[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5325-5326]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01383]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0853; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-23]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Astoria, OR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing a SNPRM for the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) published on October 9, 2012, in order to elicit
comments addressing the proposed airspace modification west of the
airport to accommodate aircraft using Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures. The
FAA has reassessed the NPRM and finds that extension of the Class E
airspace area west of the airport to within 11 miles north of the
airport 268[deg] degree bearing is necessary for the safety and
management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the Astoria,
OR, area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 11, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-
0853; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-23, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On October 9, 2012, the FAA published a NPRM to modify Class E
airspace, extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface, at
Astoria Regional Airport, Astoria, OR (77 FR 61306). The comment period
closed November 23, 2012. No comments were received. Subsequent to
publication, the Western Flight Procedures Office reassessed the
proposal and modified the north extension west of the airport from
within 6 miles north to within 11 miles north of the airport 268[deg]
degree bearing. The airspace extension would accommodate missed
approach holding for RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach
procedures.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2012-0853 and Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-23) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2012-0853 and Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-23''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for

comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM's

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Supplemental Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Astoria Regional Airport,
Astoria, OR, to accommodate aircraft using RNAV (GPS) standard
instrument approach procedures at Astoria Regional Airport.
Additionally, from the Astoria Regional Airport 268[deg] bearing from
the 7-mile radius to 17.5 miles west, the airspace would be changed
from within 6 miles north of the 268[deg] bearing to within 11 miles
north. This action would enhance the safety and management of IFR
operations and missed approach holding procedures for RNAV (GPS)
standard instrument approach procedures at the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would modify airspace at Astoria Regional Airport, Astoria, OR.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM OR E5 Astoria, OR [Modified]

Astoria Regional Airport, Astoria, OR
    (Lat. 46[deg]09'29'' N., long. 123[deg]52'43'' W.)
Seaside Municipal Airport
    (Lat. 46[deg]00'54'' N., long. 123[deg]54'28'' W.)

    That airspace extending from 700 feet above the surface within a
7-mile radius of Astoria Regional Airport; and within 11 miles north
and 8.3 miles south of the Astoria Regional Airport 268[deg] bearing
extending from the 7-mile radius to 17.5 miles west of Astoria
Regional Airport, excluding the portion within a 1.8-mile radius of
Seaside Municipal Airport; and within 4 miles northeast and 8.3
miles southwest of the Astoria Regional Airport 326[deg] bearing
extending from the 7-mile radius to 21.4 miles northwest of Astoria
Regional Airport; and within 4 miles each side of the Astoria
Regional Airport 096[deg] bearing extending from the 7-mile radius
to 12 miles east of Astoria Regional Airport; and within 8.3 miles
north and 4 miles south of the Astoria Regional Airport 096[deg]
bearing from 12 miles east, to 28.3 miles east of Astoria Regional
Airport; and within a 15.9-mile radius of Astoria Regional Airport
extending clockwise from the 326[deg] bearing to the 347[deg]
bearing of the airport; and within a 23.1-mile radius of Astoria
Regional Airport extending clockwise from the 347[deg] bearing to
the 039[deg] bearing of the airport extending from the 15.9-mile
radius to a 23.1-mile radius of Astoria Regional Airport extending
clockwise from the airport 039[deg] bearing to the airport 185[deg]
bearing.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 21, 2012.
Harry S. Karnes,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-01383 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 174 (Wednesday, September 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 54278]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22646]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-2593-000]

Desert Stateline 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
Desert Stateline 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 September 22, 2015.
    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_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 2, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-22646 Filed 9-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13043-13045]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04527]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-
2002-13411; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2006-24783;
FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2008-0292;
FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2012-0337;
FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2012-0339; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2014-0299;
FMCSA-2014-0301]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 62
individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision
requirement in one eye.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before April 7,
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2000-7918;
FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2006-24015;
FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2008-0266;
FMCSA-2008-0292; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2010-0385;
FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2012-0339; FMCSA-2014-0296;
FMCSA-2014-0299; FMCSA-2014-0301 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments

from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for two years if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to
renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person:

    Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each
eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected
to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant
binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or
without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70[deg] in
the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize
the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and
amber.

    The 62 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), in
accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable two-year period

II. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of
the 62 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the vision requirement (65 FR 45817; 65 FR 66286; 65 FR
77066; 65 FR 78256; 66 FR 13825; 66 FR 16311; 67 FR 71610; 67 FR 76439;
68 FR 10298; 68 FR 10300; 68 FR 13360; 69 FR 33997; 69 FR 61292; 70 FR
7545; 70 FR 7546; 70 FR 12265; 71 FR 14566; 71 FR 30227; 71 FR 32183;
71 FR 41310; 71 FR 55820; 71 FR 63379; 71 FR 63380; 72 FR 180; 72 FR
1050; 72 FR 7111; 72 FR 7812; 72 FR 9397; 72 FR 11426; 73 FR 27014; 73
FR 36955; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 61922; 73 FR 61925; 73 FR 63047; 73 FR
74563; 73 FR 75803; 73 FR 78422; 74 FR 6209; 74 FR 6211; 74 FR 6212; 74
FR 6689; 74 FR 8302; 75 FR 36778; 75 FR 54958; 75 FR 59327; 75 FR
70078; 75 FR 77942; 75 FR 77949; 75 FR 79083; 76 FR 4413; 76 FR 5425;
76 FR 9859; 76 FR 9861; 76 FR 9865; 76 FR 11215; 77 FR 48590; 77 FR
68199; 77 FR 68200; 77 FR 70534; 77 FR 74273; 77 FR 74731; 78 FR 10250;
78 FR 11731; 78 FR 12811; 78 FR 12813; 78 FR 12817; 78 FR 12822; 78 FR
797; 78 FR 1919; 78 FR 8689; 78 FR 9772; 78 FR 14410; 79 FR 58856; 79
FR 59357; 79 FR 65760; 79 FR 72754; 79 FR 73397; 79 FR 73687; 80 FR
3305; 80 FR 3308; 80 FR 3723; 80 FR 6162; 80 FR 7678; 80 FR 7679; 80 FR
8751; 80 FR 9304; 80 FR 15859; 80 FR 20562). They have submitted
evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet
the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting
each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate
commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for
each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of July and
are discussed below:
    As of March 1, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 16 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (69 FR
33997; 69 FR 61292; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 55820; 71 FR 63379;
71 FR 63380; 72 FR 180; 72 FR 1050; 72 FR 9397; 73 FR 36955; 73 FR
61922; 73 FR 61925; 73 FR 74563; 73 FR 75803; 73 FR 78422; 74 FR 6209;
74 FR 6211; 75 FR 36778; 75 FR 54958; 75 FR 59327; 75 FR 70078; 75 FR
77949; 75 FR 79083; 76 FR 4413; 76 FR 9865; 77 FR 48590; 77 FR 68199;
77 FR 68200; 77 FR 70534; 77 FR 74273; 77 FR 74731; 78 FR 797; 78 FR
9772; 78 FR 11731; 78 FR 12811; 78 FR 12813; 78 FR 12817; 79 FR 58856;
79 FR 59357; 79 FR 65760; 79 FR 72754; 79 FR 73397; 79 FR 73687; 80 FR
3305; 80 FR 3308; 80 FR 3723; 80 FR 8751; 80 GT 9304):

Jawad K. Al-Shaibani (WA)
Keith E. Breeding (IN)
Robert M. Cassell, Jr. (NC)
Steven J. Clark (GA)
Joseph Colecchi (PA)
Thomas A. Crowell (NC)
David M. Hagadorn (NJ)
Ricky G. Jacks (AL)
William D. Koiner (TX)
David S. Matheny (WA)
Elmer R. Miller (IL)
Jeffrey L. Olson (MN)
Randall S. Surber (WV)
Ernest W. Waff (VA)
Curtis E. Way (TX)
Patricia A. White (IL)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
Nos. FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2006-
26066; FMCSA-2008-0292; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2012-
0337; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2012-0339; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2014-
0299. Their exemptions are effective as of March 1, 2017, and will
expire on March 1, 2019.
    As of March 4, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 8 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR
45817; 65 FR 77066; 67 FR 71610; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 10298; 70 FR 7545;
72 FR 7812; 74 FR 6689; 76 FR 9859; 78 FR 8689; 80 FR 7678):

Kirk G. Braegger (UT)
Ambrosio Calles (NM)
Harry P. Henning (PA)
Christopher L. Humphries (TX)
Ralph J. Miles (OR)
Stanley B. Salkowski, III (PA)
Michael G. Thomas (PA)
William H. Twardus (DE)

    The drivers were included on the following dockets: Docket No.
FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2002-13411. Their exemptions are effective as of
March 4, 2017, and will expire on March 4, 2019.
    As of March 7, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 23 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR
66286; 66 FR 13825; 68 FR 10300; 70 FR 7546; 72

FR 180; 72 FR 7111; 72 FR 9397; 74 FR 6211; 74 FR 6212; 75 FR 77942; 76
FR 5425; 76 FR 9861; 78 FR 10250; 80 FR 6162; 80 FR 7679; 80 FR 20562):

Jason P. Atwater (UT)
Barry W. Borger (PA)
William W. Dugger (KY)
Steven D. Ellsworth (IL)
Glen T. Garrabrant (NJ)
Richard A. Guthrie (MT)
Abdalla M. Jalili (IL)
Alan L. Johnston (IL)
David M. Krause (WI)
Stephen C. Martin (PA)
James E. Menz (NY)
Ronald M. Metzger (NY)
Gerald D. Milner (IL)
Ali Nimer (IL)
Richard A. Pierce (MO)
Rance A. Powell (AL)
Shannon E. Rasmussen (WY)
Richard P. Rebel (ND)
Mustafa Shahadeh (OH)
Charles P. Smith (MO)
Timothy R. Tedford (IL)
Melvin L. Vaughn (WI)
Rick L. Wood (PA)

    The drivers were included on the following dockets: Docket No.
FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2014-0301.
Their exemptions are effective as of March 7, 2017, and will expire on
March 7, 2019.
    As of March 23, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 15 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR
66286; 65 FR 78256; 66 FR 13825; 66 FR 16311; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 10298;
68 FR 13360; 70 FR 7545; 70 FR 12265; 71 FR 14566; 71 FR 30227; 72 FR
180; 72 FR 7812; 72 FR 9397; 72 FR 11426; 73 FR 27014; 73 FR 51689; 73
FR 63047; 73 FR 75803; 74 FR 6209; 74 FR 6689; 74 FR 8302; 75 FR 77942;
75 FR 77949; 76 FR 4413; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 9859; 76 FR 9861; 76 FR
11215; 78 FR 8689; 78 FR 12822; 78 FR 14410; 80 FR 15859):

Howard K. Bradley (VA)
Willie Burnett, Jr. (FL)
Marcus L. Conner (TX)
Thomas G. Danclovic (MO)
Donald K. Driscoll (MA)
William G. Holland (AR)
Gerald D. Larson
Thomas F. Marczewski (WI)
Roy E. Mathews (FL)
James T. McGraw, Jr. (PA)
Robert S. Metcalf (AZ)
Bobby G. Pool, Sr. (TX)
Steve A. Reece (TN)
Jeremichael Steele (NC)
Wade D. Taylor (MO)

    The drivers were included on the following dockets: Docket No.
FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2006-24015;
FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2010-0385.
Their exemptions are effective as of March 23, 2017, and will expire on
March 23, 2019.

Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5,
who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under 49
CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at
the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the
certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a
duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The
exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

IV. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 62 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited
above (49 CFR 391.64(b)). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked
earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: February 28, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-04527 Filed 3-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35701-35705]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12608]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0673; FRL-9878-01-R6]

Air Plan Approval; Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico;
Excess Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA, the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision from the New Mexico Environment
Department (NMED) submitted on October 17, 2016, on behalf of the

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (Air Board).
The October 17, 2016 submittal is in response to the EPA's national SIP
call on June 12, 2015, concerning excess emissions during periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM). The submittal requests the
removal of the provisions identified in the 2015 SIP call from the New
Mexico SIP. EPA is proposing to determine that the withdrawal of the
substantially inadequate provisions from the SIP corrects the
deficiency identified in the June 12, 2015 SIP call.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2016-0673 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Mr. Alan Shar, (214) 665-
6691, [email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270. While
all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information
may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g.,
copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either
location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar, Regional Haze and
SO2 Section, EPA Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm Street, Suite
500, Dallas, Texas 75270,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. Out of an
abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA
Region 6 office may be closed to the public to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the public to submit comments via
https://www.regulations.gov, as there will be a delay in processing
mail and no courier or hand deliveries will be accepted. Please call or
email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' means the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action
    B. New Mexico's Part 49 Provisions on Excess Emissions
II. Analysis of SIP Submission
III. Proposed Action
IV. Environmental Justice Considerations
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background

A. EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action

    On February 22, 2013, EPA issued a Federal Register proposed
rulemaking action outlining EPA's policy at the time with respect to
SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. EPA analyzed specific SSM SIP
provisions and explained how each one either did or did not comply with
the CAA with regard to excess emission events.\1\ For each SIP
provision that the EPA determined to be inconsistent with the CAA, the
EPA proposed to find that the existing SIP provision was substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP
call under CAA section 110(k)(5). On September 17, 2014, EPA issued a
document supplementing and revising what the Agency had previously
proposed on February 22, 2013, in light of a D.C. Circuit decision that
determined the CAA precludes authority of the EPA to create affirmative
defense provisions.\2\ EPA outlined its updated policy that affirmative
defense SIP provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements. EPA
proposed in the supplemental proposal document to apply its revised
interpretation of the Act to specific affirmative defense SIP
provisions and proposed SIP calls for those provisions where
appropriate (79 FR 55920, September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, (78 FR 12460) Feb. 22, 2013.
    \2\ The term affirmative defense means, in the context of an
enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof,
and the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated
in a judicial or administrative proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized
``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings
of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying
to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction,'' (80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015), hereafter referred to as
the ``2015 SSM SIP Action.'' The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified,
restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemption and
affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA
requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions
in 36 states were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and
issued a SIP call to those states to submit SIP revisions to address
the inadequacies. EPA established an 18-month deadline by which the
affected states had to submit such SIP revisions. States were required
to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in response to the SIP
calls by November 22, 2016. Included was a SIP call to Albuquerque-
Bernalillo County, New Mexico, and the detailed rationale for the
issuance of that SIP call can be found in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and
the preceding proposed actions. The EPA is not reopening the 2015 SSM
SIP Action here.
    EPA issued a Memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which
stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be
viewed as consistent with CAA requirements.\3\ Importantly, the 2020
Memorandum stated that it ``did not alter in any way the determinations
made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific state SIP
provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements
of the Act.'' Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no direct impact on
the SIP call issued to Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico in
2015. The 2020 Memorandum did, however, indicate the EPA's intent at
the time to review SIP calls that were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action to determine whether the EPA should maintain, modify, or

withdraw particular SIP calls through future agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ October 9, 2020, Memorandum ``Inclusion of Provisions
Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,'' from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020
Memorandum and announced the EPA's return to the policy articulated in
the 2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum).\4\ As articulated in the
2021 Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative
defense provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements and,
therefore, generally are not approvable if contained in a SIP
submission. This policy approach is intended to ensure that all
communities and populations, including minority, low-income and
indigenous populations overburdened by air pollution, receive the full
health and environmental protections provided by the CAA.\5\ The 2021
Memorandum also retracted the prior statement from the 2020 Memorandum
of EPA's plans to review and potentially modify or withdraw particular
SIP calls. That statement no longer reflects EPA's intent. EPA intends
to implement the principles laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP Action as the
agency takes action on SIP submissions, including this SIP submittal
provided in response to the 2015 SIP call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ September 30, 2021, Memorandum ``Withdrawal of the October
9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior
Policy,'' from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator.
    \5\ Section J, June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. New Mexico's Part 49 Provisions on Excess Emissions

    New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC), Title 20 Environmental
Protection, Chapter 11 Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Board,
Part 49 Excess Emissions (20.11.49 NMAC) (hereinafter ``Part 49'') was
approved by the EPA into the New Mexico SIP on February 4, 2010, and
became federally effective on April 5, 2010.
    As a part of the EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA made a finding
that certain provisions in Part 49--namely, <IP_ADDRESS>.A NMAC,
<IP_ADDRESS>.B NMAC, and <IP_ADDRESS>.C NMAC of the New Mexico SIP--are
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements, and thus issued a
SIP call with respect to these provisions because these provisions
provide for an affirmative defense.\6\ Although not part of the finding
in the 2015 SIP call, the EPA noted that removal of <IP_ADDRESS>.A NMAC,
<IP_ADDRESS>.B NMAC and <IP_ADDRESS>.C NMAC from the New Mexico SIP would
render other sections of 20.11.49 NMAC of the New Mexico SIP
superfluous and no longer operative.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Affected States in EPA Region VI, section IX.G.4, June
12, 2015 (80 FR 33968).
    \7\ More specifically, EPA stated that ``removal of
<IP_ADDRESS>.A NMAC, <IP_ADDRESS>.B NMAC and <IP_ADDRESS>.C NMAC from
the SIP will render <IP_ADDRESS>.D NMAC, <IP_ADDRESS>.E, <IP_ADDRESS>.B
(15) (concerning reporting by a source of intent to assert an
affirmative defense for a violation), a portion of <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC
(concerning the objective of establishing affirmative defense
provisions) and <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC (concerning actions where a
determination has been made under <IP_ADDRESS>.E NMAC) superfluous
and no longer operative, and the EPA thus recommends that these
provisions be removed as well.'' (80 FR 33968, June 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of SIP Submission

    In response to the EPA's June 12, 2015 SIP call, NMED (on behalf of
the Air Board) requested by letter dated October 17, 2016, that the EPA
approve the removal of 20.11.49 NMAC in its entirety from the New
Mexico SIP, including the three provisions found by EPA's June 12, 2015
SIP call to be substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements.\8\
The removal of 20.11.49 NMAC from the New Mexico SIP eliminates the
provisions related to excess emissions, including the affirmative
defense provisions identified in the June 12, 2015 SIP call. EPA
believes that removal of 20.11.49 NMAC from the New Mexico SIP will not
affect the adequacy of the remaining portions of the New Mexico SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ October 17, 2016, submittal letter from NMED Cabinet
Secretary to EPA Region 6 Regional Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although not part of the SIP submittal at issue in this proposed
rulemaking, the Air Board amended Part 49 on September 14, 2016, to
replace the affirmative defense provisions with ``state-only''
enforcement discretion provisions. EPA has reviewed the language of
20.11.49 NMAC, as amended, and notes that the enforcement discretion
criteria apply only to the State's own enforcement personnel and not to
the EPA or others.\9\ Therefore, if finalized as proposed, the New
Mexico SIP applicable to sources located in Albuquerque-Bernalillo
County will not include specific provisions relating to excess
emissions during SSM periods; however, Part 49, as amended, does
provide ``state-only'' enforcement discretion provisions applicable to
excess emissions by such sources and how violations related to excess
emissions will be handled by state enforcement personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC states, in part, ``The owner or operator of
a source who contends that an excess emission occurred during
startup, shutdown, malfunction, or emergency may submit to the
department a supplemental report . . . The information in the
supplemental report may be considered by the department at its sole
discretion and is not intended to be enforceable in a legal
proceeding by any party or to limit the enforcement authority of any
party. <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC shall not be construed to preclude EPA or
federal court jurisdiction under Section 113 of the federal act to
assess civil penalties or other forms of relief for periods of
excess emissions, to prevent EPA or the courts from considering the
statutory factors for the assessment of civil penalties under
Section 113 of the federal act, or to interfere with the rights of
litigants to pursue enforcement consistent with their rights under
the citizen suit provision of Section 304 of the federal act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submittal also includes an analysis to demonstrate compliance
with section 110(l) of the Act.\10\ Elimination of the Part 49
provisions from the New Mexico SIP is not expected to lead to any
emissions increase. Therefore, we do not believe the proposed revisions
would interfere with attainment and reasonable further progress, or any
applicable requirement of the CAA. Consequently, we are proposing to
approve the removal of 20.11.49 NMAC Excess Emissions from the
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County provisions of the New Mexico SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See pdf pages 229-233 of the submittal Docket ID No. EPA-
R06-OAR-2016-0673 available at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Albuquerque-
Bernalillo County provisions of the New Mexico SIP submitted on October
17, 2016, in response to the EPA's national SIP call of June 12, 2015,
concerning excess emissions during periods of SSM. More specifically,
we are proposing to approve the removal of Part 49 Excess Emissions
from the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County provisions of the New Mexico
SIP. We are proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with
section 110 of the Act. EPA is further proposing to determine that such
SIP revision corrects the deficiency identified in the June 12, 2015
SIP call. EPA is not reopening the 2015 SSM SIP Action and is only
taking comment on whether this proposed SIP revision is consistent with
CAA requirements and whether it addresses the substantial inadequacy in
the specific Albuquerque-Bernalillo County provisions identified in the
2015 SSM SIP Action.

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations

and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair
treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies.'' \11\ EPA is providing additional analysis of environmental
justice associated with this action for the purpose of providing
information to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA reviewed demographic data, which provides an assessment of
individual demographic groups of the populations living within
Bernalillo County.\12\ The EPA then compared the data to the national
average for each of the demographic groups.\13\ The results of the
demographic analysis indicate that, for populations within Bernalillo
County, the percent people of color (persons who reported their race as
a category other than White alone (not Hispanic or Latino)) is
significantly higher than the national average (61.2 percent versus 40
percent). Within people of color, the percent of the population that is
Hispanic or Latino is higher than the national averages (50.3 percent
versus 18.5 percent) and the percent of the population that is American
Indian/Alaska Native is also higher than the national average (6.3
percent versus 1.3 percent). The percent of people living below the
poverty level in Bernalillo County is higher than the national average
(15.3 percent versus 11.4 percent). The percent of people over 25 with
a high school diploma in Bernalillo County is similar to the national
average (90 percent versus 88.5 percent), while the percent with a
Bachelor's degree or higher is slightly higher than the national
average (35.3 percent versus 32.9 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/NM,bernalillocountynewmexico,US/PST045221.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Communities in close proximity to and/or downwind of industrial
sources may be subject to disproportionate environmental impacts of
excess emissions. Short- and/or long-term exposure to air pollution has
been associated with a wide range of human health effects including
increased respiratory symptoms, hospitalization for heart or lung
diseases, and even premature death. Excess emissions during startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions exceed applicable emission limitations and
can be considerably higher than emissions under normal steady-state
operations. As to all population groups within the Bernalillo County
area, as explained below we believe that this proposed action will be
beneficial and will tend to reduce impacts. As discussed earlier in
this notice, this rulemaking, if finalized as proposed, would result in
the removal of the provisions in the New Mexico SIP applicable to
Bernalillo County that provide sources emitting pollutants in excess of
otherwise allowable amounts with the opportunity to assert an
affirmative defense to violations involving excess emissions during
startup, shutdown, and malfunctions. Removal of such impermissible
affirmative defense provisions from the SIP is necessary to preserve
the enforcement structure of the CAA, to preserve the jurisdiction of
courts to adjudicate questions of liability and remedies in judicial
enforcement actions and to preserve the potential for enforcement by
the EPA and other parties under the citizen suit provision as an
effective deterrent to violations. If finalized as proposed, this
action is intended to ensure that all communities and populations
across Bernalillo County and downwind areas, including people of color
and low-income and indigenous populations overburdened by pollution,
receive the full human health and environmental protection provided by
the CAA through the removal of affirmative defense provisions that have
interfered with the enforcement structure of the CAA by raising
inappropriate impediments to enforcement by states, the EPA, or
citizens. We therefore propose to determine that this rule, if
finalized, will not have disproportionately high or adverse human
health or environmental effects on communities with environmental
justice concerns.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's regulations, as
described in the Proposed Action section above. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these documents generally available
electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6 office.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Act. 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 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     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 Act; 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of

Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 1, 2022.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2022-12608 Filed 6-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 3 (Thursday, January 4, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 472-473]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00044]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Chapter I

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0022]

Revisions to the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the availability of the final
policy Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide (PAPPG).

DATES: FEMA applies the revisions in this policy to incidents declared
on or after August 23, 2017, or to any application for assistance that,
as of January 1, 2018 is pending before

FEMA, or to any application for assistance that has been denied, where
a challenge to that denial is not yet finally resolved as of January 1,
2018.

ADDRESSES: This final policy is available online at http://www.regulations.gov and on FEMA's website at http://www.fema.gov. The
final policy and supporting documents are available at http://www.regulations.gov under docket ID FEMA-2016-0022. You may also view a
hard copy of the final policy at the Office of Chief Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 8NE, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Logan, Division Director,
Public Assistance,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document announces the availability of
the Third Edition of the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide
(PAPPG). The Third Edition revises a statutory and regulatory
interpretation related to the eligibility of certain private nonprofit
facilities for Public Assistance (PA) under 42 U.S.C. 5172, 42 U.S.C.
5122(11), and 44 CFR 206.221. Specifically, Third Edition clarifies
that private nonprofit houses of worship will not be singled out for
disfavored treatment within the ``community centers'' subcategory of PA
nonprofit applicants. Further discussion regarding these revisions is
contained in the Foreword to the PAPPG.
    This final policy does not have the force or effect of law.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.

    Dated: January 2, 2018.
Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-00044 Filed 1-2-18; 4:45 pm]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12877-12882]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5070]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0122; FRL-8858-5]

Fomesafen; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fomesafen in or on pepper (bell and non-bell), potato, and tomato.
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective March 9, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 9, 2011, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0122. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (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 in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Stanton, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0122 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
May 9, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0122, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Registers of September 4, 2009 (74 FR 45848) (FRL-
8434-4) and March 19, 2010 (75 FR 13277) (FRL-8813-2), EPA issued
notices pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3),
announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP 9F7563 and PP 9F7667)
by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., PO Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-
8300. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.433

be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide
fomesafen, 5-[2-cloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-N-(methylsulfonyl)-2-
nitrobenzamide, in or on potato and tomato (PP 9F7563); and pepper (PP
9F7667) at 0.025 parts per million (ppm). Those notices referenced
summaries of the petitions prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.,
the registrant, which are available in the dockets, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing of PP 9F7563. Comments were received on the notice of
filing of PP 9F7667. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in
Unit IV.C.
    EPA has revised the proposed tolerance expression and the commodity
terms for peppers in accordance with current Agency policy. These
revisions are discussed in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * *
*''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for fomesafen including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with fomesafen
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Fomesafen has a low order of acute toxicity by the oral route of
exposure, is severely irritating to the eye, and is moderately
irritating to the skin. In the subchronic and chronic toxicity studies
in rats and mice, food consumption or food efficiency, body weight/body
weight gain, and histopathological changes in the liver were the
parameters that were most often affected. Dogs and mice also showed
hematological changes (e.g., decreased erythrocyte count, hemoglobin,
or hematocrit). There was no evidence of neurotoxicity or
immunotoxicity in the toxicological studies with fomesafen. There was
no evidence that fomesafen results in increased susceptibility of rat
or rabbit fetuses in the prenatal developmental studies or in young
rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.
    There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in the rat chronic
toxicity/carcinogenicity study. Liver tumors were produced in the mouse
carcinogenicity study; however, EPA classified fomesafen as ``Not
Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans,'' based on the weight-of-evidence
supporting activation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor
alpha (PPAR[alpha]) as the mode of action for fomesafen-induced
hepatocarcinogenesis in mice. The data did not support either
mutagenesis or cytotoxicity followed by regenerative proliferation as
alternative modes of action. While the proposed mode of action for
liver tumors in mice is theoretically plausible in humans, it is
unlikely to take place in humans based on quantitative species
differences in PPAR[alpha] activation and toxicokinetics. Detailed
information on the factors EPA considered in making this determination
can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document ``FOMESAFEN:
Second Report of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee'' in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0122.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fomesafen as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document ``Fomesafen Sodium: Human Health
Risk Assessment for the Establishment of Tolerances and Registration of
New Uses of Fomesafen Sodium on Potatoes and Peppers,'' p. 30 in docket
ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0122.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fomesafen used for
human risk assessment is shown the Table of this unit.

    Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Fomesafen for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Point of departure and
          Exposure/scenario               uncertainty/safety     RfD, PAD, LOC for risk  Study and toxicological
                                               factors                 assessment                effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All population          No toxic effects attributable to a single dose of fomesafen were found in
 subgroups, including Females 13-49                                   the database.
 years of age, infants and children).
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)....  NOAEL= 0.25 mg/kg/day    Chronic RfD = 0.0025 mg/ Chronic toxicity--rat
                                        UFA = 10x.               kg/day.                  LOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day
                                       UFH = 10x FQPA SF = 1x.                            based on hyalinization
                                                                                of the liver in males.
                                                                cPAD = 0.0025 mg/kg/
                                                                 day.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)....   Fomesafen is classified as ``Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
  of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. UFS = use of a short-term
  study for long-term risk assessment. UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other data deficiency. FQPA
  SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD =
  reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fomesafen, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing fomesafen tolerances in 40 CFR
180.433. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fomesafen in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for fomesafen; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed that residues would be present in
all commodities at the tolerance level and that 100% of all crops are
treated with fomesafen. Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model/Food
Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\), Version 2.03, default
processing factors were used to determine residues in processed
commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that fomesafen does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary
assessment for fomesafen. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were
assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used a
screening-level water exposure model to estimate residues of fomesafen
in surface water. This simulation model, the Pesticide Root Zone Model/
Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), takes into account data
on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of
fomesafen. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used
in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the model results, the estimated drinking water
concentration (EDWC) of fomesafen for chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments is estimated to be 10.535 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water.
    The Agency estimated residues of fomesafen in ground water based on
the results of a prospective ground water monitoring study, submitted
by the registrant, Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. The maximum residue
found in the study, which was conducted on a vulnerable North Carolina
soil using a soybean cropping system, was 1 ppb, an order of magnitude
lower than the modeled estimate for surface water.
    The modeled estimate of fomesafen in surface water was used in the
dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for fomesafen in drinking
water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of
value 10.535 ppb was directly entered into the dietary exposure model
to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Fomesafen is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Fomesafen is a member of the diphenyl ether chemical family. The
common toxicity that these compounds share is induction of liver
effects (liver hypertrophy, increase in liver weight, tumors). Members
of this class have been shown to induce rodent liver effects/tumors
through the activation of the peroxisome proliferator-activated
receptor (PPAR[alpha]). It should be noted that liver hypertrophy and
increases in liver weight are part of the range of morphological
changes that result from chemically-mediated effects on the PPAR[alpha]
receptor and hepatocarcinogenesis. Although PPAR[alpha] agonists can
induce liver rodent tumors, the potential for PPAR[alpha] agonists to
induce liver tumors in other species, including humans, appears to be
unlikely. This is because evidence shows that these other species are
quantitatively less sensitive to the effects of PPAR[alpha] agonism due
to toxicodynamic differences between the human and rodent nuclear
PPAR[alpha] receptor. Thus, while this mode of action for liver tumors
in rodent is

qualitatively possible in humans, it is unlikely to take place in
humans based on quantitative species differences in PPAR[alpha]
activation and toxicokinetics. Accordingly, although members of the
diphenyl ether family, as well as other classes of compounds, may share
a common hepatocarcinogenic mode of action, cumulative exposure to
PPAR[alpha] agonists is unlikely to induce liver carcinogenesis in
humans.
    For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The pre- and postnatal
database for fomesafen includes a prenatal developmental toxicity study
in rabbits, two prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats, and a
2-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats. The rabbit
developmental study was classified as unacceptable because of bacterial
infection in the colony; however, the study provided information to
assess potential developmental toxicity in rabbits. There was no
significant difference between the treated and control animals for
developmental abnormalities in the rabbit study. In the two rat
developmental studies (considered together), developmental effects
(postimplantation loss) occurred at the same dose causing maternal
toxicity (staining of the ventral fur and significantly decreased body
weight gain (>10%)). In the rat reproduction study, offspring effects
(increased incidence of liver hyalinization in males) occurred at the
same dose causing parental effects (liver histopathology in males and
females of both generations).
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for fomesafen is largely complete, lacking
only immunotoxicity and acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies. EPA
has evaluated the available toxicity data for fomesafen and determined
that an additional database uncertainty factor is not needed to account
for the lack of these studies. As stated in Unit III.A, fomesafen
primarily impacts the parameters of food consumption or food
efficiency, body weight/body weight gain, and histopathological changes
in the liver. There is no evidence that fomesafen causes immunotoxic or
neurotoxic effects in any of the available toxicity studies, and EPA
does not believe that conducting immunotoxicity and acute/subchronic
neurotoxicity testing will result in a NOAEL less than 0.25 mg/kg/day,
which is presently used as the point of departure for chronic risk
assessment.
    ii. There is no indication that fomesafen is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that fomesafen results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the surface water modeling used to assess
exposure to fomesafen in drinking water. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by fomesafen.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
fomesafen is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
fomesafen from food and water will utilize 32% of the cPAD for infants,
less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for fomesafen.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- or intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure from food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Short-/intermediate-
term adverse effects (hyalinization of hepatocytes, increased
eosinophilia, reduced granulation, increased liver weights in males and
females, and increases in plasma alkaline phosphatase, alanine
transminase and aspartate transaminase in males in the 90-day rat
feeding study) were identified; however, fomesafen is not registered
for any use patterns that would result in short- or intermediate-term
residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term risks are assessed
based on short- or intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or intermediate-term
residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further
assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and
intermediate-term risk for fomesafen.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As explained in Unit
III.A, EPA has concluded that the mode of action for fomesafen-induced
hepatocarcinogenesis in mice is unlikely to take place in humans;
therefore, fomesafen is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to fomesafen residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry detection (HPLC/MS/MS)) is
available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be
requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established a MRL for fomesafen on pepper, potato, or tomato.

C. Response to Comments

    An anonymous citizen objected to the presence of any pesticide
residues on food. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and
recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be
banned completely. However, the existing legal framework provided by
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
contemplates that tolerances greater than zero may be set when persons
seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the
pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. This
citizen's comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and
not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that
EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    In its petition PP 9F7667, the registrant proposed a tolerance of
0.025 ppm for residues of fomesafen in or on the commodity ``pepper.''
Consistent with recommendations in the Agency's Food and Feed Commodity
Vocabulary, EPA is establishing separate tolerances for ``pepper,
bell'' and ``pepper, non-bell'' at 0.025 ppm each.
    EPA is also revising the requested tolerance expression to clarify
the chemical moieties that are covered by the tolerances and specify
how compliance with the tolerances is to be measured. The revised
tolerance expression makes clear that the tolerances cover residues of
the herbicide fomesafen, including its metabolites and degradates, but
that compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined by
measuring only fomesafen, 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-N-
(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fomesafen,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on pepper, bell;
pepper, non-bell; potato; and tomato at 0.025 ppm. Compliance with the
tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only fomesafen, 5-[2-
chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-N-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or Tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 28, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.433 is amended by revising the introductory text in
paragraph (a) and alphabetically adding the following commodities to
the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.433  Fomesafen; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide fomesafen, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on
the following commodities. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified in the following table below is to be determined by measuring
only fomesafen, 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-N-
(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide, in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 * * * *
Pepper, bell................................................       0.025
Pepper, non-bell............................................       0.025
Potato......................................................       0.025

                                 * * * *
Tomato......................................................       0.025
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-5070 Filed 3-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 250)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69271-69272]
[DOCID:fr31de09-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0650; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-20]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Myrtle Beach, SC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action changes the airport name for the Myrtle Beach, SC,
Class E airspace area from Myrtle Beach AFB, to Myrtle Beach
International Airport. This action also will update the geographic
coordinates of the airports within the controlled airspace.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 11, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA assumed responsibility for the Air Traffic Control Tower at
Myrtle Beach AFB from the United States Air Force on December 27, 1992.
On February 12, 1997, a final rule published in the Federal Register
(62 FR 6698) established Class C airspace, revoked Class D airspace,
and changed the airport name to Myrtle Beach International Airport,
Myrtle Beach, SC. However, the existing Class E airspace area for
Myrtle Beach, SC, was not amended to reflect the airport name change.
This action will make that change. There are no changes to the
boundaries or altitudes within this airspace area. Designations for
Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the
surface of the earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9T, signed August
27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by denoting the renaming of the airport from Myrtle Beach AFB,
to Myrtle Beach International Airport, Myrtle Beach, SC. This action
also adjusts the geographic coordinates of Myrtle Beach International
Airport and Grand Strand Airport to coincide with the FAA's National
Aeronautical Charting Office. There are no changes to the boundaries or
altitudes within this airspace area.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation in within the scope of that authority
as it amends the airspace description for Myrtle Beach, SC, Class E
airspace.
    Accordingly, since this action merely involves a change in the
legal description of the Myrtle Beach, SC, Class E airspace area, and
does not involve a change in the dimensions or operating requirements
of that airspace, notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
unnecessary.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO SC E5 Myrtle Beach, SC [Amended]

Myrtle Beach International Airport, SC
    (Lat. 33[deg]40'47'' N., Long. 78[deg]55'42'' W.)
North Myrtle Beach, Grand Strand Airport, SC
    (Lat. 33[deg]48'42'' N., Long. 78[deg]43'26'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of the Myrtle Beach International Airport and
within an 8-mile radius of Grand Strand Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 9, 2009.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. E9-30288 Filed 12-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P