11843 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Notices placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency ( 7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0048. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall# # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA., Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0048. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the registration activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. Registration Applications EPA received an application as follows to register a pesticide product containing a new active ingredient not included in any previously registered product pursuant to the provision of section 3( c)( 4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of this application does not imply a decision by the Agency on the application. Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR 4), New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Technology Center of New Jersey, 681 U. S. Highway # 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902   3390 on behalf of the Arizona Cotton Research and Protection Council, 3721 East Wier Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85040   2933, submitted an application, to register a new active ingredient for a naturally occurring microbial pesticide Aspergillus flavus AF36, ( EPA File Symbol 71693   R), a non aflatoxinproducing strain of Aspergillus flavus, to reduce aflatoxin contamination on cotton. Aspergillus flavus AF36 occurs naturally in Arizona and Texas.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

Dated: February 28, 2003. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 03   5752 Filed 3   11   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0055; FRL   7295   3]

Ultramarine Sodium Alumino Sulpho Silicate; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0055, must be received on or before April 11, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Treva C. Alston, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   8373; e mail address: alston. treva@ epa. gov.

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:   Crop production ( NAICS code 111)   Animal production ( NAICS code 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS code 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 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 VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 39 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRN1. SGM 12MRN1 11844 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Notices the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0055. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0055. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2003   0055. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 39 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRN1. SGM 12MRN1 11845 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Notices DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2003   0055. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2003   0055. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/ or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408( d)( 2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: February 28,2003. Peter Caulkins, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Summary of Petition The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408( d)( 3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner. The summary of the petition announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

Holliday Pigments Limited PP 3E6549 EPA has received a pesticide petition ( 3E6549) from Holliday Pigments Limited, Morley Street, Hull, East Yorkshire, England HU8 8DN proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the FFDCA, 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for ultramarine ( sodium alumino sulpho silicate) when used as an inert ingredient as a dye in seed coatings. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. Ultramarine is a synthetic form of the naturally occurring semi precious mineral Lapis Lazuli, which has been mined, processed and used for decorative purposes for thousands of years. It is a zeolitic mineral and is totally insoluble in water. As such, it is not metabolized by plants. It is stable in neutral and alkaline soils. Under acidic conditions it decomposes to give hydrogen sulphide, which is evolved as a gas together with an insoluble, inert clay like residue, which will not be metabolized by plants. 2. Analytical method. Since this petition is for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, an analytical method is not required. 3. Magnitude of residues. The proposed use for ultramarine is as a seed coating to impart color for identification. It will not be metabolized and will remain in the soil. There will therefore, be no residues on the crop produced.

B. Toxicological Profile The last of the following tests described was completed in 1981. Holliday Pigments no longer carries out tests of any of their products on animals nor do they subscribe to any form of animal testing. 1. Acute toxicity   i. Skin irritation. Albino rabbits were used for a study of irritation producted by ultramarine contact with abraded and intact skin. No irritation was found and no reactions were observed throughout the study. ii. Skin sensitization. Skin sensitization in the guinea pig was studied using the maximization test of Magnusson and Kligman. No visible reaction was exhibited by any animal in the test or control group throughout the trials. The report concluded that there was no evidence that ultramarine acts as a sensitizer in the guinea pig. 2. Genotoxicity. Bacterial toxicity and mutagenicity were studied using two VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 39 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRN1. SGM 12MRN1 11846 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Notices strains each of Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli. These tests showed ultramarine to be non toxic and non mutagenic to the four strains. 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Female rats were fed with diets containing up to 100,000 ppm ultramarine before and during pregnancy. There were no maternal deaths and the test report concluded that ultramarine had no teratogenic activity at levels from 100 to 100,000 ppm in the diet. 4. Subchronic toxicity   i. Fifteen   Day test. Ultramarine was administered to male mice and female rats at increasing dose levels up to the maximum that could be given in a single dose. No deaths were observed in either species over a period of 15 days. The LD50 is greater than 10,000 mg/ kg ( rats). ii. Ninety Day test. In feeding trials on rats and mice, after 90 days at levels of 100,000 part per million ( ppm) in the diet the effect of ultramarine was very much like that of inert clay with ( LD50) greater than 10,000 milligrams/ kilograms ( mg/ kg). 5. Chronic toxicity. There are no reported studies on chronic toxicity but ultramarine has a history of well over 100 years of safe manufacture and use with no reports of ill effects of any kind. In the early years of industrial production the work force was subjected to conditions which would be totally unacceptable today. Large amounts of fine ultramarine dust were inhaled and ingested without any reported ill effects. In addition ultramarine was used as a whitening agent for sugar in many parts of the world, again with no reported ill effects. In Europe, the use of ultramarine in lipsticks has been permitted for over 50 years. Its use at levels up to 0.5% for coloring cattle salt licks where it is clearly ingested by the cattle, has been permitted for many years. Ultramarine is also permitted world wide for use in toys and children's paints including powder and finger paints.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. In the proposed use of ultramarine as a seed coating it will not come into contact with the grown and harvested crop. As ultramarine is insoluble, it will not be metabolized by the plants grown from the treated seed. There is therefore no risk of dietary exposure. i. Food. For the reasons stated above there is no risk that food produced from the treated seed will contain any ultramarine. ii. Drinking water. As ultramarine and any of its decomposition products are insoluble in water there is no danger of any leaching into water courses used for production of drinking water. 2. Non dietary exposure. The only anticipated human exposure to ultramarine used for seed coating will be during the coating process and any handling of the coated seed. Good practice should ensure minimal contact and in any case there is no evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to ultramarine during over 100 years of production and use.

D. Cumulative Effects As ultramarine and its decomposition products are totally insoluble and not metabolized by plants or animals there is no risk of any cumulative effect. Also, in the proposed end use there is no risk of long term exposure to humans.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. The use of ultramarine as a seed coating does not pose a safety concern for the U. S. population due to its non toxicity and the absence of exposure. 2. Infants and children. Infants and children will not be exposed to ultramarine from its use in seed coating applications. In any case, ultramarine is permitted in the United States and world wide for use in children's toys, modeling clay, and finger paints.

F. International Tolerances There is no listed threshold limit value or maximum exposure limit for ultramarine. Normal practice is to consider it as a nuisance dust with threshold limit value ( TLV) 10 mg/ m3. The pigment is not listed as a dangerous substance in the European Community or any similar national or international classification; neither is it classified as hazardous for disposal.

[ FR Doc. 03   5751 Filed 3   11   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0052; FRL   7295   4]

Tebufenozide; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0052, must be received on or before April 11, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   3194; e mail address: brothers. shaja@ epa. gov.

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:   Industry ( NAICS 111)   Crop production ( NAICS 112)   Animal production ( NAICS 311)   Food manufacturing, and Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 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 Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP   2003   0052. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although, a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 39 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRN1. SGM 12MRN1


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35189-35191]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13818]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0360; FRL-9390-3]

Tetrachlorvinphos; Proposed Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation proposes to amend the existing time-limited
interim tolerances by converting them to permanent tolerances for the
combined residues of the insecticide tetrachlorvinphos, including its
metabolites, in or on multiple commodities identified in this document,
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0360, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carmen Rodia, Registration Division
(7504P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    A detailed summary of the background related to EPA's extension of
the time-limited interim tolerances for the combined residues of the
insecticide tetrachlorvinphos, including its metabolites, in or on
multiple commodities can be found in the Federal Register documents of
August 14, 2002 (67 FR 52985) (FRL-7192-4); February 6, 2008 (73 FR
6867) (FRL-8345-2); September 17, 2008 (73 FR 53732) (FRL-8375-2); June
8, 2011 (76 FR 33184) (FRL-8874-7); September 16, 2011 (76 FR 57657)
(FRL-8887-5); March 6, 2013 (78 FR 14487) (FRL-9380-8); and March 13,
2013 (78 FR 15880) (FRL-9380-9). The referenced documents in this unit
are available in the docket for this proposed rule under

docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0360 at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. Proposal

    EPA, on its own initiative, under FFDCA section 408(e), 21 U.S.C.
346a(e), is proposing to amend the existing time-limited interim
tolerances by converting them to permanent tolerances for the combined
residues of the insecticide tetrachlorvinphos, including its
metabolites, in or on cattle, fat (of which no more than 0.1 parts per
million (ppm) is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 0.2 ppm; cattle, kidney
(of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 1.0
ppm; cattle, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos
per se) at 0.5 ppm; cattle, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 2.0 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts, except
kidney and liver at 1.0 ppm; egg (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 0.2 ppm; hog, fat (of which no more than
0.1 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 0.2 ppm; hog, kidney (of which
no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 1.0 ppm; hog,
liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at
0.5 ppm; hog, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos
per se) at 2.0 ppm; hog, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver at
1.0 ppm; milk, fat (reflecting negligible residues in whole milk and of
which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 0.05 ppm;
poultry, fat (of which no more than 7.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per
se) at 7.0 ppm; poultry, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 2.0 ppm; poultry, meat (of which no more
than 3.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 3.0 ppm; and poultry, meat
byproducts, except liver at 2.0 ppm. The existing time-limited interim
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.252 expire on August 18, 2013.
    As discussed in the previous rulemakings, these time-limited
interim tolerances for tetrachlorvinphos, and its metabolites, have
been determined to be safe based on previously submitted magnitude of
residue data. (See Unit II. for citations to previously published
documents concerning magnitude of residue data.) In order to support
making these tolerances permanent, EPA required the submission of new
magnitude of residue data. The registrant submitted livestock magnitude
of residue data, storage stability data to support previously submitted
magnitude of residue data in poultry and cattle, and a waiver request
for the swine magnitude of residue data. Based on that data, EPA has
concluded that the data confirm previous findings made by the Agency
with regard to the level of residues of tetrachlorvinphos in livestock
commodities and consequently, the safety finding for these tolerances.
    Therefore, EPA concludes that the submitted data supports the
Agency's current proposal to amend these existing time-limited
tolerances to be permanent tolerances.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed rule proposes to amend tolerances under FFDCA section
408(e). 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 proposed rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed
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). This proposed rule
does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), or
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 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); or OMB review or any
Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). 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) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).
    Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether
establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of
tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might
significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and
concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for
tolerance revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and
on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL-5753-1), respectively, and were
provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available
information concerning the pesticides listed in this proposed rule, the
Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action will not have
significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In fact, this proposed rule will have no impact because it
merely maintains the status quo by amending the existing time-limited
interim tolerances by converting them to permanent tolerances. Any
comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to EPA
along with comments on the proposed rule, and will be addressed prior
to issuing a final rule.
    In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop
an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). For these same reasons, the Agency has
determined that this proposed rule does not have any ``tribal
implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that
have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This proposed rule
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 5, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be 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. In Sec.  180.252, revise the table in paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.252  Tetrachlorvinphos; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is                        0.2
 tetrachlorvinphos per se)...................................
Cattle, kidney (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is                    1.0
 tetrachlorvinphos per se)...................................
Cattle, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is                     0.5
 tetrachlorvinphos per se)...................................
Cattle, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is                       2.0
 tetrachlorvinphos per se)...................................
Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver.............        1.0
Egg (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per         0.2
 se).........................................................
Hog, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos         0.2
 per se).....................................................
Hog, kidney (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is                       1.0
 tetrachlorvinphos per se)...................................
Hog, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is                        0.5
 tetrachlorvinphos per se)...................................
Hog, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos        2.0
 per se).....................................................
Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver................        1.0
Milk, fat (reflecting negligible residues in whole milk and         0.05
 of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se).
Poultry, fat (of which no more than 7.0 ppm is                       7.0
 tetrachlorvinphos per se)...................................
Poultry, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is                    2.0
 tetrachlorvinphos per se)...................................
Poultry, meat (of which no more than 3.0 ppm is                      3.0
 tetrachlorvinphos per se)...................................
Poultry, meat byproducts, except liver.......................        2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-13818 Filed 6-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


	NEI ID	Sector	Hazard Index Using 1991 NEI	Hazard Index Using 2002 NEI

	NY RfC for TCE 	NTI52497	Other	1.8	6.6

	(10 µg/m3)	NTI7348	Tube	1.3	2.4

	 	NTI34658	Other	--	2.1

	 	NTIPA23-2947	Tube	2.4	1.9

	 	NTI48613	Other	0.8	1.7

	 	NTI7347	Tube	0.7	1.7

	CalEPA RfC for TCE 	NTI52497	Other	0.03	0.1

	(600 µg/m3)	NTI7348	Tube	0.02	0.04

	 	NTI34658	Other	--	0.03

	 	NTIPA23-2947	Tube	0.04	0.03

	 	NTI48613	Other	0.01	0.03

	 	NTI7347	Tube	0.01	0.03


[Federal Register: March 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 47)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12637-12639]
[DOCID:fr10mr08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0083]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Molokini Crater, Maui, HI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around
Molokini Crater, in waters south of the island of Maui, HI. This zone
is necessary to protect rescue and security assets, air crews, and the
general public from hazards associated with an explosive ordnance
disposal (EOD) process scheduled to take place on Molokini Crater.
Entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone would be prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Honolulu.

DATES: This rule is effective from March 1, 2008, through March 31,
2008. The Coast Guard will accept comments on this rule through March
31, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and related material, identified by
Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0083, by any of the four methods
listed below. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the
following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the
docket are part of docket  USCG-2008-0083 and are available
for inspection and copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu between
7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Jasmin
Parker, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On January 28, 2008, we published a temporary final rule entitled
Safety Zone; Molokini Crater, Maui, HI in the Federal Register (73 FR
4695), docket number USCG-2007-0128. We intended that safety zone to
safeguard the same EOD that this rule addresses. Adverse weather
prevented the EOD from occurring within the effective period of that
first safety zone, so this rule is now necessary. We received no
comments on the first safety zone. No public meeting was requested, and
none was held.
    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
temporary rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. It would be contrary to
the public interest to delay implementing this temporary rule, as any
delay might result in damage or injury to the public, vessels, and
facilities in the area of Molokini Crater. For the same reasons, under
5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
    Although the Coast Guard has good cause to issue this temporary
rule without first publishing a proposed rule, you are invited to
submit post-promulgation comments and related material regarding this
rule through March 31, 2008. All comments will be reviewed as they are
received. Your comments will assist us in drafting future rules should
they be necessary, and may cause us to change this temporary final rule
before it expires.
    All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation
(DOT) for their Docket Management Facility to process online
submissions to Coast Guard dockets. You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Background and Purpose

    During a site survey on Molokini Crater, surveyors discovered three
pieces of unexploded ordnance requiring disposal. The Coast Guard, in
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of
Hawaii, the City and County of Maui, the U.S. Navy, and the Federal
Aviation Administration, has determined it is necessary to close the
area in the vicinity of Molokini Crater in order to minimize the
dangers that fragmentation, explosive arcs, and possible fires may
present to persons and vessels. Should such an incident occur, or in
the event that EOD personnel would require emergency assistance,
rescuers must have immediate and unencumbered access to the area. Also,
vessels operating in the area might otherwise distract EOD and rescue
personnel. The Coast Guard, through this action, intends to promote the
safety of personnel, vessels, and facilities in the area of Molokini
Crater.

Discussion of Rule

    This temporary safety zone encompasses all waters up to and within
one nautical mile of the shoreline of Molokini Crater, from the surface
of the water to the ocean floor. It is effective from March 1, through
March 31, 2008, but will be enforced for periods of 10 hours or less on
the effective dates. Unpredictable weather and sea states make a broad
date and time range necessary to safely complete

the EOD. Enforcement periods will be announced over marine band VHF
channel 16 prior to enforcement to ensure ample public notification. In
accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart C,
no person or vessel is permitted to enter or remain in the zone except
for support vessels/aircraft and support personnel, or other vessels
authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated
representatives. Vessels, aircraft, or persons in violation of this
proposed rule would be subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C.
1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard expects the economic
impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation
is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the limited duration of
the zone and the limited geographic area affected by it.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We expect that there will be little impact to small entities
due to the narrowly tailored scope of this security zone.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Jasmin
Parker, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the

Instruction, from further environmental documentation because it is a
safety zone. A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' will be available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T14-168 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T14-168  Safety Zone; Molokini Crater, Maui, HI

    (a) Location. The following is a safety zone: All waters within the
following geographic coordinates: 20-38.9N 156-28.5W; thence south to
20-36.7N 156-28.5W; thence east to 20-36.7N 156-31.0W; thence north to
20-38.9N 156-31.0W; thence west to 20-38.9N 156-28.5W, including all
waters from the surface to the ocean floor.
    (b) Effective Dates. This rule is effective from March 1, 2008
through March 31, 2008.
    (c) Suspension of Enforcement. The Coast Guard will suspend
enforcement of the safety zone described in this section whenever
explosive ordinance disposal work is not being performed in the
vicinity. Advance notice of enforcement periods and suspension of
enforcement will be announced over marine band VHF channel 16.
    (d) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR part 165, subpart C, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the
zone except for support vessels/aircraft and support personnel, or
other vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated
representatives.
    (e) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: February 15, 2008.
B.A. Compagnoni,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Honolulu.
 [FR Doc. E8-4681 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


In a developmental toxicity study (MRID # 41063524), Quinclorac (96.5% a.i.) was administered to twenty-five female Wistar rats by gavage at dose levels of 0, 24.4, 146, and 438 mg/kg/day from gestational days 6-15, inclusive.  Maternal toxicity, observed at 438 mg/kg/day, was manifested as decreased food consumption (10-15%) and increased water consumption (31-54%) during the dosing and/or gestation period as well as mortality.  The maternal LOAEL is 438 mg/kg/day, based on decreased food consumption, increased water consumption and mortality.  The maternal NOAEL is 146 mg/kg/day.  No developmental toxicity was observed. The LOAEL for developmental toxicity is >436 mg/kg/day.  The developmental NOAEL is >=436 mg/kg/day.

This study is classified as Acceptable/Guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement for a developmental toxicity study in rats.

	870.3700b Prenatal Developmental Toxicity Study - Rabbit

In a developmental toxicity study (MRID# 41063525), Quinclorac (98.3% a.i.) was administered to fifteen female Himalayan Rabbits by gavage at dose levels of 0, 70, 200, or 600 mg/kg/day from gestational days 7 - 19, inclusive.  Maternal toxicity, observed at 200 mg/kg/day, was manifested as decreased body weight gain (36%) and food consumption (13%) during the dosing period.  Additional findings noted at 600 mg/kg/day, included increased water consumption (7% over entire gestation), increased incidence of clinical signs (reduced/no defecation, diarrhea, apathy and poor general state) and mortality and discoloration of the kidney. The maternal LOAEL is 200 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weight gains and food consumption. The maternal NOEL is 70 mg/kg/day. Developmental toxicity, observed at 600 mg/kg/day consisted of increased rate of resorption and post-implantation loss, a decrease in the number of live fetuses, and reduced fetal body weight.  The NOAEL for developmental toxicity is 200 mg/kg/day. This study is classified as Acceptable/Guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement for a developmental toxicity study (83-3b) in rabbits.

A.4.3	Reproductive Toxicity

	870.3800 Reproduction and Fertility Effects - Rat

In a 2-generation reproduction study (MRID # 41063526), Quinclorac (>=97.3% a.i.) was administered to Wistar rats (24/sex/group) at dietary levels of 0, 1,000, 4,000 or 12,000 ppm (0, 40, 160 or 480 mg/kg/day, respectively).

Parental toxicity: Evidence of toxicity was observed in the parental rats at 12,000 ppm (480 mg/kg/day). Fl males showed reduced mean body weight during premating, which largely reflected their decreased weights as pups at weaning (at week 0, -24%, p<0.0l, becoming less pronounced at week 18, -6% below controls, p<0.05). F0 males showed no effects. F0 females showed a small but statistically significant decrease in mean body weight at Week 24 of premating (-4%, p<0.05) but not at earlier times. F1 females had decreased body weights during premating (at Week 18, -12%; p<0.01): as with males, part of the decrease reflected smaller weights at weaning. During gestation, decreases of about -6% in mean body weight at Day 20 were observed for the F0 females in the second mating (p<0.01) and the Fl females in their only mating (p<0.05). However, in the second mating of F0 females, there was no significant effect. The F0 (first mating only) and Fl females showed reduced body weights during part or all of lactation (up to -10% below controls). In addition to body weight changes, an increased incidence of interstitial nephritis was observed in F0 and Fl females. The parental systemic toxicity LOAEL is 12,000 ppm (480 mg/kg/day), based on decreased body weight during premating and lactation. The NOAEL is 4000 ppm (160 mg/kg/day).

Reproductive toxicity: No effects on reproductive parameters were observed. The reproductive toxicity NOAEL is 12,000 ppm (480 mg/kg/day). A reproductive toxicity LOAEL was not established (>480 mg/kg/day).

Offspring toxicity: At 12,000 ppm (480 mg/kg/day), the major effect on pup growth and development was observed during lactation. Decreased pup weights were observed in male and female Fl and F2 pups during lactation (at Day 21 of lactation, 15-26% below controls; all generations p<0.0 1) and delayed physical development (delayed pinna unfolding and eye opening) was also observed. Decreased pup weight at Lactation Day 0 was seen only in the F2 male and female pups (approximately 7% below controls), a dose also associated with a slight decrease in maternal weight during gestation. Slightly decreased pup viability and survival were reported; however, these effects were marginal (<6%), not seen in all offspring generations and did not achieve statistical significance. The relationship to treatment of this finding is considered equivocal. The offspring LOAEL is 12,000 ppm (480 mg/kg/day), based on effects on pup growth with a possible marginal effect on pup viability. The offspring NOAEL is 4000 ppm (160 mg/kg/day).

This study is classified as Acceptable/guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement for a multigeneration reproductive toxicity study in the rodent (870.3800).

A.4.4	Chronic Toxicity

	870.4100a (870.4300) Chronic Toxicity  -  Rat

The combined chronic/carcinogenicity study satisfies this requirement.

	870.4100b Chronic Toxicity - Dog

In a 1-year feeding study in dogs (MRID 41123201), Quinclorac (97.4% a.i.) was administered to groups of 6 male and 6 female beagle dogs at dietary levels of 0, 1000, 4000 or 12000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 34, 142, or 513 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 35, 140, or 469 mg/kg/day for females) for 12 months. No effect on mortality was observed. Administration of 12000 ppm resulted in lower mean body weight, compared with control, reduced body weight gain and an adverse effect on food efficiency. There was a marginal reduction of body weight gain and food efficiency in male dogs fed 4000 ppm of test substance. In male dogs fed 12000 ppm of test substance, there were significant (<0.01) treatment-related reductions in hemoglobin concentration, erythrocyte count, and hematocrit, mean corpuscular volume (MCV) and mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH) values. In females fed 12000 ppm of test substance, significant reductions (p <0.05 or p <0.01) were seen in hemoglobin concentration, MCH, and MCV at all study intervals (weeks 13, 26, and 52), hematocrit at weeks 26 and 52 and erythrocyte count at week 26. In females fed 4000 ppm test substance, significant reductions (p <0.05) were seen at week 26 in hemoglobin concentration, erythrocyte count, and hematocrit. Administration of 12000 ppm of test substance resulted in decreases in a number of clinical chemistry parameters; however, significant (p <0.01) changes were noted only for creatinine, calcium, and albumin. However, it should be noted that, in most cases, clinical adverse effects are only associated with increased values for these parameters. At the 12000 ppm dose level, increase in absolute (p <0.01 for males) and relative liver weights (p <0.01 for both males and females) were observed for both sexes. Relative liver weights also were significantly increased (p <0.05) in females of the 4000 and 1000 ppm groups. Relative kidney weights were significantly increased (p <0.01) in both males and females of the 12000 ppm group and in males of the 4000 ppm group. There were no histopathologic correlates to account for the increased organ weights. Histopathologic findings in the liver were limited to an increase in focal mononuclear infiltration and to single cell necrosis in two dogs in the 12000 ppm group. Hydropic degeneration of the kidney was seen in two males and two females of the 12000 ppm group.

The LOAEL is 12000 ppm (513 mg/kg/day-males, 469 mg/kg/day- females) based on the reduced body weight gain, adverse effect on food efficiency, hematological and clinical chemistry values, increased liver and kidney weights, and microscopic findings. The NOAEL is 4000 ppm (142 mg/kg/day for males and 140 mg/kg/day for females).
This study is classified as Acceptable/Guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement for a feeding study (83-1) in dogs.

A.4.5	Carcinogenicity

	870.4200a Carcinogenicity Study - rat

In a combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study (MRID# 41063522), Wistar (chbb-THOM) rats (80/sex/group) were administered via diets with Quinclorac (97.4% a.i.) at dose levels of 0, 1000, 4000, 8000, or 12000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 56, 186, 385, or 487 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 60, 235, 478, or 757 mg/kg/day for females, respectively). Ten rats/sex/group were terminated at 12 months. The remainders were continued on the test material for 24 months. Body weights were slightly reduced in females received 12000 ppm when compared to the control. No effects were seen on survival, food consumption, clinical signs of toxicity, clinical laboratory findings, organ weight, or gross or histologic findings. For females, the LOEL was 12000 ppm based on slight decreases in mean body weight and the NOEL was 8000 ppm. For males, the LOEL was not established and the NOEL was 12000 ppm (the highest dose tested).  This study was originally classified as supplementary (upgradeable) because a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not established for the carcinogenicity part of the study; in addition, there was a probability of misdiagnosis of microscopic findings caused by tabulation of NAD (no abnormalities detected) for tissues in several animals with severe postmortem autolysis.

Additional data (MRID# 42012901, 42012902) were submitted to the Agency in which adequately addressed the deficiencies described above. For chronic toxicity, the LOEL was estimated to be 12000 ppm (487 mg/kg/day for males and 757 mg/kg/day for females) based on slight decrease in body weight in females and an increase in acinar cell hyperplasia of the pancreas in males. The NOEL was 8000 ppm (385 mg/kg/day for males and 478 mg/kg/day for females). For carcinogenicity, the data indicate an increase in acinar cell hyperplasia of the pancreas in males at 12000 ppm (35%) when compared to controls (5.7%). In addition, there was an increase in the incidence of acinar cell adenoma of the pancreas in males in the 12000 ppm group (20%) when compared to the control (1.4%).

The study was upgraded to acceptable and satisfies guideline requirement for a combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats (83-5).

	870.4200b Carcinogenicity (feeding) - Mouse
In a carcinogenicity study (MRID# 41063523), B6C3F1/Crl Br mice (60 sex/dose) were administered via diets with Quinclorac (97.4 or 98.3% a.i) at dose levels of 0, 250, 1000, 4000, or 8000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 37.5, 150, 600 or 1200 mg/kg/day) for 6 months or 78 weeks.  Ten mice were terminated at 6 months.  The remainders were continued on the test material for 18 months. At the end of 13 weeks, body weights in males and females receiving 8000 ppm were significantly lower than controls by 9.6% and 7.4%, respectively.  Body weights in males and females receiving 1000, 4000, and 8000 ppm for 78 weeks were significantly lower than controls (7.9 to 15.9% for males; 14.3 to 17.9 for females.  Treatment-related body weight reductions compared to controls were also noted in satellite males and females receiving 4000 and 8000 ppm for 6 months.  Absolute liver weights were significantly reduced in male and female mice receiving 8000 ppm for 78 weeks, but there was no effect on liver-to-body weight ratio.  Absolute kidney weights were decreased in males receiving 1000, 4000, and 8000 ppm and in females receiving 4000 and 8000 ppm for 78 weeks.  Relative kidney weights were decreased in males receiving 1000, 4000, and 8000 ppm for 78 weeks.  Dose-related increases in relative brain weights seen in males and females receiving 1000, 4000, and 8000 ppm.  Absolute liver weights were also reduced in males receiving 4000 and 8000 ppm for 6 months, while absolute kidney weights were reduced in all treated males.  A slight decrease in hematocrit values was noted in males and females receiving 8000 ppm for 6 months, but not 78 weeks.  Effects on other hematological parameters were not of biological significance.  There was no effect of dosing on mortality, food consumption, or clinical signs.  The LOEL is 1000 ppm (150 mg/kg/day) based on effects on body weight.  The NOEL is 250 ppm (37.5 mg/kg/day).  A maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was approached based on decreased body weights in males and females receiving 8000 ppm.

No evidence of histopathological or neoplastic lesions attributable to administration of any dose of Quinclorac was found in any tissue of any mouse.

This study is classified as Acceptable/Guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement for a carcinogenicity study   (83-2) in mice.

A.4.6	Mutagenicity

	Gene Mutation
870. 5100
Bacterial reverse gene mutation
41063527
Acceptable/Guideline
Negative up to the limit dose (5000 ug/plate) with or without S9 in S. typhimurium strains TA98, TA100, TA1535, TA1537

870. 5100
Bacterial reverse gene mutation
41063528
Acceptable/Guideline
Negative up to the limit dose (5000 ug/plate) with or without S9 in S. typhimurium strains TA98, TA100, TA1535, TA1537 and E. coli strain WP2uvrA

	Cytogenetics
OPPTS 870.5385
In vivo bone marrow cytogenic assay
MRID 41063530.
Acceptable/Guideline
Quinclorac was not clastogenic in this in vivo test. Negative in male and female NMRI mice at all doses up to limit dose (1000 mg/kg).  Mid and high dose groups showed clinical signs of toxicity (irregular breathing, apathy, piloerection) but no toxicity to target cell was observed.

OPPTS 870.5395
In vivo micronucleus assay in mice.  MRID 41063529.
Acceptable/Guideline
Quinclorac did not induce clastogenic or aneugenic at any dose (500, 1000 or 2000 mg/kg) or sacrifice time. Toxic signs of irregular breathing, apathy, and piloerection were noted in the mid- and high-dose groups.

	Other Genotoxicity
870.5300, In vitro mammalian forward gene mutation, CHO cells/HGPRT locus
MRID 41680503
Acceptable/guideline
Negative for gene mutations up to cytotoxic doses (2000 ug/mL) with or without S9.

870.5300, In vitro mammalian chromosome aberration assay, human lymphocytes
MRID 41076103
Acceptable/guideline
Positive for chromosomal aberrations but only at cytotoxic concentrations (2000 ug/mL with S9 and 1000 ug/mL without S9).

870.5550, Unscheduled DNA synthesis in primary rat hepatocytes MRID 41063531
Acceptable/guideline
Negative up to cytotoxic dose (1520 ug/mL).

A.4.7	Neurotoxicity

	870.6100 Delayed Neurotoxicity Study  -  Hen

Not required.

	870.6200 Acute Neurotoxicity Screening Battery -

Waived (HASPOC TXR 0056385)

	870.6200 Subchronic Neurotoxicity Screening Battery

Waived (HASPOC TXR 0056385)

	870.6300 Developmental Neurotoxicity Study

HED HIARC did not recommend a DNT study. (TXR 0012902)

A.4.8	Metabolism

	870.7485	Metabolism - Rat

The metabolism of quinclorac ([2,3,4-[14]C)3,7 -- dichloro-8- quinolinecarboxylic acid) following oral administration was studied extensively in male and female CD rats (MRID 41063533). The compound was rapidly absorbed and eliminated in the urine following administration of single oral doses of [[14]C] quinclorac at 15 or 600 mg/kg and at 15 mg/kg after the animals were dosed with unlabeled quinclorac at 15 mg/kg/day for 14 days. Elimination in the urine 5 days after dosing accounted for 91 to 98% of the dose with only 1 to 4% eliminated in the feces. No radioactivity was detected in expired air. Biliary excretion was significant (11.5 to 14.5% of the dose) in animals receiving 600 mg/kg. However, most of this radioactivity was reabsorbed from the intestines and eliminated in the urine. Most of the radioactivity in the bile is associated with the glucuronide conjugate of quinclorac. The conjugate is apparently hydrolyzed in the intestines and reabsorbed. Almost all the radioactivity in the urine is unchanged quinclorac. Radioactive tissue residue levels 5 days after dosing were dose-dependent. Results from these and other (whole-body autoradiography and time-course) studies indicate that quinclorac may accumulate in the adrenal glands, bone marrow, thyroid, squamous epithelium of the non-fundic stomach, and ovaries. In 7-day time-course studies (oral gavage at 15 mg/kg/day or dietary at about 1,000 mg/kg/day) maximum [14]C residue levels were detected 30 minutes after the final dose; thereafter, residue levels decreased with time.  Mean [14]C residues in plasma were also detected at 30 minutes in animals receiving single oral doses of 15, 100, or 600 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg/day for 7 days. Elimination was biphasic with half-lives of 3 to 4 hours for the rapid phase at the low doses and a half-life of about 13 hours at 600 mg/kg. Peak plasma levels of radioactivity in animals receiving higher doses (1200 mg/kg or 600 mg/kg/day for 7 days) were noted for 7 to 48 hours postdosing: saturation kinetics were also noted at these higher doses. These studies are acceptable and fulfill EPA's guidelines series 85-1.

	870.7600	Dermal Absorption - Rat

Dermal absorption studies are not available.

A.4.9	Immunotoxicity

	870.7800	Immunotoxicity

In an immunotoxicity study (MRID 48346101), Quinclorac (BAS 514 H, 99.9% a.i., Batch# 479-480) was administered to female C57BL/6 J Rj mice (8/group) in the diet at dose levels of 0 (control), 500, 1500, or 5000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 176, 439, or 1760 mg/kg bw/day, respectively) for 28 consecutive days. Animals in the positive control group (8/group) received cyclophosphamide by gavage at a dose of 10 mg/kg/day throughout the study. Six days before necropsy, animals in all groups were immunized with a suspension of sheep red blood cells (4x108 SRBC/mL) by intravenous injection (0.5 mL/animal dose volume). All animals were evaluated for mortality, clinical signs, body weight changes, food consumption, and gross pathology. Immunotoxicity was assessed using an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) approach that measured the concentration of serum anti-SRBC immunoglobulin M (IgM). The absolute and relative (to terminal body weight) organ weights of the spleen and thymus were determined at necropsy.

There were no treatment related effects on mortality, clinical signs, body weight changes, food consumption, organ weights, or gross pathology at any dose concentration that were considered treatment related.

The systemic toxicity NOAEL is 5000 ppm (equivalent to 1760 mg/kg bw/day); the LOAEL was not established, tested above the limit dose.

For immunotoxicity, there were no treatment-related effects on serum anti-SRBC IgM antibody levels as measured by an ELISA, or thymus and spleen weights at any diet concentration. High inter-individual variability was seen in the treatment and vehicle control groups. Examination of individual animal data did not show any trend or distribution that would demonstrate significant suppression of the anti-SRBC IgM response. The mean IgM result from positive control group was 79.6% lower than the vehicle control group, showing it was valid for evaluating immuno-suppression. The positive control group confirmed the ability of the test system to detect immuno-suppressive effects and confirmed the validity of the study design.

A Natural Killer (NK) cell activity assay was not performed in this study. The toxicology database for quinclorac does not reveal any evidence of treatment-related effects on the immune system. The overall weight of evidence suggests that this chemical does not directly target the immune system. Under HED guidance, a NK cell activity assay is not required at this time.

Under conditions of this study, the immunotoxicity NOAEL is 5000 ppm (equivalent to 1760 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested and above the limit dose); the LOAEL was not established.

This immunotoxicity study is classified as acceptable/guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement for an immunotoxicity study (OPPTS 870. 7800) in rodents.

A.4.9	Special/Other Studies (optional section)

None.

 Appendix B.  Review of Human Research

This risk assessment relies in part on data from studies in which adult human subjects were intentionally exposed to a pesticide or other chemical.  These data, which include studies from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database Version 1.1 (PHED 1.1); the Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF) database; the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force (ORETF) database; and the Agricultural Re-entry Task Force (ARTF) database are subject to ethics review pursuant to 40 CFR 26, have received that review, and are compliant with applicable ethics requirements.  For certain studies that review may have included review by the Human Studies Review Board.  Descriptions of data sources as well as guidance on their use can be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/handler-exposure-data.html and http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/post-app-exposure-data.html.

 Appendix C: International Residue Limits

            Quinclorac (PC Code 128974; Date of Request 3/14/2013)
Summary of US and International Tolerances and Maximum Residue Limits
Residue Definition:
US
Canada-proposed*
Mexico[1]
Codex
40 CFR 180.463 - proposed
Plant/Livestock: quinclorac, 3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid + methyl ester
3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid + methyl ester

None
Commodity
Tolerance (ppm) /Maximum Residue Limit (mg/kg)

                                      US
Canada
Mexico[1]
Codex
Rapeseed subgroup 20A
1.5
1.5

Completed by: M. Negussie; 3/14/2013
1 Mexico adopts US tolerances and/or Codex MRLs for its export purposes.
* Canadian MRLs are being established concurrently


[Federal Register: July 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 136)]
[Notices]
[Page 34752]
[DOCID:fr17jy09-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13381-000]

Jonathan & Jane Chase; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

July 10, 2009.
    On March 3, 2009, Jonathan & Jane Chase filed an application
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of the Troy Hydroelectric Project No. 13381-000, to be
located in the town of Troy on the Missisquoi River in Orleans County,
Vermont.
    The proposed Troy Hydroelectric Project would consist of: (1) An
existing 10-foot-high, 180-foot-long concrete dam with a 134-foot-long
spillway; (2) an existing 12-acre impoundment with a normal water
surface elevation of 728.2 feet mean sea level; (3) an existing
powerhouse containing one generating unit having an installed capacity
of 1.0-megawatt; (4) an existing 600-kilovolt, 500-foot-long
transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The project would
have an estimated annual generation of 3,200 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Jonathan & Jane Chase, 361 Goodall Road, Derby
Lane, VT 05830;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Patrick Murphy,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp.
    More information about this project can be viewed or printed on the
``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-13381-000) in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-
free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16978 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 219 (Friday, November 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70196-70198]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28771]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-10-000; Docket No. PF15-3-000; Docket No. CP16-13-000;
Docket No. PF15-22-000]

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC; Equitrans, LP; Notice of
Applications

    On October 23, 2015, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (Mountain
Valley), having its principal place of business at 625 Liberty Avenue,
Suite 1700,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222-3111, filed an application pursuant to
section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations seeking: (1) A
certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Mountain
Valley to construct, own, and operate the Mountain Valley Pipeline
Project; (2) a blanket certificate of public convenience and necessity
authorizing Mountain Valley to provide open-access interstate
transportation services, with pre-granted abandonment approval; (3) a
blanket certificate of public convenience and necessity under Part 157,
Subpart F of the Commission's regulations for Mountain Valley to
construct, operate, acquire, and abandon certain eligible facilities,
and services related thereto; (4) approval for its proposed interim
period rates and initial recourse rates for transportation service and
for its pro forma tariff; and (5) such other authorizations or waivers
as may be deemed necessary to allow for the construction to commence as
proposed.
    On October 27, 2015, Equitrans, LP (Equitrans), having its
principal place of business at 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222-3111, filed an application pursuant to
sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations seeking a
certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, own, and
operate the Equitrans Expansion Project. Equitrans also seeks authority
to abandon an existing compressor station located in Greene County,
Pennsylvania.
    The proposals of both applicants are more fully described in the
applications, which are on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filings may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding the Mountain Valley or Equitrans
applications should be directed to Matthew Eggerding, Counsel, 625
Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, or call (412) 553-
5786, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Mountain Valley requests authorization to construct facilities that
will allow it to provide up to 2.0 million dekatherms per day of firm
transportation service. Specifically, Mountain Valley proposes to
construct and operate: (1) Approximately 301 miles of 42-inch diameter
pipeline in West Virginia and Virginia; (2) three new compressor
stations providing approximately 171,600 nominal horsepower (hp) of
compression; and (3) other minor facilities.
    Equitrans requests authorization to construct, own, and operate:
(1) Approximately 7.87 miles of pipeline in Allegheny, Washington, and
Greene Counties, Pennsylvania and Wetzel County, West Virginia; (2) a
new 31,300 nominal hp compressor station (Redhook Compressor Station)
in Greene County, Pennsylvania; (3) a new interconnect in Wetzel
County, West Virginia with Mountain Valley's planned pipeline system
(Webster Interconnect); and (4) ancillary facilities. Equitrans also
seeks authority to abandon an existing 4,800 hp compressor station in
Greene County, Pennsylvania (Pratt Compressor Station) following the
construction of the new Redhook Compressor Station.
    On October 31, 2014, Commission staff granted Mountain Valley's
request to use the pre-filing process and assigned Docket No. PF15-3-
000 to staff activities involving the Projects. Now, as of the filing
of this application on October 23, 2015, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process
for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding
will be conducted in Docket No. CP16-10-000 as noted in the caption of
this Notice. Additionally, Equitrans, LP (Equitrans) filed a related
application under CP16-13-000. On April 9, 2015, Commission staff
granted Equitrans request to use the pre-filing process and assigned
Docket No. PF15-22-000 to staff activities involving the Projects. Now,
as of the filing of Equitrans' application on October 27, 2015, the
NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time
forward, Equitrans' proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP16-13-
000.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the

Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by
the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the
Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 26, 2015.

    Dated: November 5, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28771 Filed 11-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P