 2002 On-Road..................................     166.55     308.24
(ii) 2008 On-Road.................................     154.10     276.63
Non-creditable Reductions (i)-(ii)................      12.45      31.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's calculations of the Washington Area 2002 VOC inventory
adjusted to 2008 and the VOC target level for 2008 are summarized in
Table 4, below.

       Table 4--Washington Area 2008 RFP Target Level Calculations
                           [Ozone season tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Description                       Formula           VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A--2002 Rate-Of Progress Base Year       ....................     448.28
 Inventory.
B--FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002     ....................      12.45
 And 2008.
C--2002 Adjusted Base Year Inventory     A-B.................     435.83
 Relative To 2008.
D--RFP Ratio...........................  ....................        15%
E--Emissions Reductions Required         C * D...............      65.37
 Between 2002 & 2008.
F--Target Level for 2008...............  C - E...............     370.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The States elected to meet RFP in the Washington Area using only
VOC reductions. A moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area with an
approved 15 percent ROP plan under the 1-hour standard can use
reductions from VOC or NOX or a combination of either.

C. Projected Inventories and Determination of RFP

    The States described the methods used for developing its 2008
projected

VOC and NOX inventories and developed projected uncontrolled
and controlled 2008 VOC and NOX emissions. EPA reviewed the
procedures used to develop the projected inventories and found them to
be reasonable.
    Projected controlled 2008 emissions for the Washington Area are
summarized in Table 5, below.

 Table 5--Washington Area 2008 Projected Controlled VOC & NOX Emissions
                                  (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       VOC        NOX
             Emission source  category              emissions  emissions
                                                      (tpd)      (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................................      13.98     229.36
Area..............................................     181.59      26.93
Nonroad...........................................      92.48      76.91
Mobile............................................      70.98     160.30
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................     358.84     493.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine if 2008 RFP is met in the Washington Area, the total
projected controlled emissions must be compared to the target levels
calculated in Section B of this notice. As shown below in Table 6, the
total VOC emission projections meet the 2008 RFP emission target.
Therefore, the 2008 RFP in the Washington Area is demonstrated.

 Table 6--Determination of Whether RFP Is Met in 2008 in the Washington
                                  Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  VOC
                         Description                           emissions
                                                                 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A--Total 2008 Projected Controlled Emissions.................     358.84
B--Target Level for 2008.....................................     370.45
RFP met if A < B.............................................        Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Control Measures and Emission Reductions for RFP

    To meet the RFP requirement for the Washington Area, the States
used a combination of area source control, nonroad mobile, and on-road
mobile measures.
    The area source measures the States used to meet 2008 RFP in the
Washington Area include the mobile repair and refinishing rule, phase I
of the portable fuel containers rule, the architectural and industrial
maintenance (AIM) coatings rule, phase I of the reformulated consumer
products rule, and the solvent cleaning operations rule. Area source
2008 emission reductions are 30.98 tpd VOC and 0 tpd NOX.
    Nonroad measures include phase I and II emissions standards for
gasoline-powered nonroad utility engines, the Federal non-road diesel
engines rule, Federal emissions standards for spark ignition marine
engines, Federal emissions standards for large spark ignition engines,
and Federal reformulated gasoline use in nonroad motor vehicles and
equipment. Using EPA's NONROAD model, the States calculated emission
reductions from these measures to be 36.91 tpd VOC and 11.68 tpd
NOX. EPA reviewed the procedures that the State's used to
develop its projected inventories, including the use of the NONROAD
model, and found them to be reasonable.
    On-road mobile measures include high-tech vehicle inspection and
maintenance (enhanced I/M), Federal tier I vehicle emission standards
and new Federal evaporative test procedures, the national low emission
vehicle (NLEV) program, tier 2 vehicle standards, and the heavy duty
diesel engine (HDDE) rule. On-road 2008 emission reductions that the
States calculated using EPA's MOBILE model are 6.19 tpd VOC and 29.67
tpd NOX. EPA reviewed the procedures that the States used to
develop the projected inventories, including the use of the MOBILE
model, and found them to be reasonable.
    Additional measures include national standards for locomotives,
transportation control measures (TCMs) and vehicle technology, fuel, or
maintenance measures, and a voluntary bundle. Table 7 summarizes the
VOC emission reductions that the States claimed in the Washington Area
8-hour ozone plan to meet RFP in the Washington Area. While many of the
emission control measures used to meet RFP also resulted in
NOX emission reductions, the States elected to meet RFP in
the Washington Area using only VOC reductions.

    Table 7--VOC Control Measures and 2008 Emission Reductions in the
                             Washington Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Control measure                         VOC (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Sources Measures........................................      30.98
Nonroad Measures (NONROAD Model).............................      36.91
Onroad Measures (MOBILE Model)...............................       6.19
Locomotive Standards.........................................       0.05
Transportation Control Measures..............................       0.19
Voluntary Bundle.............................................       0.19
                                                              ----------
    Total....................................................      74.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Contingency Measures for Failure To Meet RFP

    Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires a state with a moderate or
above ozone nonattainment area to include sufficient additional
contingency measures in its RFP plan in case the area fails to meet
RFP. The same provision of the CAA also requires that the contingency
measures must be fully adopted control measures or rules. Upon failure
to meet an RFP milestone requirement, the state must be able to
implement the contingency measures without any further rulemaking
activities. Upon implementation of such measures, additional emission
reductions of at least 3 percent of the adjusted 2002 baseline
emissions must be achieved. For more information on contingency
measures, see the April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 13512) and the
November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour ozone implementation rule (70 FR
71612).
    To meet the requirements for contingency emission reductions, EPA
allows states to use NOX emission reductions to substitute
for VOC emission reductions in their contingency plans. However, the
States chose to use only VOC reductions to meet the contingency measure
requirement in the Washington Area. The States calculated the
contingency VOC reduction for the Washington Area as shown in Table 8,
below. The RFP contingency requirement may be met by including in the
RFP plan a demonstration of 18 percent VOC & NOX RFP. The
additional 3 percent reduction above the 15 percent requirement must be
attributed to specific measures.

   Table 8--Washington Area 2008 RFP Contingency Measure Target Level
                              Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Description                Formula           VOC        NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A--2002 Rate-Of Progress Base  ...................     448.28     597.22
 Year Inventory.
B--FMVCP/RVP Reductions        ...................      12.45      31.61
 Between 2002 and 2008.

C--2002 Adjusted Base Year     A - B..............     435.83     565.61
 Inventory Relative To 2008.
D--RFP Ratio.................  ...................        15%          0
E--RFP Emissions Reductions    C * D..............      65.37          0
 Required Between 2002 & 2008.
F--Contingency Percentage....  ...................       0.3%       2.7%
G--Contingency Emission        C * F..............       1.31      15.27
 Reduction Requirements.
H--Contingency Measure Target  C - E - G..........     369.15     550.34
 Level for 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine if the States meet the three percent contingency
measure requirement for the Washington Area, the total projected
controlled emissions must be compared to the contingency measure target
levels calculated above. As shown below in Table 9, the total VOC and
NOX emission projections meet the 2008 contingency measure
targets. Therefore, the States have met the contingency measure
requirement for the Washington Area.

 Table 9--Evaluation of the Washington Area 2008 RFP Contingency Measure
                               Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Description                     VOC (tpd)  NOX (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A--Total 2008 Projected Controlled Emissions......     358.84     493.22
B--Contingency Measure Target Level for 2008......     369.15     550.34
Contingency measure requirement met if A < B......        Yes        Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. RACM Analysis and Determination

    Pursuant to section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, states are required to
implement all RACM as expeditiously as practicable for each
nonattainment area. Specifically, section 172(c)(1) states the
following: ``In general--Such plan provisions shall provide for the
implementation of all reasonably available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions
from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the
adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology) and
shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air
quality standards.'' Furthermore, in EPA's Phase 2 Rule, EPA describes
how states must include a RACM analysis with their attainment
demonstration (70 FR 71659). The purpose of the RACM analysis is to
determine whether or not reasonably available control measures exist
that would advance the attainment date for nonattainment areas. Control
measures that would advance the attainment date are considered RACM and
must be included in the SIP. RACM are necessary to ensure that the
attainment date is achieved ``as expeditious as practicable.'' RACM is
defined by the EPA as any potential control measure for application to
point, area, on-road and nonroad emission source categories that meets
the following criteria:
     The control measure is technologically feasible;
     The control measure is economically feasible;
     The control measure does not cause ``substantial
widespread and long-term adverse impacts;''
     The control measure is not ``absurd, unenforceable, or
impracticable;'' and
     The control measure can advance the attainment date by at
least one year.
    The States evaluated 322 potential stationary, area, nonroad, and
mobile source control measures against the RACM criteria. Several
measures would have provided some emission reductions. However, the
States determined that none of the mandatory measures would achieve
reductions in the 2008 ozone season. Therefore, the States concluded
that there are no RACM appropriate to advance the Washington Area's
attainment date.
    EPA has reviewed the States' analysis. To meet the RACM
requirement, the States must demonstrate that it has adopted all RACM
necessary to move the Washington Area toward attainment as
expeditiously as practicable and to meet all RFP requirements. As
demonstrated above in section IV of this document, the States have met
the RFP requirements for the Washington Area.
    The States evaluated all source categories that could contribute
meaningful emission reductions, and compiled an extensive list of
potential control measures. Furthermore, the States considered the time
needed to develop and adopt regulations and the time it would take to
see the benefit from these measures. While the States found that the
measures could not be used to advance the Washington Area's attainment
date, the State's determined that many of the measures were useful and
would be considered for future SIPs for the Washington Area. Therefore,
EPA concurs with the States' conclusion that there are no RACM that
would have advanced the 2010 attainment date for the Washington Area.

G. Transportation Conformity Budgets

    Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). EPA's
conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs and
projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and
establishes the criteria and procedure for determining whether or not
they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will
not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
The criteria by which EPA determines whether a SIP's MVEBs are adequate
for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The
process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets is
described in 40 CFR 93.118(f).
    States must establish VOC and NOX MVEBs for each of the
milestone years up to the attainment year and submit the mobile budgets
to EPA for approval. Upon adequacy determination or approval by EPA,
states must conduct transportation conformity analysis for their
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and long range
transportation plans to ensure highway vehicle emissions will not
exceed relevant MVEBs. Failure to demonstrate such transportation
conformity lapses results in freezing of Federal highway funds and all
Federal highway projects in the lapsed area.
    The States discuss transportation conformity in Section 8.0 of the
Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan. The States describe their methods
and provide detailed input parameters used in modeling the inventories
in Appendices E1 and E2 of the Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan. In
the Washington Area, the Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee
(MWAQC) consults with the Transportation Planning Board (TPB) to
establish mobile source emissions

budgets. The Washington Area MVEB for the 2008 RFP is based on the
projected 2008 mobile source emissions, accounting for all mobile
control measures. The budgets are equal to the projected 2008 on-road
mobile source emission inventories minus reductions from transportation
control measures. The MVEBs for the 2008 RFP are shown in Table 10,
below.

                Table 10--Washington Area 2008 RFP MVEBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       VOC        NOX
                                                      (tpd)      (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Projected Controlled Mobile Emissions.........      70.98     160.30
(B) Transportation Control Measures...............       0.19       0.49
(A)-(B)...........................................      70.79     159.81
MVEB (rounded to nearest 0.1 tpd).................      70.8      159.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, EPA's
adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). In a September 4, 2009 Federal
Register notice, EPA notified the public that EPA found that the 2008
RFP MVEBs in the Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes (74 FR 45853). As a result of EPA's
finding, the States must use the MVEBs from the Washington Area 8-hour
ozone plan for future conformity determinations for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard.

    In addition to the budgets being adequate for transportation
conformity purposes, EPA found the procedures the States used to
develop the MVEBs to be reasonable. Because the 2008 RFP MVEBs are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes and the methods the
States used to develop them are correct, the 2008 RFP budgets are
approvable.

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) That are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information required by Federal law to maintain program delegation,
authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce Federally
authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent
than their Federal counterparts * * *.'' The opinion concludes that
``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other
information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these
programs could not be privileged because such documents and information
are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal
law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA has reviewed the 2002 base year emissions inventory; the 2008
ozone projected emission inventory; the 2008 RFP plan; RFP contingency
measures; RACM analysis; and 2008 transportation conformity budgets
contained in the Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan, and found that
those elements fully addressed the CAA's requirements. Therefore, EPA
is proposing approval of those elements, which were submitted to EPA as
a SIP revision by DDOE on June 12, 2007, by MDE on June 4, 2007, and by
VADEQ on June 12, 2007. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule pertaining to the 2002 base year
emissions inventory, the 2008 ozone projected emission inventory, the
2008 RFP plan; RFP contingency measures, RACM analysis, and 2008
transportation conformity budgets for the Washington Area does not have
tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 15, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011-16376 Filed 6-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18973-18974]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07080]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR13-40-000]

Bridgeline Holdings, L.P.; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

    Take notice that on February 28, 2013, as supplemented on March 12,
2013, Bridgeline Holdings, L.P. filed for approval of rates for
transportation services provided pursuant to 284.123(b)(2) of the
Commissions

regulations, as more fully detailed in the petition.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate 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 date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online 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 email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 1, 2013.

    Dated: March 21, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07080 Filed 3-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52293-52294]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24457]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-239-000]

GSP Lost Nation LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
GSP Lost Nation LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 24, 2017.
    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
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic 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
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 3, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24457 Filed 11-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 24)]
[Notices]
[Page 6071-6072]
[DOCID:fr05fe10-134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-9104; 34-61462; File No. 265-25-03]

Investor Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting of SEC Investor Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory
Committee is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting on
Monday, February 22, 2010, in the Multipurpose Room, L-006, at the
Commission's main offices, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC. The
meeting will begin at 9 a.m. (EST) and will be open to the public. The
Committee meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at

http://www.sec.gov. Persons needing special accommodations to take part
because of a disability should notify a contact person listed below.
The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee.
    The agenda for the meeting includes: (i) Consideration of a
Committee recusal policy; (ii) report from the Education Subcommittee,
including a presentation on the National Financial Capability Survey;
(iii) report from the Investor as Purchaser Subcommittee, including a
discussion of fiduciary duty and mandatory arbitration; (iv) report
from the Investor as Owner Subcommittee, including recommendations for
the Committee on Regulation FD and proxy voting transparency, as well
as reports on a work plan for environmental, social, and governance
disclosure and on financial reform legislation; and (v) discussion of
next steps and closing comments.

DATES: Written statements should be received on or before February 16,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Written statements may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet submission form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail message to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number 265-25-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper statements in triplicate to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. 265-25-03. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
process and review your statements more efficiently, please use only
one method. The Commission will post all statements on the Advisory
Committee's Web site (http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/
investoradvisorycommittee.shtml). Statements are available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. All statements received will be posted
without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kayla J. Gillan, Deputy Chief of
Staff, Office of the Chairman, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Owen Donley, Chief
Counsel, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-6561.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 10(a) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 1, section 10(a), Kayla
J. Gillan, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, has approved
publication of this notice.

    Dated: February 2, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-2519 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


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

EPA Registration Division contact: [insert name and telephone number with area code]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

Nichino America, Inc., 4550 Linden Hill Rd., Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (9F8809) from Nichino America, Inc., 4550 Linden Hill Rd., Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808 requesting, 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

(Options (pick one))        	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of

	[Pyraclonil 1-(3-chloro-4,5,6,7-tetrahydropyrazolo[1,5-a]pyridin-2-yl)-5-[methyl(prop-2-ynyl)amino]pyrazole-4-carbonitrile] in or on the raw agricultural commodity Rice, grain at 0.01 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

	1. Plant metabolism. [A metabolism study was conducted with [3-pyrazole-[14]C]pyraclonil (P-label) and [3a-pyrazolyl-[14]C]pyraclonil (PP-label) to determine the nature and amount of residue uptake in rice after application to the paddy water at the 2.5 leaf stage.  The test substance was prepared to mimic a granular formulation application at a target rate of 0.18 lb a.i./A (200 g a.i./ha) and applied to the two treated plots (one for each label).  Two harvests, one at an immature stage (day 42) and the other at final harvest (day 113), were conducted.  The radioactive residue at the immature forage harvest was 0.326 and 0.366 mg eq/kg and increased approximately 5X to 1.39 and 1.61 mg eq/kg by the final harvest.  The radioactive residue in brown rice was very low (0.007 mg eq/kg).  In addition, most of the radioactive residue in brown rice (60.8% and 62.2%) and approximately half of the residue in straw (52.7% and 52.1%) was unextractable and was determined to be incorporated into proteins and starch.  No single compound exceeded 10% formation in any of the plant matrices (at immature or mature harvest).  The minor metabolites, PM-5 and PM-7, and other hydroxides of pyraclonil were identified.]

	2. Analytical method. [A method validation was performed to validate the method of analysis for pyraclonil and the metabolites M-1, PM-5, and PM-7 in the raw agricultural commodity (RAC) rice grain.  The LOQ for pyraclonil and each of the metabolites was 0.01 mg/kg (0.01 ppm).  Independent laboratory validation was performed of the methodology for the determination of residues of pyraclonil and the metabolites M-1, PM-5, and PM-7 in rice grain.  An LOQ of 0.01 mg/kg was achieved for each analyte and the validation was successful for pyraclonil, M-1, PM-5, and PM-7, monitoring two ion mass transitions per analyte. The independent laboratory validation met the criteria detailed in EPA OCSPP 860.1340.]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [Magnitude of the residue field trials for rice were conducted with one granular application of pyraclonil at a rate of 0.268 lb ai/A (equivalent to 0.3 kg ai/ha) to the flooded paddy immediately after seeding.  Plots treated at 3X or 5X rate were also included in case processing was needed.  At 99-152 days after the application, all rice residues were found to be non-detect (ND) or less than the limit of detection (<LOD) for pyraclonil, M-1, PM-5, and PM-7 on all samples except for one sample where residues of PM-5 were between the LOD and limit of quantitation (LOQ).  The duplicate treated sample from this same trial had ND residues for all analytes, including PM-5.  The results also show that after one application of pyraclonil at a 5X rate of 1.34 lb ai/A (1.50 kg ai/ha), residues of pyraclonil, M-1, PM-5, and PM-7 in the rice grain RAC collected for processing were ND and therefore the processing phase was not required.  In the decline trials all residues were similarly ND for all analytes in all samples at all time intervals.]

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  [Pyraclonil demonstrates low oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity. The acute oral LD50 values in the rat were 3,053 mg/kg bw for both sexes combined, 4,979 mg/kg for males and 1,127 mg/kg for females.  The acute dermal LD50 value was greater than 2,000 mg/kg bw.  The acute inhalation LC50 value in the rat was greater than 4.97 mg/L (4-hr).  Pyraclonil is not irritating to the eyes or skin.  Pyraclonil did not demonstrate any potential for skin sensitization.  For the acute neurotoxicity study, mortality and clinical signs were reported at 1,500 mg/kg bw for males and 400 mg/kg/day for females.  There were no test substance-related effects on brain weights or brain dimensions for perfused animals.  In addition, no test substance-related neuropathological lesions were observed.  Based on mortality and clinical observations following a single oral dose of pyraclonil, the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of a single oral dose of pyraclonil to rats in this study was 400 mg/kg bw for males and 150 mg/kg bw females.]

	2. Genotoxicity. [Pyraclonil was tested in a standard battery of genotoxicity and mutagenicity tests in vitro and in vivo.  There was no indication of gene mutation either in the presence or absence of metabolic activation in both the bacterial reverse mutation and mammalian gene cell mutation tests.  The in vitro chromosome aberration in both Chinese Hamster Lung (CHL) cells and human lymphocytes demonstrated positive results, although the latest study CHL study conducted in 2018 was negative with and without metabolic activation.  The in vivo mouse bone marrow chromosome aberration and mouse erythrocyte micronucleus tests were negative.  These studies demonstrate that pyraclonil has no mutagenic or genotoxic potential in vivo.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [Pyraclonil is not considered to be a reproductive or a developmental toxicant.  In the rat two-generation reproduction study, the NOAEL for parental systemic and offspring parameters was 7.3 mg/kg bw/day for males and 11.1 mg/kg bw/day for females.  Parental effects included increased incidences of thyroid follicular cell hypertrophy in both sexes of the P and F1 generations, and offspring effects included decreased pup body weights.  Decreases in implantation sites and the number of pups born in F1 females were not treatment-related effects.  All offspring effects occurred in the presence of overt parental toxicity and were considered to be secondary to parental toxicity.

In the rat developmental toxicity study, the NOAEL for maternal and prenatal developmental toxicity was 26 mg/kg bw/day.  At dose levels of 225 mg/kg bw/day both maternal animals and fetuses had reduced body weights, additionally fetuses had decreased cervical ossification.  In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, the NOAEL for maternal and prenatal developmental toxicity was 24 mg/kg bw/day.  At dose levels of 200 mg/kg bw/day, increased post-implantation loss, increased early intrauterine deaths, and decreased number of implantations were observed and attributed to both maternal and developmental toxicity. Additionally, fetuses had increased skeletal variations of the skull and sternebrae.  All developmental effects occurred in the presence of overt maternal toxicity.]

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [The subchronic toxicity studies with pyraclonil include 28-day oral toxicity studies with rats, mice, and dogs and 90-day feeding studies with rats, mice, and dogs.  The most sensitive subchronic endpoint was observed following 90-days of administration to rats.  In this study, the NOAEL was 2.2 mg/kg bw/day in males and 2.44 mg/kg bw/day in females based on increased absolute and relative thyroid weights and thyroid follicular cell hypertrophy in both sexes observed at LOAELs of 108 and 120 mg/kg bw/day in males and females, respectively.]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [The oncogenic potential of pyraclonil was assessed in both the rat and the mouse.  In the rat combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study, the NOAEL over a 24-month period of dietary administration with pyraclonil to the rats was 44 mg/kg kg/day for males and 58 mg/kg kg/day for females based on increased TSH in both sexes, non-statistically significant, but slight dose-dependent increases thyroid weights in both sexes, and thyroid follicular cell hypertrophy in females at 52 weeks.  The incidence of the thyroid follicular cell tumors is within historical controls.  In the mouse carcinogenicity study, the NOAEL was 210 mg/kg bw/day for males and 87 mg/kg bw/day for females based on based on increased incidence of foci of cellular alteration (eosinophilic) in the liver of female rats.  An increase in liver tumors were observed in female mice.  The NOAEL for the dog 1-year study was 5 mg/kg bw/day based on decreased body weight at 50 mg/kg bw/day in both sexes.]

	6. Animal metabolism. [The metabolism of pyraclonil in animals is adequately understood. Pyraclonil was extensively metabolized and readily eliminated following oral administration to rodent (rat), poultry (laying hen), and ruminant (lactating goat) via excreta.  All three animals exhibited a similar pathway.  The parent chemical (pyraclonil) was metabolized or conjugated to many metabolites.  Since residues were not detected in the feed items, no methods were developed for the metabolites observed in the livestock metabolism studies.]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [The acute oral toxicity study, bacterial reverse mutation assay, and qualitative structure-activity-relationship ((Q)SAR) modeling are available for the environmental degradates M-1 (1-(3-chloro-4,5,6,7-tetrahydropyrazolo[1,5-α]pyridin-2-yl)-5-(methylamino)pyrazole-4-carbonitrile) and M-11 ((1-(3-chloro-4,5,6,7-tetrahydropyrazolo[1,5-α]pyridin-2-yl)-5-[methyl(prop-2-enyl)amino]pyrazole-4-carbonitrile).  In the acute oral toxicity studies in female rats, the oral LD50s were >300 and <2,000 mg/kg for both M-1 and M-11.  The results of the bacterial reverse mutation assay were negative with and without metabolic activation for both M-1 and M-11.  Derek Nexus (Q)SAR modeling was conducted using Derek Nexus v6.0.1 from Lhasa Limited for parent pyraclonil and both M-1 and M-11.  Based on the Derek modeling results, the degradates M-1 and M-11 contain no unique toxicity alerts when compared to the parent compound.  Based on the available acute oral toxicity studies, bacterial reverse mutation assays, Derek (Q)SAR modeling, and structural similarity of M-1 and M-11 to pyraclonil, the environmental degradates M-1 and M-11 are of equal toxicity to pyraclonil.]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [An evaluation of the potential effects on the endocrine systems of mammals has not been determined; however, no evidence of such effects was reported in the subchronic, chronic, or reproductive toxicology studies described above.  Thyroid effects were reported only in rats in the toxicological database and were secondary to liver effects.  Based on dietary and occupational risk assessments, the available points of departure (PODs) for chronic dietary and occupational exposure are protective of any potential thyroid effects.  .  There is no evidence that pyraclonil causes endocrine effects.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [Tier 1 acute and chronic aggregate exposure assessments were conducted for pyraclonil using Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID[TM], version 4.02; DEEM). A tolerance has been proposed for residues of pyraclonil on rice, grain. No adjustments were made for "percent crop treated" (i.e. 100% CT was assumed). The drinking water estimates selected for use in the dietary exposure assessment were the higher of the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for surface and ground water. All consumption data for these assessments were taken from USDA NHANES 2-day Food Consumption Data for 2005-2010. Using the above assumptions, the resulting acute and chronic exposure estimates were 0.90% of the aPAD and 0.2% of the cPAD, respectively, for the most highly exposed sub-population (all infants).  At the 95th percentile, acute (food + drinking water) exposure to females 13-49 resulted in 1.62% of the aPAD.]

	i. Food. Acute Dietary Exposure [The pyraclonil acute dietary (food + drinking water) risk assessment for the general population was performed using an acute reference dose (aRfDGenPop) of 1.5 mg/kg bw based upon mortality and clinical effects in the acute neurotoxicity study in rats with a No Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 150 mg/kg bw and an uncertainty factor of 100X.  The 100X safety factor includes intra- and inter- species variability; no additional FQPA safety factor was required.  The pyraclonil acute dietary (food + drinking water) risk assessment for the females 13+ was performed using an acute reference dose (aRfDFemales 13+) of 0.24 mg/kg bw/day based on increased post-implantation loss, increased early intrauterine deaths, and decreased number of implantations in a rabbit developmental toxicity study (early intrauterine deaths may be the result a single dose effect).  The NOAEL for the aRfDfemales 13+ is 24 mg/kg bw/day with an uncertainty factor of 100X.  The 100X safety factor includes 10X intra- and 10X inter- species variability; no additional FQPA safety factor was required.  At the 95th percentile, acute (food + drinking water) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in 0.003929 mg/kg/day which accounts for 0.26% of the aRfD of 1.5 mg/kg bw/day.  At the 95th percentile, acute (food + drinking water) exposure to all infants (the most highly exposed subpopulation) resulted in 0.013444 mg/kg/day which accounts for 0.90% of the aRfD of 1.5 mg/kg bw/day. At the 95th percentile, acute (food + drinking water) exposure to females 13-49 resulted in 0.003880 mg/kg/day which accounts for 1.62% of the aRfD of 0.24 mg/kg/day.  Since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the aRfD, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dietary (food + drinking water) exposure to residues arising from the proposed uses for pyraclonil.]

Chronic Dietary Exposure:  The pyraclonil chronic dietary (food + drinking water) risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups using a cRfD of 0.243 mg/kg bw/day based increased incidences of thyroid follicular cell hypertrophy in a 2-generation rat reproduction study.  The NOAEL for the cRfD is 7.3 mg/kg bw/day with an uncertainty factor of 30X.  The 30X safety factor includes 3X intra- and 10X inter-species variability based on effects being limit to thyroid effects in rats only; no additional FQPA safety factor was required.  Chronic (food + drinking water) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in 0.000137 mg/kg/day which accounts for 0.1% of the RfD of 0.243 mg/kg/day. The most highly exposed sub-population was all infants with 0.000511 mg/kg/day which accounts for 0.2% of the RfD of 0.243 mg/kg/day.  Since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dietary (food + drinking water) exposure to residues arising from the proposed uses for pyraclonil.]

	ii. Drinking water. [Exponent modeled the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for the proposed uses of pyraclonil according to EPA standard methods using EPA's latest PWC model (v 1.52).  Of all the EDWCs predicted for surface water and ground water screening, the highest daily value (peak) EDWC of 73.7 ppb and the highest post breakthrough average EDWC of 6.66 ppb were used in the acute and chronic dietary risk assessments, respectively.  The acute and chronic EDWCs were input directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct, all sources" and "water, indirect, all sources" to model the acute and chronic drinking water exposures. Acute and chronic exposure from drinking water are included in the dietary risk assessments described above.]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [Occupational exposure and risk assessments were conducted for all proposed agricultural uses of pyraclonil in the current petition.  Pyraclonil is applied as a granule to rice via aerial application. Applications to rice will be made at a maximum single application rate of 0.268 lb a.i./A with one application per year.  A dermal assessment was not conducted because no toxicity was observed in the 28-day dermal toxicity study with rats and there were no developmental effects or pup effects in the reproductive or developmental toxicity studies with the exception of pup body weight reduction which occurred in the presence of maternal toxicity.  The inhalation assessment was conducted at baseline (no respirator). The point of departure (POD) for occupational inhalation exposure is 7.3 mg/kg/day based on increased incidences of thyroid follicular cell hypertrophy in a 2-generation rat reproduction study.  The level of concern (LOC) for inhalation risk estimate is a MOE of 30 and includes 3X intra- and 10X inter-species variability based on effects being limit to thyroid effects in rats only. Baseline inhalation MOEs ranged from 1,400 to 12,000. Since the EPA generally has no concern for MOEs above the LOC, at there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from short- and intermediate-term occupational exposures arising from all proposed uses for pyraclonil.]

D. Cumulative Effects

	[Cumulative Exposure to Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity: 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". EPA consideration of a common mechanism of toxicity is not appropriate at this time since EPA does not have information to indicate that toxic effects produced by pyraclonil would be cumulative with those of any other chemical compounds; thus, only the potential risks of pyraclonil are considered in this exposure assessment.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [Using the conservative exposure assumptions described above and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the aggregate exposure (food + drinking water) to pyraclonil will utilize 0.26% of the aPAD and 0.1% of the cPAD for the general US population.  The aggregate exposure (food + drinking water) to pyraclonil will utilize 1.62% of the aPAD for females 13-49.  EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the aPAD or cPAD. Therefore, based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity database and the conservative exposure assessment, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues of pyraclonil.]

	2. Infants and children. [Using the conservative assumptions described above and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity database, the acute aggregate (food plus water) exposure calculation for all proposed uses of pyraclonil is equivalent to 0.90% (aPAD) and 0.2% (cPAD) for all infants. Since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the cRfD or aRfD, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to infants and children from aggregate exposures arising from all proposed uses for pyraclonil.]

F. International Tolerances [International tolerances have been established in Japan in brown rice and other cereal grains at an MRL of 0.05 ppm.  In Korea, an MRL is established at 0.05 mg/kg in rice grain.  A draft MRL in China at 0.3 mg/kg for paddy rice and brown rice has been established as a temporary limit.]


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 223 (Thursday, November 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 72427]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29515]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2192-022]

Consolidated Water Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Change in Land Rights and Non-Project Use of
Project Lands and Waters.
    b. Project No: 2192-022.
    c. Date Filed: July 8, 2014 and supplemented September 30, 2015.
    d. Applicant: Consolidated Water Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Biron Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Wisconsin River in Wood and Portage counties,
Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Thomas J. Witt, 610 High Street, P.O. Box
8050, Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54495-8050,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Jon Cofrancesco at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: December 15, 2015.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the
Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2192-022.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors 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 intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: By orders issued November 17, 2006 and
September 8, 2008, the Commission approved a proposed land exchange
involving specific lands within the project boundary and required
Consolidated Water Power Company (licensee) to fulfill certain
conditions related to the land exchange, such as measures to provide
for specific public benefits (i.e., increased public recreational and
access opportunities and a 100-foot-wide, approximately 3,000 linear
foot shoreline buffer). In its amendment application, the licensee
proposes changes to some of these conditions, including, among other
things: (1) Specific modifications and additions to various required
recreation and public access improvements, (2) a shoreline buffer plan
that would allow additional development within the buffer, including
several multi-slip boat docks and pedestrian paths, and (3) a reduction
in the width of the 100-foot-wide buffer to 50 feet wide for 300 feet
to accommodate existing restaurant improvements.
    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 (P-2192) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-
208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call (202) 502-
8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the
address in item (h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant.
    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, respectively. 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. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: November 13, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29515 Filed 11-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P