[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2497-2500]
[FR Doc No: 2012-820]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 1043

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0928; FRL-9619-1]
RIN 2060-XXXX

Great Lakes Steamship Repower Incentive Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to simplify an existing provision in our
marine diesel engine program that is intended to encourage owners of
Great Lakes steamships to repower those steamships with cleaner marine
diesel engines. The simplified program would automatically permit the
use of residual fuel, through December 31, 2025, in a steamship if it
has been repowered with a certified Tier 2 or later marine diesel
engine, provided the steamship was operated exclusively on the Great
Lakes and was in service on October 30, 2009. Steamships are powered by
old, inefficient steam boilers. Voluntary replacement of these boilers
with modern fuel-efficient marine diesel engines would result in
reductions of particulate matter and sulfur oxides, even while the
replacement diesel engines are operated on higher sulfur residual fuel,
and would provide human health and welfare benefits for the people who
live in the Great Lakes region. Conversion to new diesel engines would
also result in considerable carbon dioxide reductions and fuel savings.
In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, we
are making this modification to the Great Lakes steamship incentive
program as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we
receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this
proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received by February 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0928, by mail to: Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket,
Mail-code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/
courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section
of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal
Register.
    Public Hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a
public hearing on or before February 2, 2012, we will hold a public
hearing. Additional information about the hearing would be published in
a subsequent Federal Register notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Marie Revelt, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment
and Standards Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan
48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is EPA issuing this proposed rule?

    This document proposes to take action on our national marine diesel
emission control program. We have published a direct final rule to
simplify our Great Lakes steamship repower incentive program in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register because we
view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse
comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble
to the direct final rule.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw
the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all
public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule.
    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information, please see the ADDRESSES section of this
document.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    This action will affect companies that own steamships operating
exclusively on the Great Lakes that were in service on October 30,
2009. The following table gives some examples of entities that may be
affected by this rule; however, since these are only examples, you
should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct questions
regarding the applicability of this action as noted in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                       NAICS Codes \a\                         Examples of potentially regulated entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................              483113   Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation.
Industry......................................              483114   Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger Transportation.
Industry......................................              336611   Shipbuilding and repairing.
Industry......................................              811310   Engine repair, remanufacture, and maintenance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

III. Summary of Rule

    EPA's final rule for Category 3 marine engines \1\ and their fuels
(75 FR 22896, April 30, 2010) exempted steamships from the sulfur
limits that apply to fuel used in ships operating on the Great Lakes
\2\ beginning August 1, 2012 (40 CFR 1043.95(a)). This means steamships
can continue to operate indefinitely on high sulfur residual fuel.
However, because steamship engines have high emissions and low fuel
efficiency, we included a provision to encourage owners of Great Lakes
steamships to voluntarily replace their steam boilers with cleaner,
more fuel-efficient marine diesel engines (40 CFR 1043.95(b)(4)(iv)).
The current voluntary repower incentive is in the form of relief
through EPA's economic hardship program, through which an owner may
apply for a relaxation of the Great Lakes fuel sulfur limits for fuel
used by the repowered diesel ship for a defined period of time. The use
of lower price, higher sulfur residual fuel can help offset vessel
repower costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Category 3 marine engines are diesel engines with per
cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters.
    \2\ For the purpose of this program, ``Great Lakes'' means all
the streams, rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water that are
within the drainage basin of the St. Lawrence River, west of
Anticosti Island. (40 CFR 1043.20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that the goal of repowering the fleet of Great Lakes
steamships could be achieved more effectively by adding a new incentive
program to provide an automatic, time-limited fuel waiver for repowered
steamships. Instead of applying for relief through the economic
hardship program, Great Lakes steamship owners who voluntarily repower
their steamships with diesel engines would automatically qualify for a
waiver that would allow the use of residual fuel in the replacement
diesel engines that exceeds the global and ECA sulfur limits that
otherwise apply to the fuel used in marine diesel engines operated on
the U. S. portions of the Great Lakes. This automatic Great Lakes
steamship repower fuel waiver would be valid through December 31, 2025;
after that date, repowered steamships would be required to comply with
the Great Lakes ECA fuel sulfur limits for diesel engines.\3\ To
qualify for this automatic fuel sulfur waiver, the steamship must be
exempt from existing requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 1043.95(a) in that
it must operate exclusively on the Great Lakes and must have been in
service on October 30, 2009, where ``in service'' means operating as a
steamship, but is not limited to actually performing that service on
that day. In addition, the replacement engine must be a Tier 2 or
cleaner marine diesel engine as specified in 40 CFR 1042.104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Compliance can be through switching to ECA-compliant fuel or
through the installation and use of an exhaust gas cleaning system
(scrubber) or other technology or procedure that achieves equivalent
sulfur emissions. See Section V.C of the preamble for our Category 3
FRM for a discussion of compliance strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Voluntary replacement of steam engines with cleaner, more efficient
Tier 2 or better marine diesel engines through this modification to our
steamship repower incentive program would provide important air quality
and energy benefits immediately, due to the improved fuel efficiency of
the diesel engines, and even larger benefits in the long term, when the
repowered ships will use fuel that complies with the 1,000 ppm sulfur
limit on the Great Lakes.
    For additional discussion of the proposed rule changes, see the
direct final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of today's Federal Register. This proposal incorporates by
reference all the reasoning, explanation, and regulatory text from the
direct final rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This proposed rule would merely
add an automatic waiver provision to encourage Great Lakes steamship
owners to repower their vessels with cleaner marine diesel engines.
There are no costs associated with this proposed rule because steamship
owners are not required to repower their ships.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule will be
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
    The program contained in this rule is a voluntary incentive program
to encourage owners of Great Lakes steamship to repower their ships
with diesel engines. A steamship owner taking advantage of the
automatic fuel waiver is required to notify EPA's designated
certification officer of the intention to use this provision. The
notification must include a description of the project, the expected
timeline, and other relevant information. The owner is also required to
notify EPA's designated certification officer at completion of the
project. The purpose of the reporting is to ensure that a repower has
taken place, with a qualified EPA-certified engine. Because this
program is voluntary, a steamship owner would provide this information
only if the provision is exercised. When the project is completed, EPA
will provide the owner with a statement that the repowered ship is
covered by the steamship repower incentive program fuel sulfur waiver,
which is to be kept onboard for compliance purposes.
    There are potentially six companies affected, which own the twelve
remaining diesel steamships that operate on the Great Lakes. It is not
known how many of these companies will actually take advantage of the
waiver, or when they would repower. However, it is likely that the
repowers would occur prior to 2015, to maximize the fuel savings
afforded by the fuel sulfur waiver before it expires on December 31,
2025.
    The total estimated burden associated with the automatic steamship
repower incentive program is 14.0 hours annually. This is based on two
steamship owners repowering two steamships in each of three years and
an estimated 3.5 annual labor hours for each manufacturer to prepare
and submit the required information for

each ship. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business
primarily engaged in shipbuilding and repairing as defined by NAICS
code 336611 with 1,000 or fewer employees (based on Small Business
Administration size standards); (2) a small business that is primarily
engaged in freight or passenger transportation on the Great Lakes as
defined by NAICS codes 483113 and 483114 with 500 or fewer employees
(based on Small Business Administration size standards); (3) a small
business primarily engaged in commercial and industrial machinery and
equipment repair and maintenance with annual receipts less than $7
million (based on Small Business Administration size standards); (4) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (5) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    This proposed rule would merely add an automatic waiver provision
to encourage Great Lakes steamship owners to repower their vessels with
cleaner marine diesel engines. There are no costs and therefore no
regulatory burden associated with this rule because steamship owners
are not required to repower their ships and can continue using their
vessels indefinitely. This Great Lakes steamship repower incentive
program would assist those steamship owners who choose to voluntarily
repower their ships, however, by allowing them to use lower-price
residual fuel in the repowered diesel ship for a specified period of
time, which may help them cover the costs of the repower project. We
have therefore concluded that today's final rule will not increase
regulatory burden for affected small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed rule
would merely add an automatic waiver provision to encourage Great Lakes
steamship owners to repower their vessels with cleaner marine diesel
engines. None of the thirteen U.S. steamships operating on the Great
Lakes as of October 30, 2009 are owned or operated by a State, local,
or tribal government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It would not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed final rule would
merely add an automatic waiver provision to encourage Great Lakes
steamship owners to repower their vessels with cleaner marine diesel
engines. None of the thirteen U.S. steamships operating on the Great
Lakes as of October 30, 2009 are owned or operated by a State. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed
rule would merely add an automatic waiver provision to encourage Great
Lakes steamship owners to repower their vessels with cleaner marine
diesel engines. None of the thirteen U.S. steamships operating on the
Great Lakes as of October 30, 2009 are owned or operated by an Indian
tribal government. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This proposed rule would merely add
an automatic waiver provision to encourage Great Lakes steamship owners
to repower their vessels with cleaner marine diesel engines. To the
extent Great Lakes steamship owners take advantage of this incentive
program, their action would provide immediate air quality and energy
benefits, due to the improved fuel efficiency of the diesel engines,
and even larger benefits in the long term, when the repowered ship
would use fuel that complies with the 1,000 ppm sulfur limit on the
Great Lakes. These emission reductions would improve air quality for
all people who live in the Great Lakes region, including children and
other sensitive populations.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involved technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This proposed rule would merely add an automatic
waiver provision to encourage Great Lakes steamship owners to repower
their vessels with cleaner marine diesel engines. To the extent Great
Lakes steamship owners take advantage of this incentive program, their
action would provide immediate air quality and energy benefits, due to
the improved fuel efficiency of the diesel engines, and even larger
benefits in the long term, when the repowered ship would use fuel that
complies with the 1,000 ppm sulfur limit on the Great Lakes. These
emission reductions would improve air quality for all people who live
in the Great Lakes region, including minority and low-income
populations.

K. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action comes from section 1903 of
the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). The
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships implements Annex VI to the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL) and makes those requirements enforceable domestically. Section
1903 gives the Administrator the authority to prescribe any necessary
or desired regulations to carry out the provisions of Regulations 12
through 19 of MARPOL Annex VI.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 1043

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Economic
hardship waiver, Great Lakes, North American Emission Control Area,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Steamships.

    Dated: January 11, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-820 Filed 1-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Steam Electric Data Request Follow-Up Questions

Project Name:  Steam Electric Detailed Study

	Project No.:  0<IP_ADDRESS>

Company Name:  Georgia Power

	Contact Name:  William R. Evans

Plant Name:  Plant Yates	Contact Phone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>

or Email Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ERG Staff (or ERG Rep) Name: Sarah Holman

Company Affiliation: ERG	Date: 12/19/07

This document contains CBI:   ___  Yes    x       No

	Type of  Contact:     x      Email       x    Telephone

General Subject:  Data Request Assistance / Follow-Up

Follow-Up Question Number	CBI =

Yes (Y)

No (N)	Data Request Question Number	Data Request Page Number

Question/Answer

1	N	11	B-8	Q: Frequency of drainage from coal pile is given as 365 days.
 Does the plant have an estimation of the actual number of days of
drainage from the coal pile, or an estimation of the number of days of
rain in 2006?

A:  Mr. Evans believes that the drainage from the coal pile should be
intermittent, but will follow up with the plant.

2	N	16	B-10	Q: “Percent Contribution of Source to Sluice Water Flow”
is listed as 100% FAS for each of the seven units.  Please confirm that
the FAS sluice system is entirely close-looped and does not require any
makeup water.

A:  Enough rain water enters the ash pond that the recycle water from
the ash pond is clean enough for ash sluicing, and makeup water is not
typically necessary.

3	N	16	B-10	Q: Measurement units were not marked for “Average sluice
water flow rate” for SE Unit 1.  Please confirm that the correct
measurement unit is gpm.

A:  Confirmed.

4	N	18	B-12	Q: “Percent Contribution of Source to Sluice Water Flow”
is listed as 100% BAS for each of the seven units.  Please confirm that
the BAS sluice system is entirely close-looped and does not require any
makeup water.

A:  Enough rain water enters the ash pond that the recycle water from
the ash pond is clean enough for ash sluicing, and makeup water is not
typically necessary.

5	N	22	B-17	Q: The sources of FGD slurry water are listed as 90% FGDB
and 10% RECYC-FAS.  Please confirm that the 10% contribution is from the
effluent from the WWT-1 ash pond.

The amount of slurry blowdown returned to the absorber is 897 gpm and
the total slurry blowdown is 900 gpm.  That is less than 1% loss.  What
is the rest of the slurry water loss attributed to (“RECYC-FAS”
contribution is 10%)?

A:  Confirmed.  The plant operates three settling ponds for solids
removal and water is lost through evaporation from the ponds.

6	N	22	B-17	Q: The “Typical range of percent solids of slurry blowdown
exiting the absorber” is listed as 0 to 6 %.  This seems like a low
range, particularly if the percent solids decreases to zero.  Please
confirm the percent solids range.

A:  Mr. Evans will follow up with the plant about the percent solids,
but mentioned that the scrubber at Plant Yates is a small (100 MW)
“research reactor” and in many ways does not operate as a larger,
typical scrubber does.

7	N	23	B-18	Q: In response to the question: “Indicate system
parameters used to control the FGD slurry blowdown”, the plant
responded, “None – recirculated without regard to constituents”.
Please explain this response.

A:  Mr. Evans will follow up with the plant.

8	N	28	B-19	Q: Question 28 refers to gypsum-related wastewaters other
than those generated directly from the FGD system.  The question refers
to wastewaters such as gypsum stack runoff and gypsum washwater.  Did
the plant generate this type of wastewater in 2006?  If so, please
provide the volume and frequency.

A:  No, the plant did not generate this type of wastewater in 2006.

9	N	35	B-24	Q: Please confirm that the plant does not operate a
once-through cooling water system and that the plant typed a response to
the average amount of wastewater generated from the once-through cooling
water system in error (500 gpm).

A:  Confirmed.

10	N	43	B-26	Q: Outfalls 02, 03A, 03D, 03G, 03I, 03L, 03P, and 04 – 08
are not listed in Table 14 or the process diagrams.  Did they discharge
in 2006?

A:  See attached table.

11	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-1 (Diagram 5-1), please confirm that pH
adjustment occurs within (as part of) the ash pond and not within a
separate tank/pond as indicated in the diagram.

A:  pH is adjusted in the discharge line from the ash pond.

12	N	47	B-28	Q: Regarding the Low Volume Waste Sump shown in Diagram
5-1, please confirm that no wastewater treatment occurs in this sump.

A:  Confirmed.

13	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-1 (Diagram 5-1), please provide the flow rate
breakout for “RECYC – FAS/BAS” (9,500 gpm) for the following: BAS,
FAS, and PMRS.  Is the flow rate breakout approximately 7,600, 1,425,
and 475 gpm, respectively?  Is this effluent continuous from the WWT-1
ash pond at 24 hpd and 365 dpy?

A:  Yes.  Yes.

14	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-2 (Diagram 5-2), please confirm that pH
adjustment and chemical precipitation occur within the settling pond and
not within separate vessels as shown on the diagram?  What chemicals are
typically added to the settling pond for chemical precipitation?

A:  Confirmed.  The plant has added “advanced chemicals” to the
settling pond in the past, but did not add any chemicals in 2006.

15	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-4, Diagram 5-4 shows the stream, “LPR”,
entering the FGD system; however, no flow rate is provided.  Please
explain the use of this stream.

A:  “LPR”, limestone pile runoff, is part of the limestone feed to
the absorber.  In 2006, the plant received about 40 inches of rain and
the limestone pile is about 30 ft in diameter.  We can calculate the
approximate amount of LPR that went to the absorber, assuming that all
of the rain became LPR and ended up in the absorber.

16	N	51	B-33	Q: For WWT-1, the “Average Dose Concentration” of
sodium hydroxide is listed as “As necessary to raise pH to at least
6.0”.  As requested in EPA’s email to UWAG on 7/11/07, please
provide the concentration of the active ingredient added (i.e., the
amount of active ingredient contained in the chemical product).

A:  Mr. Evans will follow up with the plant.

17	N	52	B-34	Q: The WWT-2 settling pond effluent flow rates are
inconsistent in Table 19 for WWT-1 and WWT-2 (17 gpm for 12 hpd versus
20 gpm for 8 hpd).  Please explain the difference.  Which flow rate is
more accurate?

A:  Mr. Evans will follow up with the plant.

18	N	52	B-34	Q: The WWT-4 settling pond effluent flow rates are
inconsistent in Table 19 for WWT-1 and in the Comments page (1,000 gpm
for 1 hpd versus 2,400 gpm for 1 hpd).  Please explain the difference.
Which flow rate is more accurate?

A:  Mr. Evans will follow up with the plant.

19	N	53	B-35	Q: Please confirm the costs provided for WWT-3.  Please
note that this question has been written vaguely to avoid the electronic
transfer of CBI.  We would be happy to elaborate on a telephone call.

A:  Mr. Evans will follow up with the plant.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 25, 2004

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-12525

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of    Kalitta Air, L.L.C.                  filed   6/15/04
for:

XX Waiver from the advance filing requirements of 14 CFR 377.10(c)

XX Renew exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between New
York/Chicago/Los Angeles and Hong Kong.

Applicant rep:  Mark W. Atwood<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:
Sylvia Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted exemption (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:   June 25, 2004, through
June 25, 2006

XX  Granted waiver (see remarks below)

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Hong Kong.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________

Remarks:  Kalitta requested a waiver from the 60-day advance filing
requirements of 14 CFR 377 to ensure that its authority would continue
in effect beyond the expiration date (June 26, 2004), pending action on
its renewal application.

We acted on this application without awaiting expiration of the 15-day
answer period with the consent of all parties served.

2

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our

action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the exemption
authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3) grant of the
authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.  To the extent not granted,
we denied all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify,
or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without
hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

			  05/2004


[Federal Register: July 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 41070]
[DOCID:fr26jy07-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2299-060]

Modesto Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation District; Notice
To Hold a Public Meeting To Discuss the Fisheries Study Plan for the
Don Pedro Project

July 18, 2007.
    The Modesto Irrigation District and the Turlock Irrigation District
(licensees) filed a Fisheries Study Plan on March 20, 2007, in response
to the Commission's December 20, 2006, request made pursuant to Article
58 of the license, as amended.\1\ The Commission issued a Preliminary
Staff Assessment (PSA) of the plan on June 15, 2007, and requested that
interested parties file comments by July 15, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 76 FERC ] 61,117 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission staff will conduct a public meeting to discuss the
design and schedule for future monitoring studies based on the
licensees' plan and the comments received to date on the staff's PSA.
Commission staff will be prepared to lead the discussion, and asks that
all participating parties be prepared to support their oral statements
with documented information.
    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 8, 2007, from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m. (PDT) at the John E. Moss Federal Building and Courthouse,
650 Capitol Mall, Stanford Room, 1st floor, Sacramento, California
95814. The licensees, resource agency personnel, and other persons
interested in this matter are invited to participate. This meeting will
not be recorded by a stenographer.
    The following is the agenda for the meeting:

9 a.m.-9:15 a.m. Introductions/Purpose for Meeting
9:15 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Instream Flow Schedule
10:30 a.m.-10:45 a.m. Break
10:45 a.m.-11:30 a.m. Habitat Restoration
11:30 a.m.-2:15 p.m. Fry Survival
12:15 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Lunch
1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Steelhead Presence/Protection
2:30 p.m.-3:15 p.m. Predator Control
3:15 p.m.-4 p.m. River Temperature
4 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Other Monitoring
4:30 p.m.-5 p.m. Wrap up/What's next

    Special security precautions are employed at this Federal building.
Visitors must go through full security screening and are not permitted
to bring in cell phones or cameras with digital photo capability.
Laptops and PDAs must be booted up at the security entrance. Any
questions about this notice should be directed to Philip Scordelis at
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14411 Filed 7-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32579-32581]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12897]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0459; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-044-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700,
701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705)
airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and
Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This proposed
AD was prompted by reports of erratic pitch movement and oscillatory
behaviors of the elevator control system. This proposed AD would
require repetitive replacement of the bellcrank supports on the inner
rear spar of the horizontal stabilizer with new, improved bellcrank
supports. We are proposing this AD to prevent erratic pitch movement
and transient accelerations, which could result in a significant pitch
upset, and injuries to passengers and flightcrew.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ricardo Garcia, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0459;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-044-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2013-03, dated February 5, 2013 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    There have been several reported incidents of erratic pitch
movements and oscillatory behaviors of the elevator control system.
Investigation revealed that, the increase in the elevator breakout
force induced by the introduction of a new elevator centering
mechanism, in combination with the existing

bracket assembly backlash and bearing friction of the bell crank
support, could result in erratic pitch movement and oscillatory
behavior of the elevator control system. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in pitch upset of the aeroplane that
generates transient accelerations. These accelerations could be high
enough to injure aeroplane occupants that are not restrained in
their seats.
    This [TCCA] AD mandates the repetitive replacement of the
bellcrank supports with a new bearing.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-27-064, dated
December 11, 2012.
    The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Difference Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI specifies using ``later approved revisions'' of the
service information when accomplishing the requirements. However,
``later approved revisions'' must not be used in an AD when referring
to the service document because doing so violates Office of the Federal
Register (OFR) regulations for approval of materials ``incorporated by
reference'' in rules. Therefore, we have not included ``later approved
revisions'' in this proposed AD. If additional parts are identified in
later revisions of the service information, we might consider further
rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 400 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 7 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. Required parts would cost up to
$2,422 per product. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators to be up to $1,206,800, or up to $3,017 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2013-0459; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-044-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 15, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1),
(c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700,
701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10002 through 10999 inclusive.
    (2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705)
and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers
15001 through 15990 inclusive.
    (3) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series
1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 through 19990 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of erratic pitch movements and
oscillatory behaviors of the elevator control system. We are issuing
this AD to prevent erratic pitch movement and transient
accelerations, which could result in a significant pitch upset, and
injuries to passengers and flightcrew.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Repetitive Replacement of the Bellcrank Supports

    For any airplane with bellcrank supports having part numbers
AV670-23350-001 (left side) and AV670-23350-002 (right side), on the
inner rear spar of the horizontal stabilizer: At the applicable time
specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), or (g)(4) of this AD,
replace the affected bellcrank supports with new bellcrank supports,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 670BA-27-064, dated December 11, 2012. Repeat the
replacement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 flight
hours.
    (1) For airplanes that have, as of the effective date of this
AD, accumulated 18,000 total flight hours or less: Replace before
the accumulation of 24,600 total flight hours.

    (2) For airplanes that have, as of the effective date of this
AD, accumulated more than 18,000 total flight hours, but 23,400
total flight hours or less: Replace within 6,600 flight hours after
the effective date of this AD.
    (3) For airplanes that have, as of the effective date of this
AD, accumulated more than 23,400 total flight hours, but 28,500
total flight hours or less: Replace before the accumulation of
30,000 total flight hours.
    (4) For airplanes that have, as of the effective date of this
AD, accumulated more than 28,500 total flight hours: Within 1,500
flight hours after the effective date of this AD.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-794-
5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-03,
dated February 5, 2013; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-
064, dated December 11, 2012; for related information.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 22, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-12897 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


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

EPA Registration Division contact: [Heather McFarley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, PM 24]

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:

BASF Corporation

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([#2F9021]) from BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.473 by: modifying the tolerances for residues of glufosinate to include residues of L-glufosinate-ammonium, glufosinate-P-ammonium [(2S)-2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) butanoic acid -monoammonium salt] as measured by the sum of glufosinate (2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acid) and its metabolites, 2- (acetylamino)-4-(hydroxymethyl phosphinyl) butanoic acid, and 3- (hydroxymethylphosphinyl) propanoic acid, expressed as 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acid equivalents  in or on raw agricultural commodities canola, meal at 1.1 ppm; rapeseed  subgroup 20A at 0.4 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.4 ppm; cattle, meat, at 0.15 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 6 ppm; corn, field forage at 4 ppm; corn, field, grain at 0.2 ppm; Corn, field, stover at 6 ppm; Corn, sweet, forage at 1.5 ppm; Corn, sweet, kernels plus cob with husks  removed at 0.3 ppm; corn, sweet, stover at 6 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts at 30 ppm; cotton seed subgroup 20C at 15 ppm; egg at 0.15 ppm; goat, fat at 0.4 ppm; goat, meat at 0.15 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 6 ppm; grain aspirated fractions at 25 ppm; hog, fat at 0.4 ppm; hog, meat at 0.15 ppm; hog, meat byproducts at 6 ppm; horse, fat at 0.4 ppm; horse, meat at 0.15 ppm; horse, meat  byproducts at 6 ppm; milk at 0.15 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.15 ppm; poultry, meat at 0.15 ppm; poultry, meat byproducts at 0.6 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.4 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.15 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 6 ppm; soybean at 2 ppm; soybean, hulls at 10 ppm; and indirect or  inadvertent residues of glufosinate on barley, hay at 0.4 ppm; barley, straw at 0.4 ppm; buckwheat, fodder at 0.4 ppm; buckwheat, forage at 0.4 ppm; oat, forage at 0.4 ppm; oat, hay at 0.4 ppm; oat, straw at 0.4 ppm; rye, forage at 0.4 ppm; rye, straw at 0.4 ppm; teosinte at 0.4 ppm; triticale at 0.4 ppm; wheat, forage at 0.4 ppm; wheat, hay at 0.4 ppm; and wheat, straw at 0.4 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. The uptake and metabolism of glufosinate ammonium (racemic mixture) and L-glufosinate ammonium in primary crops is adequately understood. Radiolabeled studies with glufosinate ammonium, which includes L-glufosinate ammonium, have been conducted in various plants all showing similar results. The relevant residues are parent glufosinate, including L-glufosinate, and MPP (3-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) propanoic acid) in conventional plants and additionally NAG (N-acetyl glufosinate, 2- (acetylamino)-4-(hydroxymethyl phosphinyl) butanoic acid) in glufosinate-tolerant plants.

	2. Analytical method. Glufosinate-ammonium including L-Glufosinate-ammonium and the two metabolites 2- (acetylamino)-4-(hydroxymethyl phosphinyl) butanoic acid (NAG) and 3-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) propanoic acid (MPP), expressed as 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acid equivalents (glufosinate acid equivalents) are the residues of concern in plant and livestock commodities required for analysis based on the metabolic profiles.  The current analytical methods involve water extraction, filtration, and addition of an isotopically labeled internal standard followed by solid phase extraction.  The method does not separate the isomers of glufosinate, and quantitation is by high performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS).

	3. Magnitude of residues.  No new residue trials were performed for this petition.

B. Toxicological Profile NA, remove

C. Aggregate Exposure

 NA, remove

D. Cumulative Effects NA, remove

E. Safety Determination NA, remove.

F. International Tolerances NA, remove.


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

EPA Registration Division contact: [Dr. P.V. Shah,<PHONE_NUMBER>]

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:

Huntsman Corp.

IN-10606

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (IN-10606) from Huntsman Corp., 8600 Gosling Rd., The Woodlands, TX  77381 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR Part 180.

To establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with 2-methyloxirane polymer with oxirane monobutyl ether, minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 1900; CAS Reg. No. 1373125-59-7 under 40 CFR §180.960 when used as an inert ingredient surfactant in food use pesticide formulations in or on all the raw agricultural commodities.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.  [NA-Remove based on the fact that this information is not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

	2. Analytical method. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this information is not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this information is not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with 2-methyloxirane polymer with oxirane monobutyl ether conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers. 	1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment. 	2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. 	3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii). 	4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize. 	5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory. 	6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MWn) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.  	7. The polymer does not contain fluorine, so 40CFR 723.250(d)(6) does not apply. 	Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e)(1).  The polymer's number average MW of 1900 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000.  The polymer contains one aliphatic hydroxyl reactive functional group, as allowed in 40CFR 723.250(e)(1)(ii)(A).

	2. Genotoxicty. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	6. Animal metabolism. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [Not expected based on the fact that this polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [This polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	i. Food. [This polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	ii. Drinking water. [This polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [This polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

D. Cumulative Effects

	[This polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [This polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	2. Infants and children. [This polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

F. International Tolerances

	[There are no known international tolerances for this polymer.]